• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drone Targets Yemeni Cleric

I haven't thought much about exactly where the line is, but I think taliban johnny should have been summarily executed on the battlefield - intel be damned.

If it was my call...

Ladies and gentlemen (and I use the terms loosely), we have an American on the field and he is wearing the wrong uniform. And he's shooting in the wrong direction. What do we do about that? *bang*

You think his intel value was irrelevant?
 
It's not capital punishment. It is a matter of national security. He's a threat, even captive. It sends the message: "Fire on us and we will not take you back".

The intel is not worth being soft on battlefield treason.
 
Last edited:
It's not capital punishment. It is a matter of national security. He's a threat. It sends the message: "Fire on us and we will not take you back".

The intel is not worth being soft on battlefield treason.

I'd perhaps try him for treason after extracting whatever intel I could from him.
 
You just caught a guy with enemy in organized attack against US troops and you want to give him a trial for treason?

Just for fun? Are you a lawyer? What's this about? The dude just shot at you and your friends, on the battlefield.



We could argue about the intel, but I think giving a damn about it is disrespectful.
 
Last edited:
I think information that can potentially save additional lives is worth more than summarily meting out punishment/vengeance. That's just me though.
 
I don't see it as punishment or vengeance but as a matter of national security and justified in self defense.
 
You are rapidly moving to a global assassination policy toward anyone the state sees as troublemakers. What if other rogue states should do likewise?
 
Nice try but no points.

Hopefully they will get a chance to shoot Anwar al-Awhackie in the head.
 
You are rapidly moving to a global assassination policy toward anyone the state sees as troublemakers. What if other rogue states should do likewise?

When we start sending drones after Imanutjob, Kim Jong Il, and Qaddaffi I'll take this statement more seriously. Two men who have admitted to having a hand in attacks on our soil, against American citizens need to be stopped. Killing is almost essential, as imprisoning them is way too risky.
 
You are rapidly moving to a global assassination policy toward anyone the state sees as troublemakers. What if other rogue states should do likewise?

Osama bin Laden was hardly "just a troublemaker." He essentially waged war on our soil. When we move towards political assassinations, you may have a point.
 
Osama bin Laden was hardly "just a troublemaker." He essentially waged war on our soil. When we move towards political assassinations, you may have a point.

When did this become about OBL?
 
You are rapidly moving to a global assassination policy toward anyone the state sees as troublemakers. What if other rogue states should do likewise?

Manc giving his opinion, right or wrong, is THE American value that makes us free.

What, I see are rogues states accelerating the pace of their nuclear weapons programs to counter, the *getting whacked all over the globe syndrome*
 
Bah, we are at war. They are actively trying to kill us via airplanes, package bombs, and blowing stuff up. We are actively trying to kill them, including their leaders. They use bombs. We use missles.

There's nothing wrong with going after the enemy's command and control personnel. That has been SOP for every war since before Jesus was a glint in God's eye.

I'm just sorry we missed the turd.
 
Last edited:
Tricky...what language is necessary to qualify Awlaki's actions as treason, thereby justifying an attempt on his capture/life.

We don't need to try him for treason. Murder is sufficient. The problem is that drones cannot accept a surrender.
 
We don't need to try him for treason. Murder is sufficient. The problem is that drones cannot accept a surrender.

As I said in another post we owe this scum bag and most of the rest not one damn thing. I like the kill or capture list, and that kill comes first.

It is beyond me how any American can grow up be to Anti- American like this guy or like so many in Obama's Administration.

I get it when it comes to Obama because he was raised by Communists, and surrounded himself with them in college. He seems to have done the right thing this time.

Everyone in my generation had a father uncle or close family friend that fought, died, or was injured in WW-II and know a little history of the over 1.2 million who served, and the 406,000 killed (including 6,000 merchant marine civilians;) 600,000 Wounded; 5,600 American civilians where killed in this war, mostly of them Merchant Marine Sailors that died in convoy wars, and ammo accidents. And I don't believe there is one of them who is not a patriot and for the most part not many of the Wildly wacko Liberals who show up on these pages.
 
When we start sending drones after Imanutjob, Kim Jong Il, and Qaddaffi I'll take this statement more seriously. Two men who have admitted to having a hand in attacks on our soil, against American citizens need to be stopped. Killing is almost essential, as imprisoning them is way too risky.

So if the UK sends drones after the IRA fundraisers in Boston and New York, It'll be cool with you?
 
Back
Top Bottom