by Jack with excerpts from Fox News
The number one most sought terrorist, American born and educated, Anwar al-Awlaki is dead. He was killed while riding in a convoy with Al Qaeda members near the Saudi border inside Yemen. According to breaking news al-Awlaki was killed by a Predator drone strike fired from UAV’s hovering above the convoy.
Al-Awlaki was an Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the network’s most active branch. He was involved in several terror plots in the United States in recent years, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks.
President Obama signed an order in early 2010 making him the first American to be placed on the “kill or capture” list.
American sources confirmed the CIA and U.S. military were behind the strike on al-Awlaki.
Also killed was another American born Muslim militant, Samir Khan, the co-editor of an English-language Al Qaeda web magazine called “Inspire.” Kahn, in his 20s, was an American of Pakistani heritage from North Carolina. His magazine promoted attacks against U.S. targets, even running articles on how to put together explosives.
In one issue, Khan wrote that he had moved to Yemen and joined Al Qaeda’s fighters, pledging to “wage jihad for the rest of our lives” which turned out to be a relatively short endeavor.
The Predator drone strike underscores the expanding drone program, which has migrated beyond the borders of Pakistan into Yemen, Somalia and other countries.
Al-Awlaki would be the most prominent Al Qaeda figure to be killed since bin Laden’s death in a U.S. raid in Pakistan in May. In July, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Yemeni-American was a priority target alongside Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden’s successor as the terror network’s leader.
Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico to Yemeni immigrant parents. He was believed to be the most significant and immediate threat to the United States. The branch, led by a Yemeni militant named Nasser al-Wahishi, plotted several failed attacks on U.S. soil — the botched Christmas 2009 attempt to blow up an American airliner heading to Detroit and a foiled 2010 attempt to send explosives to Chicago. However, even with al-Awlaki gone, the branch still retains a threat.
“He understood American society very well. He understood American idioms and pop culture and how to appeal to Americans,” reported Fox News. “It’s very hard for them to replicate this.” Known as an eloquent preacher who spread English-language sermons on the Internet calling for “holy war” against the United States, al-Awlaki’s role was to inspire and — it is believed — even directly recruit militants to carry out attacks.
He was not believed to be a key operational leader, but as a spokesman. His English skills gave him reach among second and third generation Muslims who may not speak Arabic.
Yemeni officials have said al-Awlaki had contacts with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused would-be Christmas plane bomber, who was in Yemen in 2009. They say the believe al-Awlaki met with the 23-year-old Nigerian, along with other Al Qaeda leaders, in Al Qaeda strongholds in the country in the weeks before the failed bombing.
In New York, the Pakistani-American man who pleaded guilty to the May 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt told interrogators he was “inspired” by al-Awlaki after making contact over the Internet.
Al-Awlaki also exchanged up to 20 emails with U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, alleged killer of 13 people in the Nov. 5, 2009, rampage at Fort Hood. Hasan initiated the contacts, drawn by al-Awlaki’s Internet sermons, and approached him for religious advice.
Al-Awlaki has said he didn’t tell Hasan to carry out the shootings, but he later praised Hasan as a “hero” on his Web site for killing American soldiers who would be heading for Afghanistan or Iraq to fight Muslims. The cleric similarly said Abdulmutallab was his “student” but said he never told him to carry out the airline attack.
John Brennan, a counter-terrorism spokesman said the cooperation with Yemen has improved since the political unrest there. The current regime has been under attack by several radical factions that have been using the Arab Spring Movement to gain traction. Brennan said the Yemenis have been more willing to share information about the location of Al Qaeda targets, as a way to fight the Yemeni branch challenging them for power. Other U.S. officials say the Yemenis have also allowed the U.S. to fly more armed drone and aircraft missions over its territory than ever previously, trying to use U.S. military power to stay in power. ” Fox News
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz1ZRwI5b1c
I shed no tears over this psycho’s death, but does anyone else find it absurd that our president can just sign a death order for an American citizen, with no trial necessary? This has never been done before, and I’m not sure I understand how it can be considered legal or constitutional. One thing you can say about Obama, he’s certainly not soft on terror. But it’s possible he is just as guilty of violating the Constitution as conservatives claim–just not in the way they think.
Holy crap, Q lost another loyal reader of his blog.
Evidently our favorite megalomaniacal narcissist-sociopath is starving for some hors d’oeuvre. In this case, however, he will have to roll his own.
Re:Holy crap, Q lost another loyal reader of his blog.
Thanks for the belly laugh!
That’s gotta hurt. He must be down to three or four by now.
Chris I share your concerns. Signing death warrants for American citizens acting as enemy combatants may be unconstitutional. Few Americans will shed any tears over these two Americans deaths, myself included. However popular this killing may be, it should be legally justifiable and that is the question we need to ask. Good thinking Chris…whats your take on this now?
There have been outlaws in our recent past that have been shot virtually on sight, Bonnie and Clyde for example. Also John Dillinger and more than a few others because they were too dangerous, but as far as I know none were shot because of a presidential order.
I would love to see some left-wing hand-wringing, America-Is-An-Evil-Empire milksop actually test the constitutionality of the President going after Islamic Jihadist terrorists.
Especially while Obama is in office.
It would be interesting to see if a majority on the Supreme Court would be so lunatic as to actually tie the President’s hands and prevent him (or her) from protecting the American people (and the citizens of many other nations) from terrorists who wish to commit wholesale murder on a grand scale.
No doubt the left-wing moral justification and rationalization for such a test will be the left’s favorite pastime of comparing former President Bush to terrorists.
I am certain there are more than just a few eager litigious dopes who actually believe that killing people who are trying to kill us is self defeating and only encourages recruitment for the enemy.
Where is Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, or Noam Chomsky when we need them?
An American citizen has been targeted and killed before:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0407/Anwar-al-Awlaki-Is-it-legal-to-kill-an-American-in-war-on-terror/(page)/2
I share in the concerns expressed about the rights of American citizens. At the same time I’m amazed that the word traitor seems to have disappeared from our discussions. Instead we focus on this murderous enemy of American civilians as a potential victim.
Al-Awlaki is a traitor. That means something to me. In fact it may be that he never had feelings of loyalty to or identity with America. If he did they didn’t run very deep. He left this country and has been engaged in promoting terrorism and recruiting for deadly attacks against civilians in the US. He has denounced our country and our legal system. Some agents/investigators of 911 believe he was tied to 911.
The man was targeted as a dangerous terrorists and promoter of terrorist acts against our country, not as an American citizen who may or may not have broken a few laws. His hatred for Americans is clear: Dont consult with anyone in fighting the Americans; fighting the devil doesnt require consultation or prayers or seeking divine guidance. Obviously, he thinks he has both a moral and legal right to kill Americans. It’s ridiculous that we would honor this mans rights over his treasonous behavior.
This war, although strange and unusual, is still very real. If we haven’t written the law that would legally justify the President’s decision, perhaps it’s time we did.
Ahh, finally a justification:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html?hpid=z1
Let the arguments begin!
Obama was born in another country. Obama is a Muslim. One by one all of the right wing myth’s about Obama are being put to rest. Next up….Obama wants to take away your guns.
I have no feeling of sorrow for anyone that plots against America and our citizenry and is killed in the process. This was a war action and it’s intent is protecting us all, home and abroad It was reported that over a week of siege went bye prior to taking his life, and the village in which he was hiding was supporting him and villagers were adding in his attempt to escape capture, even firing on our troops. I think it was a needed call as to what should have been done to eliminate this threat to America. Real War will never be a board or video game, there are consequences to plotting our countries demise. There can be no favored outcome to us in losing. It must be defeat of them or loss of freedom for us.
Pie: “I would love to see some left-wing hand-wringing, America-Is-An-Evil-Empire milksop actually test the constitutionality of the President going after Islamic Jihadist terrorists.”
I would like to see the left make more of an effort against Obama’s expansion of Bush-era anti-terror tactics as well.
“It would be interesting to see if a majority on the Supreme Court would be so lunatic as to actually tie the President’s hands and prevent him (or her) from protecting the American people (and the citizens of many other nations) from terrorists who wish to commit wholesale murder on a grand scale.”
Does preventing the president from violating the Constitution by putting American citizens on an assassination list really “tie the President’s hands” in a significant way? How does it “prevent him from protecting the American people?” Do you not see an attempt at arrest as even an option?
Tina: “Al-Awlaki is a traitor.”
That’s what the government alleged. The purpose of our judicial system is to see if these accusations are true. Now, Al-Awlaki’s guilt seems pretty crystal clear, but that’s no excuse for not having a trial.
In fact, you have to wonder, why didn’t the government want him brought into trial? Was it because they didn’t think they had enough evidence to convict?
Accused traitors have always been tried in a court of law before being convicted. Are you really saying that the fifth amendment shouldn’t apply to people the U.S. government brands as traitors? And that the president alone gets to decide who is and who isn’t, without a fair trial? That sets an extremely dangerous precedent. What if the president unilaterally decides that Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking information to Wikileaks, is a traitor, and just has him taken in front a firing squad? The government cannot be judge, jury, and executioner.
“It’s ridiculous that we would honor this mans rights over his treasonous behavior.”
It’s ridiculous that you seem to think this is an either/or situation. Again, you and Pie are acting as if placing Al-Alawki on an assassination list, with no intention of ever arresting him (which could have lead to gaining valuable information), was the only option. But this isn’t just about his rights. This is about the rights of all American people to see justice done the proper way. We all deserve for anyone accused of a crime, no matter how big or small, to receive a fair trial whenever possible. That is the foundation of trust between the government and it’s people.
Yes, sometimes in the heat of battle arrest will not be possible. Harold, it may be true that this man was killed as part of a battle, but the existence of the assassination list shows that the government never had any intention of doing anything other than killing him. So whether or not they killed him in self-defense is a moot point; they were never going to bring him in for trial no matter what.
Re Joe Shaw’s: “Obama was born in another country. Obama is a Muslim. One by one all of the right wing myth’s about Obama are being put to rest. Next up….Obama wants to take away your guns.”
What does Joe Shaw’s snotty calumny about “right-wing myths” have have to do with Anwar al-Awlaki being killed?
Nothing.
As for Obama being a Muslim, what about when master liberal suck-up George Stephanopoulos mildly corrected candidate Obama when he said, “My Muslim faith” in an interview on “This Week”?
Personally I don’t give a flying flop what “faith” Obama adheres to. He uses faith just like he uses any other phony political posturing — to get votes. And that interview was most telling.
Next up — Joe Shaw blames it all on Bush.
Chris: “Are you really saying that the fifth amendment shouldn’t apply to people the U.S. government brands as traitors?”
What I’m saying is this isn’t a peace time case. We didn’t catch this guy spying in the Pentagon. He wasn’t walking around the streets of America where he could easily be followed and arrested.
We are conducting a defensive war against an enemy that knows no boundries. The evidence that this man willingly plays a key roll in the war AGAINST the US is sufficient to allow his being targeted, along with others, in an air strike. The idea that we should let him go and hope at a later attempt to arrest and try him instead is silly. The man has had plenty of time to choose another path…he doubles down in his declarations against the US.
“What if the president unilaterally decides that Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of leaking information to Wikileaks, is a traitor, and just has him taken in front a firing squad?”
Then the President would be arrested and tried for murder!
But this is a ridiculous scenario that assumes the president is a maniac rather than a man charged with the serious business of defending the nation as Commander-in-Chief.
“That is the foundation of trust between the government and it’s people.”
As far as I’m concerned this particular American surrendered those rights by breaching that trust when he chose to side with (actually lead) the enemy.
“So whether or not they killed him in self-defense is a moot point; they were never going to bring him in for trial no matter what.”
He does not recongnize, nor has he respect for, our laws. It would be a complete waste of time and effort. We have granted him the preferred method of leaving this earth by his own beliefs and choosing.
I have more to say on this line from Tina:
“It’s ridiculous that we would honor this mans rights over his treasonous behavior.”
The basic principle of our country is that we honor people’s rights ABOVE ALL ELSE.
If you think that’s ridiculous, then you think the U.S. Constitution is ridiculous.
Once again, the pretensions of the Tea Party as upholders of the Constitution are proven to be completely hollow. According to the Tea Party, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because…they say so, even though they had no problem with it when it was proposed by the Heritage Foundation ten years ago. But violating the Fifth Amendment is perfectly acceptable. Now THAT’s ridiculous.
Chris: “The basic principle of our country is that we honor people’s rights ABOVE ALL ELSE.”
Under normal circumstances yes. But those rights come with certain responsibilities, one of which I would hope, would be loyalty to the country that granted those precious rights. Another would be the responsibility to defend the nation. This man is gleefully in breach of both! We owe him nothing.
We owe it to the American people to defeat of this enemy as quickly as possible (it would save lives) If you’ll excuse the expression, fartin around with show trials for this man would prolong the war. A bonus win for our enemy.
“If you think that’s ridiculous, then you think the U.S. Constitution is ridiculous.”
Ridiculous!
“…the pretensions of the Tea Party as upholders of the Constitution are proven to be completely hollow.”
A. I speak for myself.
B. Your assertion is hollow. As we both know constitutional scholars don’t always agree about the Constitution. The attempt to deny private citizens gun ownership rights is a prime example of left wing “interpretation” of the Second Ammendment.
As I said before, if the law hasn’t been made clear in cases like this then perhaps it is time to do so now.
Why does anyone think it was unconstitutional for the US government to kill al-Awlaki? Just because he was born in the USA does not mean he had citizenship or Fifth Amendment rights. He expatriated and moved in with the the Islamic terrorists. He officially declared war against the USA. Once someone declares war and takes up arms against the USA, he has renounced citizenship and cancelled his citizen rights. Remember the Civil War, when thousands of Confederate soldiers swore allegiance to the rebel states and joined in a war against the US? Union soldiers had no need to read them their rights or deliver them to the courts.
Chris, what about a trial in abstentia for such cases like Awlaki’s? I’m just thinking out loud now, but al-Awlaki could have had his legal representation and the government could present their case in a court of law. What do you think about that as opposed to a kill or capture order? Would that help safe guard the rights of citizens per the Constitution?
The question is, as I see it, do we have the legal right to order the assassination of an American citizen when there is clear and compelling evidence that said citizen is acting as an agent provocateur on behalf of a non-aligned militant organization that has declared war and is seeking to wage war, on the USA, in order to over through the government of the United States? A very interesting legal question.
I for one am very proud of our foreign born Muslim president for killing a fellow Muslims. Obama, would not be the first Muslim to kill other Muslims, after all the terrorists have killed more of their own kind than they have from other faiths.
So now we know that Obama fits in even better with such leaders the leftists like Q, Chris, Shaw and others respect as Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Saddam for killing his own for political gain.
As I wrote on my site, I also have no problem with sending a bad guy to hell if he is an American citizen. So another few bad guys bit the proverbial dust, in the grand scheme of things, no one will ever miss them. So as we debate the morals of sending evil American born terrorists to hell, Freddy Mercury is welcoming them with a hot rendition of a song he made famous when he was the lead singer for Queen, “Another One Bites The Dust”.
Enjoy hell Anwar, and while you are frying, say hello to Bin Laden for us.
Captcha was influence niftwit.
How fitting, because we are continually attempting to influence the nitwits who cling to the idea that Obama actually cares about making America a better place to live. His plans of destroying America may involve sending a few of his Muslim buddies to Allah (HELL), but only so he can continue fooling the useful idiots who voted for him, into voting for him again.
Soaps, I think what we’re looking for is clarification on how this could best be done. I don’t think anyone wants to see a terrorist use his citizenship rights in order to wage war on us.
Probably the easiest way to clear this up is to pass legislation that takes away citizenship in such circumstances. When a person born or naturalized here renounces citizenship we remove their US status or whenever a US citizen joins an organization that has declared war on us, again they lose their citizenship. This should have happened to John Walker Lindh. As soon as he has done his time he should be thrown out of the US.
Gate, would you know that if a Muslim kills another Muslim in order to gain credibility and thus leverage on an enemy for a greater battle to follow, is that permitted within the Koran?
Very acceptable, in fact they will both be ushered into Alaha presence with 70 perpetual virgins to use and abuse as they see fit.
See, in Islam, one can scheme, murder, lie, and even kill other Muslims of faith, as long as the end is met. You must understand, Muslims are a lot like Democrats, in that the ends always justifies the means. Plus the only ones they personally worry about is their own hide.
Why else would the terrorists always convince others to be the suicide bombers. Have you ever read where a Muslim Cleric calling for a Jihad, strapping on a bomb to kill himself with the infidels?
Just like you never see a Democrat politician give up their perks to live in squalor as they demand everyone else live. I am still waiting for the Kennedy’s to redistribute their wealth to the masses.
When the Democrats passed healthcare, with no Republican voting for it, Why did they exclude themselves from it? Because the democrats are just like the Muslims. It only matters what they tell you to do, and do not ever expect them to practice what they preach.
Remember the titty bar the 19 9/11 terrorists spent the evening at before they all departed to their chosen destinations? But they did what they did because we are immoral. yea right.
So to kill another Muslim, is no different than Clinton telling a black guy to step down so that another white Democrat can run for a certain office.
Or, Gloria telling Paula Jones to stuff it, because it wasn’t then or ever about women’s rights, it was about keeping Clinton’s butt on Airforce One, and the Democrat leaders in place.
Finally I will say this about any American citizen’s rights. The moment they joined an enemy bent on America’s destruction, they have abdicated their constitutional rights. If we got back to treating evil men like the evil they are, we would stop having troubles from evil men. You do not coddle evil, and you do not ever never allow them to see weakness in you, because they will take advantage of that weakness each and every time.
Probably the easiest way to clear this up is to pass legislation that takes away citizenship in such circumstances
I don’t see why that is necessary. This guy had already given up his citizenship long before he was killed. He was born in New Mexico to parents who were Yemeni citizens attending college. He returned with them to their ancestral homeland and tribe in Yemen. He became, or always was a Yemeni citizen. He was acknowleged and self-declared as a Yemeni. Some years later, he returned to the US, using a Yemen passport and entering under a J-4 foreigner status visa in order to attend college. He did attend college, as a foreign student and received scholarships as a foreign student.
Pie, you are such a (snip)….and I’ll let PS edit that word however they wish. But then again, for all I know, you are a woman (because it’s so scary to let the world know who you really are) and in that case it would be wrong of me to call you a (snip), maybe a raving (snip). My point is that so many right wingers were afraid that Obama was a Muslim as well as a terrorist sympathizer. But since he keeps killing these guys (the topic of this blog that I responded to) he’s kind of proven he’s not on their side. He’s produced his birth certificate to prove he was born in this country and so far, the only thing he’s done around gun legislation is to sign a bill allowing guns in state parks. But I’m sure you think he’s not doing enough and that he has some trick up his sleeve to disarm you. Me blame Bush? For what? For stealing two elections? Starting a trillion dollar war based on lies? Tripling the national debt? Sorry, not enough room here to get into what I blame Bush for. But he’s history, I don’t waste time on bashing GW anymore. His legacy will tell the story, unless of course you guys manage to change history like you’ve done with Reagan. You’re kind is very good at that. And Pie, I really like the way you are so efficient at using the Thesaurus. Those big words like “calumny” almost make you sound smart.
Tina: “What I’m saying is this isn’t a peace time case.”
I don’t believe rights should be suspended in wartime. Such thinking leads to gross abuse of government power every time it is put into action.
But of course, you don’t actually care about gross abuse of government power as long as it gets you your way.
“The idea that we should let him go and hope at a later attempt to arrest and try him instead is silly.”
Let him go? Are you talking about a case in which an actual battle is taking place? In that case, as I have said, killing would be an option if faced with immediate danger.
But it just seems smarter to arrest the guy. Wouldn’t he have valuable information we should try to obtain? Killing him simply makes him a martyr.
“But this is a ridiculous scenario that assumes the president is a maniac rather than a man charged with the serious business of defending the nation as Commander-in-Chief.”
Yeah, because you side never makes that assumption about Obama…have you read Gate’s comment yet?
“As far as I’m concerned this particular American surrendered those rights by breaching that trust when he chose to side with (actually lead) the enemy.”
If a right is God-given, as you believe our rights are, then how can they be surrendered?
“He does not recongnize, nor has he respect for, our laws.”
And that means we shouldn’t either?
“It would be a complete waste of time and effort.”
How would it be a waste of time and effort to arrest one of the top leaders of Al Qaeda? That makes no sense.
Soaps: “Remember the Civil War, when thousands of Confederate soldiers swore allegiance to the rebel states and joined in a war against the US? Union soldiers had no need to read them their rights or deliver them to the courts.”
While I’m a fan of Lincoln, I believe he’s suspension of Habeus Corpus was unjust and unnecessary.
Jack: “Chris, what about a trial in abstentia for such cases like Awlaki’s?”
That would certainly be preferable to what we got.
Gate: “I for one am very proud of our foreign born Muslim president for killing a fellow Muslims.”
Is this satire, Gate? If not, you are ****ing insane.
Jack, why are you asking Gate what is in the Koran? Do you really believe someone like him is a reliable source of that kind of information?
Time to move on. Let the sniveling hand-wringers squawk all they like.
The Brains Behind Today’s Wall Street Protests
(Personally, I think this deserves its own blog post)
http://www.breitbart.tv/fox-news-jesse-watters-uncovers-the-brains-behind-the-wall-st-protests/
Chris I asked because he is somewhat of an expert on matters of theology and if I remember correctly he has a pretty good understanding of the Koran.
Soaps, good intel on Awlaki. This also brings up the need to do away with the baby anchor rule. I’m no expert on immigration, but it seems like he would have a good case for dual citizenship if he wanted it. But, even though he may have renounced his citizenship, it’s probably a good idea to have it in writing, in cases like Awlaki’s or any combatant, there is no question they get their citizenship revoked. Wonder why this a-h was allowed to return to the u.s. for an education?
Chris your question about citizenship and rights per al-Awlaki was debated on Fox News today. I told you it was a really good question and a lot is being discussed right now on this subject.
Joe, please tone it down a little, we like to hear from you but we don’t have the time to go around snipping foul language that is against ER policy. Tina is off recovering from major surgery, I’m recovering from eye surgery and Steve is up to his arm pits with the elections. C’mon everyone, give us a break here and play nice.
Despite the common misconception, the USA does not recognize dual citizenship, except in the case of Native American Indians, who have special status that no one can understand logically.
English major though I am, I try not to pick … but … “quotes”, boy, “quotes” … if you want to make your meaning clear.
“Why does anyone think it was unconstitutional for the US government to kill al-Awlaki?”
Because, according to our Constitution, no American is to be done to death sans due process. You and Ms. Bachmann have a shocking lot in common.
“Soaps, I think what we’re looking for is clarification on how this could best be done. I don’t think anyone wants to see a terrorist use his citizenship rights in order to wage war on us.”
That’s the thing. Had we launched the 7th Calvalry, rather than a predator drone, it’s highly unlikely that the little beggar would have come along peaceable, and he would have been killed anyway, so this libertarian battle will have to be waged the next time the federal government bombs the roof of a row house in Philadelphia or Detroit or Chicago or where ever.
(You’d forgotten about that, hadn’t you.)
Chris: “But of course, you don’t actually care about gross abuse of government power as long as it gets you your way.”
Is that right? So now we aren’t discussing this with an exchange of ideas but instead resorting to broad statements designed to dismiss? I think the overall position I have taken deserves better from you than this.
“Are you talking about a case in which an actual battle is taking place?”
An actual battle IS taking place. The people in the buildings on 911 weren’t issued a warning, read their rights, or handled gently…in fact they were ordinary civilians going about their business.
“But it just seems smarter to arrest the guy. Wouldn’t he have valuable information we should try to obtain?”
Sure, just walk up to him on any street in Yemen and arrest him, easy as pie! Think about it.
“If a right is God-given, as you believe our rights are, then how can they be surrendered?”
The right to a fair trial is a man made law.
“And that means we shouldn’t either?”
No, it means we should wise up
“How would it be a waste of time and effort to arrest one of the top leaders of Al Qaeda?”
Chris do you think that arrest was possible? If so how would you go about it?
Re Joe Shaw: “Those big words like “calumny” almost make you sound smart.”
You feel better now Joe?
You had no point other than to toss a little snot. When you got it tossed back then you decided you had better come up with a point. When you came up with one it was just more ridiculous calumny. Joe, are you the stereotype lib or a parody?
Obama did the right thing in approving this action.
Why should we endanger the lives of US officials in order to make an arrest when a drone was just as effective and did not require that US personnel put their lives at risk?
The government of Yemen participated in this action. Evidently they were not too keen on trying to make an arrest either.
Aside to Joe Shaw: By the way “calumny” only contains seven letters. What do you consider a small word?
“You had no point other than to toss a little snot. When you got it tossed back then you decided you had better come up with a point. When you came up with one it was just more ridiculous calumny. Joe, are you the stereotype lib or a parody?”
Jack … you really defending the virtue of this? … this cogent, reasoned exposition right here?
Libs, I’m not sure I know what you mean?
Here is some cogent, reasoned exposition for you Libby!
Joe Shaw: “Pie, you are such a (snip)….and I’ll let PS edit that word however they wish. But then again, for all I know, you are a woman (because it’s so scary to let the world know who you really are) and in that case it would be wrong of me to call you a (snip), maybe a raving (snip).”
Too funny!
Do you have some cogent, reasoned exposition Libby? Be sure to let me know if you ever come up with some. You may yet out do Joe Shaw.
Pie, what can I say…he was out of line.
Jack: “Chris I asked because he is somewhat of an expert on matters of theology and if I remember correctly he has a pretty good understanding of the Koran.”
Jack, saying Gate is an expert in theology is like saying David Duke is an expert on race studies. You have to understand that everything Gate claims to know about the subject is filtered through a very heavy lens of bigotry. He’s not exactly subtle about this.
Unfortunately, Gate is too closed-minded to ever conduct a serious study of any subject. His goal is not to gather information and educate himself, it’s to confirm his own beliefs and prejudices. He starts with the belief that Christianity is superior to every other religion and that all non-believers are going to Hell, and his only concern is in making all other religions look bad so as to win over more converts. That’s not theology, it’s evangelism mixed in with a heaping dose of hateful propaganda. I’m honestly surprised that you haven’t realized that by now.
Chris, I understand his evangelical leanings and its okay, he can still have his opinions and yet be rather informed and accurate on his knowledge of the Koran. I wouldn’t dismiss his understanding on a narrow subject, because of a conflict over another subject. By the way, the David Duke comparison was pretty funny, very clever.
Gate: “When the Democrats passed healthcare, with no Republican voting for it, Why did they exclude themselves from it?”
They did not exempt themselves from the requirements of the PPACA. You are a liar.
Tina: “Is that right? So now we aren’t discussing this with an exchange of ideas but instead resorting to broad statements designed to dismiss? I think the overall position I have taken deserves better from you than this.”
I think it was a fair statement given your inconsistencies, Tina. You constantly say that you are concerned about the government, especially the executive having too much power. I can’t think of a greater power the government could have than the ability to assassinate American citizens at will. You say that the Obama administration is in breach of the Constitution. Yet when you are shown that this action violates the Constitution, you don’t care.
That’s because when it comes to war, you and other Tea Partiers are willing to compromise freedom for the illusion of security. Yet at the same time you assure us that this won’t lead to anything too bad…only the guilty will be punished, right? Such thinking shows a complete failure to learn from history. Every time a government has granted themselves new power during war, every time they have used fear of the enemy as an excuse for curtailing civil liberties, innocent people have ended up being persecuted and often killed. That’s where this road leads.
“An actual battle IS taking place.”
I was speaking literally.
“Sure, just walk up to him on any street in Yemen and arrest him, easy as pie! Think about it.”
Following the Constitution isn’t always easy.
“The right to a fair trial is a man made law.”
Wow. First of all, it’s not a “law,” it’s a right as granted in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Second of all, can you please tell me how it is you are able to divine which of our rights are God-given, and which are man-made? You must have a very special telephone to God if you feel you are able to make that determination for the rest of us.
Well, we all have our moments, certainly, but Pie is the only one around here who routinely compares peoples’ arguments to boogers, rather than make some reasoned response to them. The man’s rhetorical style reckons with that of an 8-year-old boy, and is generally not worth comment.
(Joe, you remember that for next time.)
And if P.S. is still gonna do the “Who? what?” in this regard, we will have to put that down to idealogical blinders too, and leave it at that.
Re Libby: “…but Pie is the only one around here who routinely compares peoples’ arguments to boogers, rather than make some reasoned response to them.”
I have never compared any person’s argument to boogers. I have disagreed with people and made it clear why I disagree. I expose nonsense when I encounter nonsense. I sometimes use ridicule in response to ridicule or the ridiculous.
I once used Chris’ tactics against him, he got upset, and have since completely dismissed anything he has to say.
I won’t bother to ridicule this current nonsense of yours, Libby.
As for reasoned arguments or reasoned responses, I have never seen you proffer one Libby. Not once. Not ever.
Since we are sharing perceptions let me offer one of my own. You, Libby, for the most part post terse, snotty, drive by comment bites. Many of which are not very articulate or and the rest of which are just plain weird.
I guess Libby, who has posted some real zinger non-sequiturs, has an ax to grind because I was so bold as to point them out.
It is kind of sad that Libby now feels it necessary to engage in calumny and lies about me, but I guess she has nothing else to offer. (Remember that big word Joe? Seven letters!)
Libby, you and Quentin really make quite a pair. Now you join Joe. No problem, gang up all you like. You can also bring Chris along for the ride too if you like.
I could easily respond at length to Joe’s foul mouthed rant, but I am no longer in the habit of taking up my valuable time to answer foul mouthed trolls. And, after this post, the same goes for their toadies. A reasoned argument with him or you (or Quentin or Chris for that matter) falls on deaf ears.
Re: “Pie, what can I say…he was out of line.”
Please don’t ever feel the need to spare me from Joe Shaw’s ire. Let him rant. You will just have to snip out the nasty bits to keep in line with E-R policy so that his superior intellect may shine in its full and magnificent glory.
Pie: “You had no point other than to toss a little snot.”
Pie: “I have never compared any person’s argument to boogers.”
Dude … we can all read. And most of us can remember what we said three days ago. You might want to consider retirement.
Pie Guevara, I know you have decided that I am beneath responding to, but I am still hoping that you will let us all know where you heard that the two union members accused of beating Kenneth Gladney admitted to doing so in open court. You made this claim twice, and it was crucial to your argument that the two men were guilty even though they were found innocent of all charges. I have asked you several times and on multiple articles to back up your claim, since I have been unable to find it reported anywhere, even conservative blogs. If you don’t want to derail this conversation you can dig up the old Kenneth Gladney article and respond to my request there. Thank you.