Assassination Of A American

Alright this is one is about a man named Anwar al Awlaki who has been placed on a CIA "Hit List" because he is a Designated Global Terrorist and has been liked to many terrorist attacks from 9/11 to Nigerian Bomber who tried but failed. But he is different due to he is a American Citizen and his father with other two US organizations are sueing for several reasons.

1. Since he is been listed as designated global terrorist all banking assets are shut

2. Also when someone is listed as a designated global terrorist lawyers can not defend him from due process

3. Father wants his son not to be killed

Now the debate is should this guy who has influence in a terrorist organization who is US born have rights it should the CIA be able to kill him


My answer to this is let the asswipe get what he deserves which is to be killed like any other terrorist. I believe people gave the right to due process but if they join our enemy then they got no rights period. They set their own fates to be terrorist and only thing a terrorist deserves is a bullet to the skull. I believe the US has the right to do this over two reasons.

1. He is placed as a enemy to the state and has commit capital crimes to our nation

2. He has denounced his citizenship to the US through all of his speeches

A American you say? Is he really?

I find your lack of grammar/spelling, understanding of the repercussion of such events in today's political climate, understanding of family loyalty regardless of actions, understanding of a feasible limit for ridiculous bias, etc. most disturbing.

Yes he was born in New Mexico and ran a mosque in California that had two of the 9/11 hijackers as members. This issue sparked my interests due to the fact he is a enemy of the state but was born here in the states. He is considered as the "voice" of al-Qaeda by posting his preatchings online. One of his latest preaching was insulting our President and also asking every Muslim in the US to do what he did which is to Jihad the country.

The thing is, Al-Awlaki as of right now is all talk. All he does is talk, and there is no proof that he is actually arming or supplying terrorists. He may be a spiritual lecturer that may or may not influence someone to attack the United States, but it is politically incorrect to just kill him. Regardless of how obvious he is against the western world and the United States in particular, we can't drone him because of what he says. If we do, everyone is just going to criticize the United States for killing a "preacher".

Him being a United States citizen is not even relevant. It is already forfeited, and if Al-Awlaki is deeply tied with terrorist networks, then he's already on the shitlist.

The rambling incoherency of your post, as well as the fact that I just woke up about ten minutes ago at time of this writing, may in fact impede my ability to argue this case. But I don't care, because I probably still can.

I've read up on this asshole. Yes, he's an asshole. I can't deny that and I can't defend his twisted ideology or criminal methods. But Desertback, in your, ahh, infinite wisdom, do you really think that you can solve international problems, including ideological militancy, by simply shooting people? Grow up.

Furthermore, do you really think that extralegal measures (or extreme measures justified by some twisted vestige of "law") will increase the legitimacy of the Western regimes? Increasingly, I get the feeling that America (and my own country, sadly, though not to anywhere near the same extent) does not value democracy or the measures that usually come with it (you know, those fanciful things like "fair trials" and "habeas corpus"). Running around the globe assassinating people who don't fit with your cause, even if they are, as said before, dangerous assholes, is hardly a way to seem like a towering beacon of freedom and democracy.

The problem of international militancy of extremist Muslims (and others) is a diplomatic one. The conditions generating terrorism must be changed. It isn't a "war", which you could win by shooting people, because that will generate more misery and thus more recruits. Let's move into a more mature economics and social-change based way of solving the problem, comrades. Let's stop this getting any worse.

Redcoat the idea that you think I'm a guy who just want "shoot any asshole preacher" is insulting to me but back to the point. This guy needs to be eliminated because its easy to point out he has influence in terrorism because what this guy have done. He is not some poor innocent prick who escaped to Yemen because the US is after him. This terrorist (yes he is one) has been in contact with many people who had commit acts of terrorism.

1. He has met with the three hijackers of 9/11 and all three of these guys attend his services and when one of them moved so did the asshole

2. He knew and hanged out with the Xmas Day Bomber

3. Now for the good part......he met up with the guy who killed soldiers at Fort Hood

Now that is not coincidental

I don't believe executing every terrorist but this guy is accused of being a senior recruiter for al-Qaeda and motivates the organization. Killing him will be more beneficial than capturing him. If you want to week any organization you don't kill the planner but the guy who motivates the soldiers because its hard to replace with a guy who knows how to use his voice than a guy who plans it. He won't be the most useful sorce of Intel but we cent turn our eye on him.

I'm sure that plenty of people have met terrorists. After all, terrorists are like people, and like people, they know other people. Now, I'm not suggesting that this guy is a terrorist, but your methods of pointing him out as a terrorist leave a lot to be desired. So he met a terrorist. Does merely meeting someone make you one of Them?

A little something to think about. Actually thinking may alter your worldview drastically.

Yes its understandable that one person might have known a terrorist but this prick has known over 5 or more terrorists and that's not coincidental.

Hasan the Fort Hood Shooter had talked to our man of the hour (asswipe) over 18 emails and one of them stated (phrasing) "When you commit a Jihad is it alright to kill innocent people"..........if you got what a email like that wouldn't you call the police. But of coarse "Mr Innocent" didn't do that and guess what......several people died including a pregnant women.

It's still not right or politically proper to go out and kill the guy. Seriously, DB, curb your emotions. If we want to bring him to justice, we should arrest him, bring him back here, try him, and lock him up. If we want to solve the problem of international militancy, we need to stop being so ham-fisted.

EDIT: And seriously, man, tone down the emotional arguments. They don't add legitimacy or force to anything, and risk objectivity.

A women. A singular group of women. Indeed. How many woman did this men kill? He is from an group of terrorist, who is all hating America.

The grammar errors don't help your arguments either...

XD

Desertback, I am sorry to say this but. You are pretty dumb when it comes to stuff like this right. Now in my personal opinion on this subject is that, if we just go hunt down Terrorist and shoot them doesn't that make us kind of like Terrorist. That is exactly what they are doing, hunting down a specific group ( All America ( see what I did there. )) and killing as many as they can. Well if we hunt the specific group of terrorist and kill as many as we can, aren't we basically copying them.

Another thing if the dude talked to a couple of terrorist oh well. What if he was scared to go to the cops about it. If someone was sending you 300 e-mails a day about this awesome marijuna which you so love, you would totally go to the cops cause it's against the law. No you would be keeping that a secret.

Also I talked to about 9 Gay people one time does that make me gay cause if so tie dye shirts and wrist flicking here i come.....heeeeeyyyy.


-_-

Oberon wrote:A women. A singular group of women. Indeed. How many woman did this men kill? He is from an group of terrorist, who is all hating America.

The grammar errors don't help your arguments either...

Shall i point out your errors good sir?

A woman. A single group of women. Indeed. How many women did this man kill? He is from a group of terrorists, who is hating America.

I see your sarcasm detectors are working at maximum power, Jack.

I laughed. Hard.

That is all.

Also, he missed "is hating." And the e in "awesomeness" in his sig. And the capitalization of I. XD

OMG! I did leave out the "e" i shall be fixing that
Well then... it appears I have been schooled, or something.

BTW the "is hating" thing does make sense it's just a weird way to phrase it.

Not really. It's using a singular verb to refer to a plural noun. A terrorist who is hating America makes sense. A group of terrorists who is does not.

I'm confused. Is this about some American terrorist or are we teaching the proper use of Grammar. CAUSE ME WANT HELPY!

It became a discussion on a particular terrorist and what to do with him, then a bit of sarcasm poked at Desertback. Then Jack flew in and took center stage. XD

Since it's so off-topic, and I can't see this topic being useful ever again, I'm lox0ring it.