And who's next to be executed?

It appears to be a sensitive topic, and people get all worked up when faced with painful questions, and instead of engaging in a fact based discussion they tend to shy away or try to divert the discussion based on empty rhetoric.

http://www.breitbart.tv/abcs-jake-ta...wlaki-killing/

"What would consitutional law attorney Barack Obama have to say about this?"

Let me see

Shall I trust the statements of the democratically elected government of the USA or rely on doubts spread by an anonymous member of a small internet forum who has who knows what sort of an agenda.

No contest!

Dear Mr. Desperate, life is not cooked up in somebody's head, so I why are you desperately trying to cook up some fictive story in other people's heads so you can argue with them. Go get some real life experience and I'll bet you don't have much to say after that.

...and before you demand that I display my credentials on the subject for your approval, I'll tell you I have them and beyond that it is none of your business.

A few raw nerves in this thread... Pricked conscience, lack of tolerance or the bully coming out ? It's a familiar pattern here these days.

It seems that someone asking questions is too much for some people on this forum. The name calling starts, the others join in.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Awesome irony !

No, I'm just pointing out to the OP that he is not, does not want to talk reality, rather prefers "Adolf Hitler personally never killed a single Jew, so were all the attempts to assassinate him to stop his madness illegal, immoral and abhorrent?"

And thus we have been spared by the invocation of Godwin's Law. Let us pray it holds.

...actually I would have preferred Stalin, Saddam Hussein and Muhamar Gaddafhi, they all had a better sense of humour.

Mr. Godwin has a lovely sense of humor, actually, thus the law.

...better than Hitler, I mean, which is to say Hitler and humour are mutually exclusive and kudos to Mr. Godwin for squeezing a few drops out of a theme that has long since been squeezed dry by all and sundry.

Actually I don't care, just annoyed at another attempt at a tune played on Nero's fiddle.

Don't you think - after you've calmed down - that your analogy is rather ironic given that killing somebody for voicing his opinion, albeit controversial and disgusting for many, and doing so without any real legal process would be considered a big step towards fascism by many?

Where does it end?

what kind of a president shows his happines and delight for killing ppl before being tried.I guess some one with Nobel Peace Prize.

I had a huge problem with the topic long before Obama; Long before the targets got famous enough that we know their name: The last decade has seen the development of an entirely new branch of the service: "UAV"s. Now the best soldiers are the nerdy gamer types that can be put into some containers in Nevada and control a robot as if it was a computer game. These robots have laser guided missiles and high res cameras. They don't kill an anonymous "enemy soldier" anymore - they identify him first and then decide if you should kill him. That's wrong in so many ways that I don't know where to start. It changes the rules of war forever. In WW2 many allies discussed weather it would be ok to assassinate Hitler - it was common sense that assassinations were wrong, but how bad would it be if it was against the prime evil? By now are targeted assassinations of lower ranking commanders apparently completely normal.

I find it ethically completely wrong and don't buy the story that they could not arrest Bin Laden for a second.

I'd comment but well, in between laughing, I'm still waiting.

Where do you come off asking this sort of stuff while "hiding"?

I am tempted to give you bs answers to your questions just to wind you up BUT as I actually bother to meet and get to know some of the folks around here in person, I care what they think of me.

On the other hand, I'm about 85% sure that we "know" you under a different forum name which either flounced or was banned, perhaps you're back with moderator nod of approval, perhaps not. Stinky troll is still stinky.

__________________
The Joys of Opticianry

Peg - it's an online forum, not the local pub. Your obsession with filled in profiles is puzzling.

Back on topic, there was a time when drones killed foreigners in foreign lands, now it's killing americans in foreign lands, next step is killing americans in the US?

All without due process, without a conviction, without evidence put in the open for scrutiny, etc.?

I think it's good to ask questions about this and have debate about it. That's part of living in a free society, isn't it?

One year and 10 month in Switzerland ,and already the spokesman for most of the Swiss Citizens.

Certainly a positive move. It could lead to a sort of football-sticker collecting type of game, for example killing an American in the US gets just one point (as there's plenty of military airbases) however killing a Tongan in China would illicit 10 points, and possibly a free glass tumbler.

Sounds Great ! Butt North American Football.Complete with play by play announcement,Like 4 down 6 to go,Touch down ,field goal .Not to forget the cheer leaders

Look around you, pay attention to social events and whatnot, this is not just a forum. I have belonged and do belong to "just forum" forums before, I stick around here because this is not that.

This is why I "demand" to know more about you. You want to ask about finding brown sugar in Basel, whether 120kchf is enough to live on in Basel, how to get groceries (for two) on less than 100chf per week, I do not care about profile... something that shows how I think, who I am, profile and something REAL about "you" makes a difference.

I agree it is good to ask questions and to discuss - but with people who I have some confidence (however trustworthy or not it turns out to be) is being as real with everyone else as we are with him/her.


So. About the topic at hand.
The situations you are talking about, the killing of the specific people in question is about something more than a simple "voicing his opinion." I hope I'm not mistaken in assuming that you have taken the time to absorb more than just that he was killed and to lay some blame on who did / okayed the killing but also looked at WHY, really really WHY he was killed.

The way "wars" are fought has changed in the past 200 years. The people who involved in, instigating and inspiring others to commit war-like acts have greater access to the public than they ever have before, meanwhile the public at large has LESS access to them. They have access to a world-wide audience rather than simply their own political subjects.

Unfortunately, "correcting" and diminishing the effects of evil is not always a matter of behaving in a way that everyone will agree with and feel is absolutely "right" but rather, a matter of "lesser of two evils."

Killing is wrong... killing a man who believes and inspires others to kill thousands of innocent people is a "lesser of two evils."


Now, I remember among your first posts you pointed out that the man is a US citizen. AS a US citizen, he should know that there are ways to work to help change the government. He could have run for office, he could have worked in politics, he could have run a "grass roots" movement to help back the sort of people who would help lead America in a direction he may have been more happy with. That's how it is supposed to work.

As he was able to inspire so many to commit violence - not only "regular joe" types off the street but also a man who was in the Army in the US - it's obvious he was some kind of charismatic speaker so IF he had put his energies to changing things in the RIGHT way, maybe things would be different altogether now. As it is, he chose to espouse violence. Given that, what did he, and what do you, expect his personal outcome should have been?

Given that, if he HAD been tried, he WOULD have been found guilty and probably put to death anyhow. He chose his path.

__________________
The Joys of Opticianry

Interesting perspective from Republican Ron Paul

Ron Paul on Anwar al-Awlaki’s Demise: ‘I Think It’s Sad’

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, slammed Obama for Anwar al-Awlaki’s demise on Friday. While Texas Governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry cheered the attack on Awlaki, Paul was highly critical of the US’s role in Awlaki’s demise.

As quoted in The Los Angeles Times, Paul told reporters at a campaign stop at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire that Awlaki’s demise demands serious reflection from Americans. “I don’t think that’s a good way to deal with our problems,” Paul said.

During a videotaped message, Paul pointed out that Awlaki “was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody.” The Texas Congressman added that “if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it’s sad.”

Paul compared the attack on Awlaki to the trial and eventual execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh’s case was different, Paul posited, because he “was put through the courts then executed.” “To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this,” Paul argued.

On the other hand, Perry had some kind words for Obama’s role in Awlaki’s demise. “I want to congratulate the United States military and intelligence communities – and President Obama for sticking with the government’s longstanding and aggressive anti-terror policies – for getting another key international terrorist,” Perry said in a statement.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a propagandist and American-born cleric, was killed by a drone strike in Yemen on Friday. The drone strike was part of a CIA-US military operation that targeted the influential al Qaeda leader. Samir Khan, another influential propagandist, was also killed by the drone strike.

CBS News reports that Awlaki had a number of connections to individuals who committed acts of terrorism in the US. Awlaki was in email communication with Nidal Hasan. Hasan was the US Army Major who killed 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009. Awlaki was also believed to have met with a few of the 9/11 hijackers.

Awlaki’s demise is a significant blow to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. For the US, it’s another victory in the war on terrorism. Despite the decimation of al Qaeda’s leadership, the lone wolf scenario continues to be the biggest threat to US national security. However, Awlaki’s demise will be a major blow to al Qaeda’s ability to reach out to young people.

American-born, Awlaki used his familiarity with Western society to reach out to young Muslims. Fluent in English, Awlaki took advantage of YouTube to spread his message to his followers. Businessweek reports that Awlaki and Khan were able to “radicalize and recruit” Muslims through their magazine “Inspire.”

Awlaki’s message on YouTube reached thousands of young people. Wired.com notes that despite the US government’s appeal to YouTube to remove Awlaki’s videos, some of the jihadist’s videos were still locatable on Friday.

In comments made at Fort Hood, VA and reported by CBS News, President Obama said that Awlaki and Khan’s death “is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world.” Obama added that “working with Yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americans, and to build a world in which people everywhere can live in greater peace, prosperity and security.”

Source