Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/3/13 08:55 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: he made shitty Training and anti-american lectures, he wasn't big enough to warrant a Drone Strike in a civilian zone.

Did you even read your own article? They cited that he was active in a bombing plot and assisting in terrorist activities, thus making him a valid target. Or is your assertion that you have better evidence then they do?

and Bush knew when to take a loss you didn't see him spilling over into other countries.

LOLOLOLOLOL! Only if I forget that Iraq happened, or that he basically promised to start as many wars as possible (and they certainly had designs on Iran at one time). That is one of the dumbest things you've ever said.

and from what I understand (or trying to) I think they were both killed in separate strikes.

Sounded that way to me as well. But since Holder is withholding most of the details, it's hard to be sure about much...which is why you shouldn't be jumping to as many conclusions as you've done throughout the thread with information that isn't present in your source.

to a Degreeing point I am if its people being investigated of Terrorism or other crimes. but using the un-warranted wiretapping by using the excuse of the Patriot Act for investigating AP, Fox and other press organizations are NOT.

This is a double standard and not in keeping with Constitutionality, or someone who uses the Constitution in an argument. You can't say "well we should always follow the Constitution on this...but it's fine not to here". That's not how the argument works. Also thank you for throwing more evidence onto my point that when it's your party it's fine, when it's Obama, it's always wrong.

The family of radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has issued a statement condemning the killing of Awlaki and of Awlaki's teen son, and accusing the U.S. of lying about the younger Awlaki's age in order to "clear itself from the killing of the innocents."

linky

Thanks, just wanted to make sure you had some facts to back your point. Now let's have a deeper look at the article...oh! Here's an interesting point:

"The strike was conducted by the US military in an effort to target al-Banna, who US officials describe as a "big deal," though they did not elaborate. One official asserted that Banna was "operational." A second official said the strike was carried out by a U.S. military drone. The elder Awlaki was killed by a CIA strike."

That would then mean that he was killed in a collateral damage situation. Which is MUCH different then if he were actually the target of the strike.

At 6/3/13 09:09 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Did you even read your own article? They cited that he was active in a bombing plot and assisting in terrorist activities, thus making him a valid target. Or is your assertion that you have better evidence then they do?

Define "active", because if there's anything we know about a Government's ability to define words, "Imminent" means "not immediate."

LOLOLOLOLOL! Only if I forget that Iraq happened, or that he basically promised to start as many wars as possible (and they certainly had designs on Iran at one time). That is one of the dumbest things you've ever said.

To be fair, at least the moron told us what he was going to do, unlike Obama. Who promised all of these other things only to completely go back on every single one of them.

Though I do love your selective outrage.

I also love your predisposition to ban me for doing what you just did. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Sounded that way to me as well. But since Holder is withholding most of the details, it's hard to be sure about much...which is why you shouldn't be jumping to as many conclusions as you've done throughout the thread with information that isn't present in your source.

Governments have a very well established penchant for lying.
He's known about these strikes for years with varying differences in explanations.
Over a year later, his best excuse is "oops."

Yeah, that's credible.

This is a double standard and not in keeping with Constitutionality, or someone who uses the Constitution in an argument. You can't say "well we should always follow the Constitution on this...but it's fine not to here". That's not how the argument works. Also thank you for throwing more evidence onto my point that when it's your party it's fine, when it's Obama, it's always wrong.

I love how you're guilty of doing exactly what you just described.

That would then mean that he was killed in a collateral damage situation. Which is MUCH different then if he were actually the target of the strike.

Think about what you're saying...

His son was conveniently killed just 2 weeks later in a separate drone strike in a green zone with varying levels of explanation with a pitiful "oh, we didn't mean it" reply a year later.

And you're going to call him dumb?

How's gullible nitwit for you?

At 6/4/13 07:14 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: crap the link I was looking for was the one where the government excused the killing of the son claiming he was of military age. not that one let me look for it avie.

Tada!

At 6/4/13 08:28 AM, Fim wrote:

Do we even bother reading our own sources here?

Another U.S. official said the airstrike was launched by the militaryâEUTMs secretive Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC. It remains unclear whether the missile was fired by a remotely piloted drone or a fighter jet.

Do you read?

I've repeatedly mentioned that I don't care about whether or not an aircraft is manned.

At 6/4/13 08:54 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
and now they justify it as: Robert Gibbs Says Anwar al-Awlaki's Son, Killed By Drone Strike, Needs 'Far More Responsible Father'

Source

how asinine!

Somehow I get the feeling that if Obama decided not to issue the drone strike because his kid was there and news was released about that then you'd be trying to justify why he should've gone through with the strike despite the kid.

I mean this is coming from the same person whose solution to humanitarian crises is to let them starve.

At 6/4/13 07:00 PM, Warforger wrote:

I mean this is coming from the same person whose solution to humanitarian crises is to let them starve.

Nothing says humanitarian like air raids.

At 6/4/13 09:17 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I would never support a drone strike on him if he didn't, especially a civilian and his son in a Civilian zone.

Well yah, you say that now but I doubt would've said that if Bush were President or if Obama announced he didn't do it.

well if they weren't third world shit holes with people who can't adjust to the 21st century we wouldn't have this problem. and why should it be OUR problem about some other countries issue that doesn't effect us in the Slightest?

They do actually, even if there's no direct effect. We didn't directly intervene in the Afghani Civil War until way after and from that Al-Qaeda was born and they then attacked the WTC. In that time we lost the only person who had any plausible reputation for re-uniting Afghanistan i.e. Masoud and we let Pakistan invade Afghanistan in support of the Taliban to the point that they were winning.

But this is my point, you're fine with letting people suffer and die if helping them doesn't benefit you but you think it is absolutely sick for the President to assassinate a terrorist and his son.

Tony, you seem to be continuing to miss what I was saying. You're using this selective outrage while continually misrepresenting the issue. Let's look at what you claim, and what even your own sources say:

"You say "al-Awlaki was only a shitty youtube video maker, and a lecturer. No actual hands on terror activity". Yet the original article you linked has the Gov saying he WAS actually hands on. From the article:

For instance, Holder said al-Awlaki "planned a suicide operation" for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to blow up a U.S.-bound jetliner.

Holder noted al-Awlaki directed Abdulmutallab to detonate his bomb, which was hidden in his underwear, only when the jet was over U.S. soil. The plot that ultimately involved a Delta Air Lines flight bound for Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009 failed.

The letter also provided new details about al-Awlaki's alleged involvement in a 2010 plot to blow up U.S.-bound cargo planes with explosives hidden in printers. Holder said al-Awlaki was so involved he even participated in the development and testing of the explosives used in the plan that was foiled."

Yet you continue to try and ignore the evidence of YOUR OWN SOURCE and continue to re-frame this as a matter of the Government blowing up a guy who was just making videos and lecturing. That's a misrepresentation of the facts in evidence. Please use and acknowledge all the facts in evidence properly.

Now, I'd personally like some more information on what happened with the son. Because one of the articles you linked that was older seemed to point to the fact that he is killed WITH his father, in that strike. But the current CNN story says it was TWO WEEKS after. So to me al-Awlaki isn't the biggest issue here (because like it or not, it has been the policy of the government since 9/11 that senior level terrorists get whacked, period), but the issue is why is the son dead two weeks after the father if he wasn't a target? That's the thing I'd really like addressed.

At 6/4/13 03:06 AM, Memorize wrote: Define "active", because if there's anything we know about a Government's ability to define words, "Imminent" means "not immediate."

The article Tony linked defined the actions he was alleged to be engaged in. I linked it in my response to Tony below. It's really bad when you link an article, then clearly don't read it as he obviously did by continuing to insist he was much less then he was.

To be fair, at least the moron told us what he was going to do, unlike Obama. Who promised all of these other things only to completely go back on every single one of them.

Like? He's actually done a LOT of what he's promised. Honest fact checking sites have been cited again and again here to point out what he has, and has not done, based on campaign promises. Obama has always been in line with Bush when it comes to terror. The biggest broken promise I can think of immediately is Gitmo.

Though I do love your selective outrage.

Where is the selective outrage here? I have certainly made clear I question the attack on the son, as I have one linked article that made it sound like he was killed in the same strike as his father, but the article that started this thread says it was two weeks later, and he wasn't the target...that definitely makes my spider-sense tingle some and I'd like to know a little more about what was going on there. But I've learned in the past that if you jump to conclusions (either positive or negative) with stuff like this, you may wind up having to eat your words later. This looks fishy, but if I had all the info in hand, it's just as possible I'd be ok with what was done as it is that I'd be outraged. I do like that there was a speech last week by the President in which he pushed for more monitoring and restriction of his power...of course without legislation to actually do so, it's hollow. But now that he's said it, we need to hold his feet to the fire about it.

I also love your predisposition to ban me for doing what you just did. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

That is not why you get banned. I've explained quite clearly I feel what gets you banned. I won't go into it any more in public because it's not fair to either of us. If you need me to explain it better, feel free to PM me and I'll try to explain it better.

Governments have a very well established penchant for lying.

Yes, sometimes they tell the truth too. Sometimes what they do is evil and insidious, and sometimes it's more benign or it's the human capacity to do the wrong thing in the service of trying to do the right thing.

He's known about these strikes for years with varying differences in explanations.

Yeah, this does feel very much like somebody leaking and now they're spinning.

Over a year later, his best excuse is "oops."

What more can he really say? It's a tough proposition, and he's damned if he says it was wrong, because then he'll get attacked for feeling bad about killing terrorists and then he's soft on terror. If he says "no remorse, we did what we needed to do" then he gets slammed for not giving a shit at killing a teenager. What can he honestly do except try the middle road on the issue?

I love how you're guilty of doing exactly what you just described.

How so? Please elaborate how I did that here.

His son was conveniently killed just 2 weeks later in a separate drone strike in a green zone with varying levels of explanation with a pitiful "oh, we didn't mean it" reply a year later.

That comment was based on my reading the older article he linked that had the son dying in the same strike as the father. That would lend credibility to the idea that the son was not targeted and happened to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time, thus collateral damage. But then I looked back at the original article that has the two weeks date, realized my error, and am definitely troubled by that.

How's gullible nitwit for you?

Sounds like trying to bait me into a fight. No thanks. If you want to trade ideas about this, we can. If you just want to insult me some and try and pick a fight, I'll pass thanks.

At 6/4/13 10:41 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Like? He's actually done a LOT of what he's promised. Honest fact checking sites have been cited again and again here to point out what he has, and has not done, based on campaign promises. Obama has always been in line with Bush when it comes to terror. The biggest broken promise I can think of immediately is Gitmo.

Against Patriot Act until he extended it several times.
Against FISA until he voted for it.
Said he wouldn't go after marijuana where it was legal... only to commit almost 3x as many raids as Bush in just 1 term.
Stated he was against unilateral attacks... until Libya, Syria, Yemen...
Said he would withdraw from Iraq day 1, but then tried to set up an agreement to stay until 2020 until the Iraqi Government rejected it and stuck to Bush's withdrawal plan.

And let's not forget "No mandates" when it comes to healthcare!

With icing on the cake!

Where is the selective outrage here?

The tone.

It's what I see out of leftists all the time.

Point out the very same things that both Bush and Obama do. When it comes to Bush, there's no issue condemning his actions and not believing he official story...

But when it comes to Obama, you know.... "I don't personally support EVERYTHING he does... and, we should give him the benefit of the doubt..."

That is not why you get banned. I've explained quite clearly I feel what gets you banned. I won't go into it any more in public because it's not fair to either of us.

Insults are insults. It really shouldn't matter if I call someone an idiot or a bitch. lolztastic!

Yes, sometimes they tell the truth too.

There's no river long enough that doesn't contain a bend.

What more can he really say? It's a tough proposition, and he's damned if he says it was wrong, because then he'll get attacked for feeling bad about killing terrorists and then he's soft on terror.

Then he's nothing more than a coward, isn't he?

What can he honestly do except try the middle road on the issue?

If "middle of the road" means lying...

But then I looked back at the original article that has the two weeks date, realized my error, and am definitely troubled by that.

Apparently not troubled enough since you still believe his bullshit.

Sounds like trying to bait me into a fight. No thanks. If you want to trade ideas about this, we can. If you just want to insult me some and try and pick a fight, I'll pass thanks.

Just returning a favor you gave to another guy.