16 year old American killed in drone strike

[revelarts]

Family Values: The Roman Rigor of Obama's Death Squad (http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/2176-family-values-the-roman-rigor-of-obamas-death-squad.html)
<tbody>
Written by Chris Floyd


Tuesday, 18 October 2011 23:57


It is not enough for the Peace Laureate to murder American citizens without charges, without trial and without warning; he must also murder their children too -- in the same cowardly, cold-blooded fashion.

Last week, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki -- an American teenager -- was ripped to shreds by an American drone missile in Yemen. The boy, like his father, Anwar al-Awlaki -- had not been charged with any crime whatsoever, much less convicted and sentenced. So what was his offense? He missed his father -- who had been in hiding from the Peace Laureate's publicly stated intention to assassinate him -- and he went off to find him.

His search took him into one of the areas of Yemen where there are groups opposed to the murderous regime now controlling the country and slaughtering its own citizens in cold blood -- with American weapons, American money, and the full support of the Peace Laureate and his peace-loving administration of peaceful peaceniks. People in such regions -- not only in Yemen but all over the world -- are of course subject to instant, agonizing death from the Peace Laureate's brave, bold robot drones, guided by noble warriors nestled in cushioned chairs behind fortress walls thousands of miles away.

And so a button was pushed, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman -- and his 17-year-old cousin -- were turned into steaming lumps of coagulate gore by the drones of the Peace Laureate. The Laureate's minions and satraps then spread the story that the child was actually a grown man, "suspected" of being a "militant." It was, of course, an arrant and deliberate lie, but it did its work. The first -- and only -- thing the public at large heard about this murder was that yet another dirty terrorist raghead had bitten the dust, and so big fat what?

The boy's family had a somewhat different view:

“To kill a teenager is just unbelievable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense,” said Nasser al-Awlaki, a former Yemeni agriculture minister who was Anwar al-Awlaki’s father and the boy’s grandfather, speaking in a phone interview from Sanaa on Monday. “They want to justify his killing, that’s all.”

The teenager, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver in 1995, and his 17-year-old Yemeni cousin were killed in a U.S. military strike that left nine people dead in southeastern Yemen. ...

Nasser al-Awlaki said the family decided to issue a statement after reading some U.S. news reports that described Abdulrahman as a militant in his twenties. The family urged journalists and others to visit a Facebook memorial page for Abdulrahman.....

</tbody>






Young American, no trial, no warning, just execution via drone by the CIA
This is justice? this what we need to do to defeat terror? how many terrorist did we create with that strike? winning hearts and minds here?
It could be your kid next. Son of a terrorist encourager, or a friend of a terrorist supporter, maybe standing next to a terrorist car salesman?

[jimnyc]

Oh boy, here we go again...

He was killed in an attack and was not the person of interest. This is what happens when you pal around with terrorists and travel with them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/awlaki-family-angered-by-us-silence/2011/10/26/gIQAm4jDJM_blog.html

Rev, there will ALWAYS be some sort of collateral damage in a war. And make no mistake about it, we are at war, with terrorists. This was a Yemeni al qaeda agent that was the target. Why is a terrorists son hanging around with a terrorist agent? Sounds kind of self explanatory to me. Do you propose that when confronting terrorists around the world that we follow them for awhile first to make sure they are alone?

[revelarts]

Oh boy, here we go again...

He was killed in an attack and was not the person of interest. This is what happens when you pal around with terrorists and travel with them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/awlaki-family-angered-by-us-silence/2011/10/26/gIQAm4jDJM_blog.html

Rev, there will ALWAYS be some sort of collateral damage in a war. And make no mistake about it, we are at war, with terrorists. This was a Yemeni al qaeda agent that was the target. Why is a terrorists son hanging around with a terrorist agent? Sounds kind of self explanatory to me. Do you propose that when confronting terrorists around the world that we follow them for awhile first to make sure they are alone?

Yeah Jim and the gov't said there were wmds in Iraq too. Sorry, maybe there were dangerous unnamed, untried, unconvicted, unknown why he's called a ebel terrorist ready to kill all americans ... one day... maybe, there with him, maybe not. But I doubt it Jim. even so so If you happened to be there you'd hope the CIA would take the trouble. collateral damage bs.

[jimnyc]

Yeah Jim and the gov't said there were wmds in Iraq too. Sorry, maybe there were dangerous unnamed, untried, unconvicted, unknown why he's called a ebel terrorist ready to kill all americans ... one day... maybe, there with him, maybe not. But I doubt it Jim. even so so If you happened to be there you'd hope the CIA would take the trouble. collateral damage bs.

Rev, call me nuts, but YOU said he was "executed". Are you now stating that this isn't true, or at the very least, you made that up and have no proof whatsoever to back it up? Odd, considering you just posted it a very short while ago... So did you change your mind for some reason, or can you show me proof that he was executed?

[Delenn]

Young American, no trial, no warning, just execution via drone by the CIA
This is justice? this what we need to do to defeat terror? how many terrorist did we create with that strike? winning hearts and minds here?
It could be your kid next. Son of a terrorist encourager, or a friend of a terrorist supporter, maybe standing next to a terrorist car salesman?

This is not justice. Not by a long shot.

[jimnyc]

This is not justice. Not by a long shot.

A terrorist leader was killed. Those who supported him were killed. Another terrorists son, who just coincidentally happened to be with a different terrorist was killed. Yep, justice has been served.

[Delenn]

A terrorist leader was killed. Those who supported him were killed. Another terrorists son, who just coincidentally happened to be with a different terrorist was killed. Yep, justice has been served.

I am in no way asserting that his father was a great guy. But, if you read the newspapers, you do not have any solid evidence. "Purportedly" "allegedly" and "accused" are the key words that you will find. That set a dangerous precedent. You either have evidence or you do not.

This just tells me that they could not find enough evidence for "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

What happens with the next president or a president that decides that whatever it is that you believe is criminal? How much evidence will be necesary then? How about your children? "Allegedly", "purportedly" and "accused".

[jimnyc]

I am in no way asserting that his father was a great guy. But, if you read the newspapers, you do not have any solid evidence. "Purportedly" "allegedly" and "accused" are the key words that you will find. That set a dangerous precedent. You either have evidence or you do not.

This just tells me that they could not find enough evidence for "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

What happens with the next president or a president that decides that whatever it is that you believe is criminal? How much evidence will be necesary then? How about your children? "Allegedly", "purportedly" and "accused".

Google results for - al qaeda Ibrahim al-Banna

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=al+qaeda+Ibrahim+al-Banna&pbx=1&oq=al+qaeda+Ibrahim+al-Banna&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=58664l61314l5l61555l9l9l0l0l0l7l801l3976l0. 1.0.1.3.2.1l8l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dc20b2672385f007&biw=1920&bih=908

Seems fairly obvious that the Al Qaeda leader was killed. Even the great Al Jazeera has reported his death - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011101564019722483.html

So again - this guy has a father who was a terrorist leader. Now he was "coincidentally" with yet ANOTHER terrorist leader. Hang around with so many terrorist leaders and eventually something is bound to happen.

The rest is a result of the shitty obama administration failing to address the issue with Americans.

[Delenn]

The media chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been killed along with six other people in US air attacks in southern Yemen, according to the Yemeni defense ministry.

Apparent US air attacks killed seven suspected al Qaeda militants in southern Yemen, one of them the media chief of the jihadist network’s regional affiliate, a local official said on Saturday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-airstrike-that-killed-american-teen-in-yemen-raises-legal-ethical-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story.html


The media chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been killed along with eight other people in an air strike in southern Yemen, according to the Yemeni defence ministry.http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011101564019722483.html


Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, according to family members, had run away to find his father.

[jimnyc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-airstrike-that-killed-american-teen-in-yemen-raises-legal-ethical-questions/2011/10/20/gIQAdvUY7L_story.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011101564019722483.html


Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, according to family members, had run away to find his father.

He had to run away and find his father, and then somehow ends up with a totally different Al Qaeda leader? LOL You guys are too much and want to avoid these facts.

And there is no "doubt". Al Jazeera as you see states that he died and Al Qaeda has stated he died. Why would Al Qaeda have anything to do with announcing his death if he wasn't a member of Al Qaeda?

Either way, I don't give a damn. I want to see terrorists hunted and killed like dogs. You cuckoos want a day in court for people in terrorist countries. I'm seeing these scumbags picked off left and right and it warms my heart. I'm sorry you guys feel so badly about all of this.

[DragonStryk72]

A terrorist leader was killed. Those who supported him were killed. Another terrorists son, who just coincidentally happened to be with a different terrorist was killed. Yep, justice has been served.

So which of your kids should be killed for going to find you, Jim? Why is this boy's life worth so much less? Should we just shoot all Germans and Japanese on site for the crimes of their parents?

[jimnyc]

So which of your kids should be killed for going to find you, Jim? Why is this boy's life worth so much less? Should we just shoot all Germans and Japanese on site for the crimes of their parents?

If my son goes looking for me, when I am a leader of a terrorist cell, and he somehow ends up in a totally different country, and is with a terrorist leader of another cell... too fucking bad. This isn't "execution" of kids due to their parents crimes. Do you know what the odds are that the "kid" would pick the wrong country and accidentally end up in a convoy with yet another terror leader? Why is he traveling with a terrorist leader, in a totally different country, if he is supposed to be looking for his terrorist father? And also stop stretching it to make it sound as if he was shot on site. He was killed as part of a concentrated attack on a terrorist cell and its leader by a drone missile. And he wasn't killed for going to find his father but rather for hanging around with wanted terrorists.

He wasn't killed for looking for his father. He wasn't killed for his fathers crime. He wasn't executed.

[Delenn]

"Abdulrahman bin Anwar Al Awlaki was born in the American city of Denver, Colorado on August 26 1995. He thus isn't 21 or 27 years old but rather only 16 years old. He has been a resident of the city of Sana'a since he returned from America with his family in 2002." Initial media reports had stated that Abdulrahman was 21.

According to the statement, the younger Awlaki had traveled from Sana'a, Yemen's capital, to the Awlaki tribe's ancestral home of Shabwa to search for his father prior to the Sept. 30 CIA strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, Khan, and two other men. When he learned of his father's death, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki prepared to return to the capital, but was killed by the U.S. "On the night of October 14," said the statement, "he went out with his friends for dinner in the moonlight and they were struck by an American rocket that killed Abdulrahman and his friends."

"Just as the father was killed unjustly and belligerently, America didn't quench its thirst for revenge with the killing of the sheikh Anwar, whose person and personality she tried over and over again," said the statement. "Now she has killed his son gratuitously and belligerently."

According to the statement, a 17-year-old member of the Awlaki clan also died in the strike.

Photos of Awlaki and his teen son appeared on the militant website along with the family's statement. A second photo of Abdul-Rahman also appeared alongside a photo of the elder Awlaki as part of a memorial to father and son on the Facebook page of a teenage Awlaki relative. The Facebook tribute gave Abdulrahman's date of death as Oct. 14, the date of the second strike.

A U.S. official familiar with the strike said that the U.S. government had not yet confirmed that Awlaki's son had been killed in the strike.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-family-protests-us-killing-anwar-awlakis-teen/story?id=14765076

[jimnyc]

"he went out with his friends for dinner in the moonlight and they were struck by an American rocket that killed Abdulrahman and his friends."

Sure, he went out for dinner and just happened to end up with a leader of Al Qaeda in a convoy? :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Funny how Rev can "thank" everyone like a little bitch but can't seem to come back here and clear up his "execution" claim. Do you know what an execution is, Rev? Stop playing the cheerleader and backup your lame claims.

[jimnyc]

Additionally, here is what I find odd. The US and other officials have not responded to any reports. Even members in this thread have mentioned an/or posted articles stating that the WH hasn't commented, and that we supposedly don't know enough. One member even wrote: "Purportedly" "allegedly" and "accused".

Why hold others to this standard and act as if anything "I" state cannot be confirmed - yet you knuckleheads act as if anything towards this terrorists son is fact?

Don't bother answering, I already know the answer.

[Delenn]

The WH issued a statement stating that they are aware of the news articles with family members speaking out. However, per the statement, they are waiting for confirmation from Yemen.

[jimnyc]

The WH issued a statement stating that they are aware of the news articles with family members speaking out. However, per the statement, they are waiting for confirmation from Yemen.

Well, as per my previous postings, officials in Yemen have already confirmed the death of the Al Qaeda leader in an air strike. Other articles state Awlaki was killed in this strike. I don't need the WH to confirm that both the terrorist and the other terrorists son are both dead. There is very little surprise that the obama administration would shy away and deny facts, but we knew he and his team were shitheads already. All that is left to "debate" is what happened to the terrorists son.

Awlaki's son died while being in a convoy that had a high target Al Qaeda member. People unfortunately have died throughout all wars during strikes, whether they were with targets or a matter of collateral damage. This has happened throughout history. It's fucking LAUGHABLE to call it an execution. If anything at all, call it bad timing. But to expect our military to know who is traveling with terrorists at all times in foreign countries is retarded. They did their jobs, and did it quite well, and the terrorists son who happened to be in a completely different country with a completely different terrorist leader, got caught up in the crossfire. What's the moral here? Don't hang around with known terrorists and you have a better chance of not being hit with a missile.

[Delenn]

Well, as per my previous postings, officials in Yemen have already confirmed the death of the Al Qaeda leader in an air strike. Other articles state Awlaki was killed in this strike. I don't need the WH to confirm that both the terrorist and the other terrorists son are both dead. There is very little surprise that the obama administration would shy away and deny facts, but we knew he and his team were shitheads already. All that is left to "debate" is what happened to the terrorists son.

Awlaki's son died while being in a convoy that had a high target Al Qaeda member. People unfortunately have died throughout all wars during strikes, whether they were with targets or a matter of collateral damage. This has happened throughout history. It's fucking LAUGHABLE to call it an execution. If anything at all, call it bad timing. But to expect our military to know who is traveling with terrorists at all times in foreign countries is retarded. They did their jobs, and did it quite well, and the terrorists son who happened to be in a completely different country with a completely different terrorist leader, got caught up in the crossfire. What's the moral here? Don't hang around with known terrorists and you have a better chance of not being hit with a missile.

There is no morality here.

[jimnyc]

There is no morality here.

But there are terrorist leaders who have been eliminated. We ARE using appropriate (right) conduct to eliminate terror leaders wherever they may be. Or do you think we should stop hunting them, or allow them free passage if they just happen to be in other countries?

[revelarts]

Well, as per my previous postings, officials in Yemen have already confirmed the death of the Al Qaeda leader in an air strike. Other articles state Awlaki was killed in this strike. I don't need the WH to confirm that both the terrorist and the other terrorists son are both dead. There is very little surprise that the obama administration would shy away and deny facts, but we knew he and his team were shitheads already. All that is left to "debate" is what happened to the terrorists son.

Awlaki's son died while being in a convoy that had a high target Al Qaeda member. People unfortunately have died throughout all wars during strikes, whether they were with targets or a matter of collateral damage. This has happened throughout history. It's fucking LAUGHABLE to call it an execution. If anything at all, call it bad timing. But to expect our military to know who is traveling with terrorists at all times in foreign countries is retarded. They did their jobs, and did it quite well, and the terrorists son who happened to be in a completely different country with a completely different terrorist leader, got caught up in the crossfire. What's the moral here? Don't hang around with known terrorists and you have a better chance of not being hit with a missile.

What's laughable is calling it a war. the kid was -I assume- unarmed riding down the street in a car NOT intent on attacking any Americans in Yemen. Neither where the other alleged maybe one day might do something terrorist. But a gov't killing people accused and convicted in secret of a crime by the king is called what? Execution. the kid's crime by your own standards is hanging out with an accused terrorist on planet Earth. Therefore he got what he had coming to him right buddy? a bomb to the head. That will learn um. A shame to waste a missile to kill just one guy anyway.

[jimnyc]

What's laughable is calling it a war. the kid was -I assume- unarmed riding down the street in a car NOT intent on attacking any Americans in Yemen. Neither where the other alleged maybe one day might do something terrorist. But a gov't killing people accused and convicted of a crime by the king is called what? Execution. the kid's crime by your own standards is hanging out with an accused terrorist on planet Earth. Therefore he got what he had coming to him right buddy? a bomb to the head. That will learn um. A shame to waste a missile to kill just one guy anyway.

This was an ADMITTED Al Qaeda terrorist - therefore not an execution at all. Osama bin Laden wasn't out shooting people, was solely giving orders - should we not have hunted him down for being an Al Qaeda leader orchestrating attacks?

And only a panty wearer with no balls would say this isn't a war. We, the USA, announced the war on terrorism 10 years ago. We have military all over the world hunting terrorists and killing them, and/or engaging them when possible. Just because YOU feel there aren't enough terrorists to make it a war, doesn't mean jack shit. Al Qaeda is an active terrorist group and whether 10 members or 2000, they all will be hunted and hopefully every single one of them killed. Only a fucking idiot would be traveling with admitted and known terrorist leaders.

And by your lame definition ANY terrorist we hunt/kill would be called an execution.

I'm sure glad our military and other leaders are doing the right thing by removing terrorists instead of listening to fucking panty wearers who bitch from afar. GWB stated a long, long time ago that we would hunt and kill all of them, wherever they may be, and thank God we are still going forward eliminating these cockroaches.

And Btw, Rev - why aren't you bitching about the kids/innocents killed in EVERY war we have ever been in? What about Afghanistan? Do you take issue with the mission we started there way back when? And if someone was caught up in a battle between the Taliban and Nato - and someone is killed in the crossfire, does that mean they were executed? We must have executed an awful lot then. Idiot.

[revelarts]

This was an ADMITTED Al Qaeda terrorist - therefore not an execution at all. Osama bin Laden wasn't out shooting people, was solely giving orders - should we not have hunted him down for being an Al Qaeda leader orchestrating attacks?

And only a panty wearer with no balls would say this isn't a war. We, the USA, announced the war on terrorism 10 years ago. We have military all over the world hunting terrorists and killing them, and/or engaging them when possible. Just because YOU feel there aren't enough terrorists to make it a war, doesn't mean jack shit. Al Qaeda is an active terrorist group and whether 10 members or 2000, they all will be hunted and hopefully every single one of them killed. Only a fucking idiot would be traveling with admitted and known terrorist leaders.

And by your lame definition ANY terrorist we hunt/kill would be called an execution.

I'm sure glad our military and other leaders are doing the right thing by removing terrorists instead of listening to fucking panty wearers who bitch from afar. GWB stated a long, long time ago that we would hunt and kill all of them, wherever they may be, and thank God we are still going forward eliminating these cockroaches.

And Btw, Rev - why aren't you bitching about the kids/innocents killed in EVERY war we have ever been in? What about Afghanistan? Do you take issue with the mission we started there way back when? And if someone was caught up in a battle between the Taliban and Nato - and someone is killed in the crossfire, does that mean they were executed? We must have executed an awful lot then. Idiot.

the only lame definition here is the lame definition of a war. As some people can't understand that there cannot be a "war on terror". You can declare war on a a country, or an group of people but not a tacit.

And yes every accused terrorist not in the act or terror or fighting in afghan or Iraq against soldiers were practically executed.

And I believe I have mentioned the kids killed in Yeman, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan etc.. Most of the the post along those line get zero responses.

[jimnyc]

the only lame definition here is the lame definition of a war. As some people can't understand that there cannot be a "war on terror". You can declare war on a a country, or an group of people but not a tacit.

And yes every accused terrorist not in the act or terror or fighting in afghan or Iraq against soldiers were practically executed.

And I believe I have mentioned the kids killed in Yeman, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan etc.. Most of the the post along those line get zero responses.

Well, must suck to not be happy with the US going after terrorists, as it's still happening almost every day and will continue. I hope you can find a way to sleep at night knowing that your horrible country wants to rid the planet of terrorists.

As to the bold portion - can you show me where you spoke out AND stated that these people were executed by our government? Maybe I just missed it...

[Gunny]

Young American, no trial, no warning, just execution via drone by the CIA
This is justice? this what we need to do to defeat terror? how many terrorist did we create with that strike? winning hearts and minds here?
It could be your kid next. Son of a terrorist encourager, or a friend of a terrorist supporter, maybe standing next to a terrorist car salesman?

This is war. That simple.

[Gunny]

Well, must suck to not be happy with the US going after terrorists, as it's still happening almost every day and will continue. I hope you can find a way to sleep at night knowing that your horrible country wants to rid the planet of terrorists.

As to the bold portion - can you show me where you spoke out AND stated that these people were executed by our government? Maybe I just missed it...

What's lost on rev is that I don't know a single military person (although I am sure a couple of them exist) that would not prefer us against them in an open field. No noncombatants for the cowards to hide behind. Unfortunately, people like rev have made that impossible by imposing impossible rules on only our side for the enemy to exploit. And every time rev and those like him squeal, the enmy just cranks it up a notch because they know it works.

The topic is nowhere near as complicated as rev would have it. We are at war against terrorism. We find terrorists, we kill them. There is and always has been collateral damage. It's a fact of war. If those noncombatants were as concerned for their safety as rev is, they'd drive the terrorists out in the open and quit aiding and abetting, or at a minimum, turning a blind eye to them.

And it's too bad people like rev are more concerned with noncombatants and how we treat enemy combatants than they are our own troops.

[ConHog]

What's lost on rev is that I don't know a single military person (although I am sure a couple of them exist) that would not prefer us against them in an open field. No noncombatants for the cowards to hide behind. Unfortunately, people like rev have made that impossible by imposing impossible rules on only our side for the enemy to exploit. And every time rev and those like him squeal, the enmy just cranks it up a notch because they know it works.

The topic is nowhere near as complicated as rev would have it. We are at war against terrorism. We find terrorists, we kill them. There is and always has been collateral damage. It's a fact of war. If those noncombatants were as concerned for their safety as rev is, they'd drive the terrorists out in the open and quit aiding and abetting, or at a minimum, turning a blind eye to them.

And it's too bad people like rev are more concerned with noncombatants and how we treat enemy combatants than they are our own troops.

If I were a less respectful man, I might even tell people like Rev to grab a ruck or shut the fuck up.:laugh2:

[revelarts]

Well, must suck to not be happy with the US going after terrorists, as it's still happening almost every day and will continue. I hope you can find a way to sleep at night knowing that your horrible country wants to rid the planet of terrorists.

As to the bold portion - can you show me where you spoke out AND stated that these people were executed by our government? Maybe I just missed it...

the time has come for ramblin...

Ah your stuck on the word execution. But hyperbolicly it applies if not technically to the "collateral" damage dolled out liberally on innocent boys and girls in Aghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen.


Gunny I know the military doesn't want to shoot though innocents. but We've mentioned this before in the Awalaki Murder. the "convoy" was 2 cars. I don't know if there where anymore than that in the sons death. but 9 people in a couple of cars doesn't sound like a "overwhelming force" that the military can't handle without ordering a missile strike.

And Jim, Here's the thing, --that I think even you have admitted--, the situation is complicated.
We've got plenty of terrorist in Jail. But you don't want to call them POW's but you want to call the wide wide action against IT a WAR.
You want it both ways. Or anyway that justifies in your mind killing the enemy. You said before that you want all of the terrorist dead. innocent bystander be damned. And you are willing to ASSUME that ANYONE the gov't, D or R, or media says is a Terrorist IS a terrorist. Jim that's fine for bar room talk but as a country that claims to believe in the rule of law, a country that claims to be the good guy that claims to be in the RIGHT we cannot act that way.

It's fun to say there are no rules to war Until your people are killed, then all of a sudden the other side is EVIL but if we do it "it's just what has to be done against animals" That plain rock headed school yard BS.

If it's war, the terrorist are POW's and we abide by the rules of war. If not they are Criminals and thugs we can work with the laws there. The CIA is Not the Military BTW. they are doing Bombing executions not the Pentagon. How can we prosecute some under the laws of crimnal conspiracy, murder and attempted murder and execute others under some unwritten law of the jungle? Where the only one who knows if the person is guilty of anything is the king ordering the strike.

[ConHog]

the time has come for ramblin...

Ah your stuck on the word execution. But hyperbolicly it applies if not technically to the "collateral" damage dolled out liberally on innocent boys and girls in Aghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen.


Gunny I know the military doesn't want to shoot though innocents. but We've mentioned this before in the Awalaki Murder. the "convoy" was 2 cars. I don't know if there where anymore than that in the sons death. but 9 people in a couple of cars doesn't sound like a "overwhelming force" that the military can't handle without ordering a missile strike.

And Jim, Here's the thing, --that I think even you have admitted--, the situation is complicated.
We've got plenty of terrorist in Jail. But you don't want to call them POW's but you want to call the wide wide action against IT a WAR.
You want it both ways. Or anyway that justifies in your mind killing the enemy. You said before that you want all of the terrorist dead. innocent bystander be damned. And you are willing to ASSUME that ANYONE the gov't, D or R, or media says is a Terrorist IS a terrorist. Jim that's fine for bar room talk but as a country that claims to believe in the rule of law, a country that claims to be the good guy that claims to be in the RIGHT we cannot act that way.

It's fun to say there are no rules to war Until your people are killed, then all of a sudden the other side is EVIL but if we do it "it's just what has to be done against animals" That plain rock headed school yard BS.

If it's war, the terrorist are POW's and we abide by the rules of war. If not they are Criminals and thugs we can work with the laws there. The CIA is Not the Military BTW. they are doing Bombing executions not the Pentagon. How can we prosecute some under the laws of crimnal conspiracy, murder and attempted murder and execute others under some unwritten law of the jungle? Where the only one who knows if the person is guilty of anything is the king ordering the strike.

SO now you've changed the thread from one of collateral damage to one of "we shouldn't be just be killing these people without trial." That is a valid topic but completely irrelevant to this thread. The fact is , we ARE doing so and so arguing about that isn't germane to the topic at hand.

Do you know what the term surgical strike means? The USG goes out of its way to protect innocents as much as humanly possible, even training her soldiers to give their life for non combatants if necessary. But no matter how many precautions we take civilians WILL be harmed in war. It has always been that way and always will be that way. Let's say the US had sent a SpecOps team in rather than a cruise missile. Do you think that that automatically would have saved that kid's life? No , it wouldn't have. Now it MAY have saved his life, but it may also have cost us 20 good soldiers. That's where the art of military leadership comes in and a person has to way the pros and cons and then take action.

I bet you one thing. Bet if you had a loved one serving overseas and someone asked you if you'd rather send them in to get a bad guy or send a cruise missile in to get a bad guy, you'd choose the cruise missile.

[Gunny]

the time has come for ramblin...

Ah your stuck on the word execution. But hyperbolicly it applies if not technically to the "collateral" damage dolled out liberally on innocent boys and girls in Aghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Yemen.


Gunny I know the military doesn't want to shoot though innocents. but We've mentioned this before in the Awalaki Murder. the "convoy" was 2 cars. I don't know if there where anymore than that in the sons death. but 9 people in a couple of cars doesn't sound like a "overwhelming force" that the military can't handle without ordering a missile strike.

And Jim, Here's the thing, --that I think even you have admitted--, the situation is complicated.
We've got plenty of terrorist in Jail. But you don't want to call them POW's but you want to call the wide wide action against IT a WAR.
You want it both ways. Or anyway that justifies in your mind killing the enemy. You said before that you want all of the terrorist dead. innocent bystander be damned. And you are willing to ASSUME that ANYONE the gov't, D or R, or media says is a Terrorist IS a terrorist. Jim that's fine for bar room talk but as a country that claims to believe in the rule of law, a country that claims to be the good guy that claims to be in the RIGHT we cannot act that way.

It's fun to say there are no rules to war Until your people are killed, then all of a sudden the other side is EVIL but if we do it "it's just what has to be done against animals" That plain rock headed school yard BS.

If it's war, the terrorist are POW's and we abide by the rules of war. If not they are Criminals and thugs we can work with the laws there. The CIA is Not the Military BTW. they are doing Bombing executions not the Pentagon. How can we prosecute some under the laws of crimnal conspiracy, murder and attempted murder and execute others under some unwritten law of the jungle? Where the only one who knows if the person is guilty of anything is the king ordering the strike.

As I mentioned before ... 2 or more cars going from point A to point B together, IS a convoy by definition.

Unfortunately for people like you who want a cut and dried definition and answer to each and every possible thing that might take place under the sun, it's not the way it works. No one's trying to have it both ways. People are trying to make things work while people like YOU sit in the cheap seats and Monday morning quarterback, nitpicking rules.

I am quite aware of who the CIA.

As ConHog says ... suit up. Get your butt out there. You tell me when you're facing some murderer in his bedsheets aiming an AK at you that he's not a combatant. What ... you want to send the LAPD after them since they're "just criminals"? You're so wrapped around your own overly-sanctimonious and unreal axle you don't have a clue what's going on. You just sit back and lend moral support to the enemy after the fact.

[revelarts]

Gentlemen if it was up to me you'd be safe at home. Hows that for not putting the troops in danger.

But no you won't like that either.

You don't want the troops to come home
and you do don't want any rules or anyone to question or direct what your doing either.
Sorry that's not gonna work.
Some standards are going to be used to conduct the "war" and if you don't like the rules get out of the military.

[ConHog]

Gentlemen if it was up to me you'd be safe at home. Hows that for not putting the troops in danger.

But no you won't like that either.

You don't want the troops to come home
and you do don't want any rules or anyone to question or direct what your doing either.
Sorry that's not gonna work.
Some standards are going to be used to conduct the "war" and if you don't like the rules get out of the military.

If it was up to you, I have a feeling we'd be living with Sharia Law in the US.

Those of us who have served and do serve understand that being deployed is part of the job (well most of us anyway) so don't come in here with "oh if I had my way you'd be home" because we're a voluntary military . Everyone who is overseas is there by choice. Making your argument that oh we could just come home if we'd make friends with the Muslims why you wouldn't have to be overseas irrelevant.

[jimnyc]

Rev, you did a lot of yappin, but I didn't see you answer the question that YOU claim you have done... Can you direct me to where you stated kids from Iraq, Afghanistan or other countries are being executed by the US Military or US Government? Of course you want to remain consistent, just helping you... As Virgil would say, I'll wait...

[jimnyc]

And it's too bad people like rev are more concerned with noncombatants and how we treat enemy combatants than they are our own troops.

Perfect!

For every 1000 posts, 999 of them by Rev will be campaigning AGAINST the way our military and/or government works. Not sure what that last post would be about, but if its about concern for OUR troops, never saw it myself.