(01-29-2017 03:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  "al-Awlaki is the most dangerous ideologue in the world. Unlike bin Laden and al-Zawahiri, he doesn't need subtitles on his videos to indoctrinate and influence young people in the West."[202]

— Sajjan M. Gohel, Asia-Pacific Foundation

"Terrorist No. 1, in terms of threat against us."[35]

— Representative Jane Harman, (D-CA), Chairwoman of House Subcommittee on Homeland Security

Since no links were provided I Googled the two statements above and I can definitively say that if you directed them towards me as you say then you are mistaken because neither one of those quotes has anything to do with Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

(01-29-2017 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 03:56 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

Who cares...if it can be put in a gun and kill 40 people in a minute, it should be heavily regulated.

---

Now back tot he topic at hand. DJT illegally detaining legal US residents on US soil without access to a lawyer, in violation of habeus corpus, due process, and about half the US constitution. And in violation of a court order.

So now magazines and clips can kill 40 people a minute? I thought it was guns that did that...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-29-2017 04:06 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so would you rather this guy was still alive? the dude was connected to the fort hood shooter FFS.

and you are a dirty scummy liar. I have not once defended Obama in this thread. not once. so stop being a b*tch by claiming I did. all I said is that I don't know the legality of how an american citizen enemy combatant works on a topic that YOU STARTED.

How do you KNOW he was an American citizen enemy combatant? A politican told you so?

There are Americans living in virtually every country on the face of the earth, no? If Trump can claim one was an American citizen enemy combatant, then Obama has set the precendent for having that American executed by presidential order, no? What? No court evidence of his complicity in terrorist activities? No charges ever filed against him, EVER? Heck, just produce a youtube video and then let the hellfires fly.

I'm merely trying to point out that American citizens are supposed to awarded some higher level of protection via our constitution that any other swinging dick out there. Obama trashed that by having an American citizen executed. You either agree with what he did or you don't.

Which is it?

How do you know water is wet? The dude made videos preaching jihad, joined a terrorist network, moved to a terrorism war zone, and was in contact with terrorists.

Stop mentioning the legality of it. I agree it's dubious and I can't say it was legal nor did I ever deny it was a bad precedent.

(01-29-2017 03:21 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Must watch for those currently melting and REEEE'ing. This guy isn't a conservative, by the way.

Thank you for posting that. I watched all 35 minutes of the video and to be honest this video should be required viewing...for everyone.

Of course hate would still cloud the views of the "Hate President Trump" crowd

(01-29-2017 04:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  How do you know water is wet? The dude made videos preaching jihad, joined a terrorist network, moved to a terrorism war zone, and was in contact with terrorists.

This evidence was presented in a court room, reviewed by a judge and a jury of his peers? How do you know what you've been told is in fact, fact? Please tell me.

(01-29-2017 04:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Stop mentioning the legality of it. I agree it's dubious and I can't say it was legal nor did I ever deny it was a bad precedent.

Wow, bet that was like swallowing a bad clam, right?

As for the legality, there was none. It was a politician's decision to take the life of an American citizen without due process. I don't know how anyone can argue that point.

I just want to know why Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was targeted.

This thread has gone off the rails.

The original topic has been so overblown it isn't even funny. I guess we can expect these kinds of disingenuous reactions for the next 8 years.

(01-29-2017 04:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I just want to know why Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was targeted.

He wasn't:

Quote:Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[8] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[8] Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs commented on the airstrike: "Maybe he (Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki) should've had a more responsible father."[9][10]

From foxtwitter:

(01-29-2017 04:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 04:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I just want to know why Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was targeted.

He wasn't:

Quote:Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[8] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[8] Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs commented on the airstrike: "Maybe he (Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki) should've had a more responsible father."[9][10]

So this reckless policy killed innocent bystanders, including an American citizen, but not the target?

And the target is still alive?

https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/englis...banna.html

Figures.

(01-29-2017 04:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  From foxtwitter:

Was this statement released when he made the Executive Order the other day? Or was it released today in response to all the bad publicity?

If it's the latter, maybe he and his team needs to think things over a bit before they issue one rash order after another? Giving the airports and various security organizations a bit of time to be able to put new measures in place wouldn't have hurt things either.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-k...d=20931131

(01-29-2017 05:04 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 04:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  From foxtwitter:

Was this statement released when he made the Executive Order the other day? Or was it released today in response to all the bad publicity?

If it's the latter, maybe he and his team needs to think things over a bit before they issue one rash order after another? Giving the airports and various security organizations a bit of time to be able to put new measures in place wouldn't have hurt things either.

Announcing it in advance would allow the terrorists to get in before the order went into place. It would defeat the purpose.

(01-29-2017 05:04 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 04:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  From foxtwitter:

Was this statement released when he made the Executive Order the other day? Or was it released today in response to all the bad publicity?

If it's the latter, maybe he and his team needs to think things over a bit before they issue one rash order after another? Giving the airports and various security organizations a bit of time to be able to put new measures in place wouldn't have hurt things either.

Aka:


"We will leave Iraque on a Monday at 9 am via a boat"

(01-29-2017 05:04 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 04:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  From foxtwitter:

Was this statement released when he made the Executive Order the other day? Or was it released today in response to all the bad publicity?

If it's the latter, maybe he and his team needs to think things over a bit before they issue one rash order after another? Giving the airports and various security organizations a bit of time to be able to put new measures in place wouldn't have hurt things either.

Why would you give the people you want to keep out...notice?



It would go something like this..

Hey people I just want to let you know we are closing our borders for 90 days so we can see how to keep you folks out that want to strap a bomb on your back from getting into our country. But we will not be starting for a week or two....

so go ahead and move up your plans to get in today, or next week. But do it before the two weeks are up.

(01-29-2017 05:04 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 04:53 PM)Dasville Wrote:  From foxtwitter:

Was this statement released when he made the Executive Order the other day? Or was it released today in response to all the bad publicity?

If it's the latter, maybe he and his team needs to think things over a bit before they issue one rash order after another? Giving the airports and various security organizations a bit of time to be able to put new measures in place wouldn't have hurt things either.

I agree with you, as long as terrorists agree to announce their attacks before they happen.

(01-29-2017 04:56 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 04:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(01-29-2017 04:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I just want to know why Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was targeted.

He wasn't:

Quote:Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[8] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time," stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[8] Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs commented on the airstrike: "Maybe he (Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki) should've had a more responsible father."[9][10]

So this reckless policy killed innocent bystanders, including an American citizen, but not the target?

And the target is still alive?

https://www.rewardsforjustice.net/englis...banna.html

Figures.

this happens all the time. cons never cared because outside of a handful of cases the victims weren't american. hell the cons on here even encourage it thanks to their position on:

1) complimenting the Russians who are far more reckless on this issue were their aggressive bombing campaigns against terrorists.

2) complaining the the US military gives to much emphasis on minimizing collateral damage arguing that we should return to our pre vietnam war standards.