Yemen says U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed

Grant said:

You don't have a case. You were clearly behaved dishonestly and there is absolutely no doubt about it.

Click to expand...

If the argument is about taking a quote out of context, I have problems:

1. I was unaware of any conventions about reposting comments in entierty. It seems pretty common practice to copy only relevant sections. Clearly it would be dishonest to change someone's words.

2. It is my contention that the "wrap a towel around your head" and "al-dirtbag" comments are unacceptable regaurdless of context. Thus, I was in no way being dishonest, since no context (other than direct opposition or third-part quotation) makes those comments acceptable. Besides, 82s full comments are now on this thread in two places.

nijato said:

If the argument is about taking a quote out of context, I have problems:

1. I was unaware of any conventions about reposting comments in entierty. It seems pretty common practice to copy only relevant sections. Clearly it would be dishonest to change someone's words.

Click to expand...

You and I are not friends. We are antagonists on the opposite side of every issue. Except this one. I agree with you. You did no wrong in cutting and pasting only the part of his post you were commenting on.

For all of the others, relax.

Misterveritis said:

Originally Posted by nijato

If the argument is about taking a quote out of context, I have problems:

Click to expand...

1. I was unaware of any conventions about reposting comments in entierty. It seems pretty common practice to copy only relevant sections. Clearly it would be dishonest to change someone's words

You and I are not friends. We are antagonists on the opposite side of every issue. Except this one. I agree with you. You did no wrong in cutting and pasting only the part of his post you were commenting on.

For all of the others, relax.

Click to expand...

Incorrect both. Nijato, by chopping the quote, you changed its context. Reread it both of you. Without someone pointing out that you had chopped it, no one is going to know the context unless they go back and dig it up. It is known as a falsehood by omission, as labeled. Its like being a liar.

Secondly, neither of you are the determinants of what is "acceptable" here. The Mods are the arbiters, based on the rules.

Most importantly, you did not label it as "unacceptable". You distorted it by chopping it, then called it a bunch of silly whining lib nonsense. The Mod warning was strongly aimed at you Nijato.

nijato said:

1. I was unaware of any conventions about reposting comments in entierty. It seems pretty common practice to copy only relevant sections. Clearly it would be dishonest to change someone's words.

Click to expand...

You needn't be aware of any "conventions". It s simply honorable to try and get the context and intent of what the person on the other side is saying. Some feel that changing the words in another persons post is acceptable as well. These people tend to belong to the same political persuasion.

2. It is my contention that the "wrap a towel around your head" and "al-dirtbag" comments are unacceptable regaurdless of context.

Click to expand...

Who cares what you think? You don't distort the intent of what the other person is saying according to what you think.

Thus, I was in no way being dishonest, since no context (other than direct opposition or third-part quotation) makes those comments acceptable

Click to expand...

.

Of course you were being dishonest and that fact is being broadly recognized.

Besides, 82s full comments are now on this thread in two places.

Click to expand...

Not relevant.

Eighty Deuce said:

Incorrect both. Nijato, by chopping the quote, you changed its context. Reread it both of you. Without someone pointing out that you had chopped it, no one is going to know the context unless they go back and dig it up. It is known as a falsehood by omission, as labeled. Its like being a liar.

Secondly, neither of you are the determinants of what is "acceptable" here. The Mods are the arbiters, based on the rules.

Most importantly, you did not label it as "unacceptable". You distorted it by chopping it, then called it a bunch of silly whining lib nonsense. The Mod warning was strongly aimed at you Nijato.

Click to expand...

Funny. I don't like Nijato. He nearly always grates on me. On the other hand I do like you. I agree with you far more often than I disagree.
in this case I disagree. I do t believe he changed the context. I do not believe he was lying. I do not believe it is inappropriate.

I can certainly think for myself about what is or is not appropriate, whether I have any power to enforce my beliefs or not.

Misterveritis said:

Funny. I don't like Nijato. He nearly always grates on me. On the other hand I do like you. I agree with you far more often than I disagree.
in this case I disagree. I do t believe he changed the context. I do not believe he was lying. I do not believe it is inappropriate.

I can certainly think for myself about what is or is not appropriate, whether I have any power to enforce my beliefs or not.

Click to expand...

It is pretty easy to see that the context is changed from taking just the snippet, vs the entire quote. I worded my post as a sequence of events not to follow. I clearly stated it as a sequence. What Nijato did was not only snip it, but more importatntly, in presenting, and then criticizing, as they did, made the decision that other readers didn't need to see the sequence so as to make their own decision.

I would suggest you do a little searching about basic consepts of dishonesty as well. Everyone seems to be familiar with the direct telling of a lie, that being "falsehood by commission". Too many ignore the flip side of the same coin, that being "falsehood by omission", which is to exclude so as to deliberately distort and mislead.

And then, since you embrace what is a clearly mistaken and warped view by that poster on this, you are also challenging my referral to Al-Alwaqi as "Al-Dirtbag", which was claimed as "unacceptable" and other rubbish by the leftwad. Apparently I am disrespecting someone who we both agree deserves to be dead. Someone who tried to kill American citizens. A real scumbag. But God forbid, or apparently "Allah forbid" with a few of the left-pukes, that I trash his name ?

You really want to hitch your horse there ?

Eighty Deuce said:

It is pretty easy to see that the context is changed from taking just the snippet, vs the entire quote. I worded my post as a sequence of events not to follow. I clearly stated it as a sequence. What Nijato did was not only snip it, but more importatntly, in presenting, and then criticizing, as they did, made the decision that other readers didn't need to see the sequence so as to make their own decision.

Click to expand...

I understood your argument about how he selected that part of your statement he intended to comment on. I have no problem with anyone who does so. He did not change your words did he?

Eighty Deuce said:

I would suggest you do a little searching about basic concepts of dishonesty as well. Everyone seems to be familiar with the direct telling of a lie, that being "falsehood by commission". Too many ignore the flip side of the same coin, that being "falsehood by omission", which is to exclude so as to deliberately distort and mislead.

Click to expand...

Sure. This did not happen. He did not distort what you wrote.

Eighty Deuce said:

And then, since you embrace what is a clearly mistaken and warped view by that poster on this, you are also challenging my referral to Al-Alwaqi as "Al-Dirtbag", which was claimed as "unacceptable" and other rubbish by the leftwad. Apparently I am disrespecting someone who we both agree deserves to be dead. Someone who tried to kill American citizens. A real scumbag. But God forbid, or apparently "Allah forbid" with a few of the left-pukes, that I trash his name ?

You really want to hitch your horse there ?

Click to expand...

I did not agree with his position. I did agree with his quoting mechanics. I wish all people responding would pare down the original to just what is being responded to.

Misterveritis said:

I understood your argument about how he selected that part of your statement he intended to comment on. I have no problem with anyone who does so. He did not change your words did he?

Sure. This did not happen. He did not distort what you wrote.

I did not agree with his position. I did agree with his quoting mechanics. I wish all people responding would pare down the original to just what is being responded to.

Click to expand...

Perhaps if you make a post, where you are conveying a thought using several sentences, and someone then comes along and takes only a snippet, several pages later, then violates forum rules while also characterizing you as being "hateful ... blah .. blah .. blah", we wil see if you do not feel it was appropriate for the entire thought to have been pasted as written, at least to allow for others to evaluate what you wrote, and not the editing of another so as to exclude the body of thought you conveyed.

And if I see it, I will say "I told you so".

Eighty Deuce said:

Perhaps if you make a post, where you are conveying a thought using several sentences, and someone then comes along and takes only a snippet, several pages later, then violates forum rules while also characterizing you as being "hateful ... blah .. blah .. blah", we wil see if you do not feel it was appropriate for the entire thought to have been pasted as written, at least to allow for others to evaluate what you wrote, and not the editing of another so as to exclude the body of thought you conveyed.

And if I see it, I will say "I told you so".

Click to expand...

LOL. I would shrug it off.

apdst said:

Unless, you're operating as an international terrorist, whose hell bent on destroying the country. In that case, you get a side-winder in your ass, while you're eating supper.

Click to expand...

Nah, man. We're supposed to get a warrant before we go up to every hadj brandishing an RPG, and a box of explosives, read them their rights, then peacefully take them to the US to stand trial, and serve their time in a correctional facilityafter being sentenced by a jury of his peers. That's totally how war works, just ask the guys that went through Sadr City.

Military targets don't get Due Process, they don't get trials, they don't get bail, or even a last meal. They get eliminated to fulfill the mission objectives. Al-Awlaki became an objective the moment he began recruiting for AQ, and being a part of attacks on US civilians. He was a component of the enemy's ranks. He wasn't killed as an American, but as an agent of Al-Qaeda.

Misterveritis said:

Funny. I don't like Nijato. He nearly always grates on me. On the other hand I do like you. I agree with you far more often than I disagree.
in this case I disagree. I do t believe he changed the context. I do not believe he was lying. I do not believe it is inappropriate.

I can certainly think for myself about what is or is not appropriate, whether I have any power to enforce my beliefs or not.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the support from an unexpected place! And yes, you would be near the last person I would have looked to for it. I'll keep looking really hard to find something you're right about and return the favor

Grant said:

You needn't be aware of any "conventions". It s simply honorable to try and get the context and intent of what the person on the other side is saying. Some feel that changing the words in another persons post is acceptable as well. These people tend to belong to the same political persuasion.


Who cares what you think? You don't distort the intent of what the other person is saying according to what you think.
.

Of course you were being dishonest and that fact is being broadly recognized.


Not relevant.

Click to expand...

I feel like this has just about exhausted itself. For one last time, I will attempt to defend myself from the claim of dishonesty. Clearly, people disagree about substantive issues, but my pesonal character is being mailgned here.

So, if you are of the oppinion that my truncating of 82s post was too severe and that important context was lost, fine. Point conceeded. My doing so was not dishonest even if you believe that.

As I explained previously, I did not include context because it was irrelevant to my point - no matter what that context was. So, you may think my reasoning is faulty, or I am the evil liberal menace or whatever, but the fact of the matter is I made no attempt to decieve anyone. As far as my point, the "wrap a towel around your head" and "al-dirtbag" phrases would be pejorative in any context, excepting opposition.

I'm sure there are myriad ways my arguments and assertions can be undermined, but dishonesty is one that will never accurately do so.

And lastly, I do sincerely apologise for any hurt feelings of the thin-skinned; such was not my intent. I sometimes have a visceral reaction to percieved hatespeech that might be over-reactive.

nijato said:

Thanks for the support from an unexpected place! And yes, you would be near the last person I would have looked to for it. I'll keep looking really hard to find something you're right about and return the favor

Click to expand...

Ha. I cannot imagine that we would ever find anything we would agree on. But do look. Who knows.

Khayembii Communique said:

If you violate the rights of others, you are breaking the law and indicted.

Click to expand...

Congress signed an Authorization of Use of Military Force in 2001, making the killing of Al-Awlaki legal. Al-Awlaki was a recruiter for Al-Qaeda, and collaborated at least three other terrorist attacks, including the shooting at FT Hood. He was a legitimate military target. His American citizenship is irrelevant, since he was actively fighting for the war-time enemies of the United States.

If it makes you feel any better, the Yemeni government began an in absentia trial. The judge put out an order of arrest, declaring that he was to be brought in dead or alive. We chose dead.

nijato said:

I feel like this has just about exhausted itself. For one last time, I will attempt to defend myself from the claim of dishonesty. Clearly, people disagree about substantive issues, but my pesonal character is being mailgned here.

So, if you are of the oppinion that my truncating of 82s post was too severe and that important context was lost, fine. Point conceeded. My doing so was not dishonest even if you believe that.

As I explained previously, I did not include context because it was irrelevant to my point - no matter what that context was. So, you may think my reasoning is faulty, or I am the evil liberal menace or whatever, but the fact of the matter is I made no attempt to decieve anyone. As far as my point, the "wrap a towel around your head" and "al-dirtbag" phrases would be pejorative in any context, excepting opposition.

I'm sure there are myriad ways my arguments and assertions can be undermined, but dishonesty is one that will never accurately do so.

And lastly, I do sincerely apologise for any hurt feelings of the thin-skinned; such was not my intent. I sometimes have a visceral reaction to percieved hatespeech that might be over-reactive.

Click to expand...

Then lets let it go at that.

lpast said:

BTW has anyone determined beyond a doubt that were purposely targeting that one individual...or did they target that area and he being an american hater and terrorist as he is...just happened to be there...

Click to expand...

They were targeting him solely (U.S. Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - NYTimes.com)

Lokiate said:

Congress signed an Authorization of Use of Military Force in 2001, making the killing of Al-Awlaki legal. Al-Awlaki was a recruiter for Al-Qaeda, and collaborated at least three other terrorist attacks, including the shooting at FT Hood. He was a legitimate military target. His American citizenship is irrelevant, since he was actively fighting for the war-time enemies of the United States.

If it makes you feel any better, the Yemeni government began an in absentia trial. The judge put out an order of arrest, declaring that he was to be brought in dead or alive. We chose dead.

Click to expand...

I thought his emails with the fort hood dude where religious councel in nature. Do you know the content of them? As in did he actually instruct the Fort Hood guy to do anything bad?

Now it turns out 2 americans where killed in the drone attacks. Some writer for Inspire Magazine. A magazine that is reported to be a mouthpiece of AQ. News says Inspire magazine chides the Pres of Iran on lying about 9/11 yet this Al-Awlaki publicly denounces 9/11. Do you consider someone that writes for a magazine (maybe a magazine with extreme content) as a key operational figure for AQ?



Anwar al-Awlaki: NYC on alert over possible revenge attacks after Al Qaeda boss killed | Mail Online





After fully reading this next article it seems like speculation and the CIA run the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html


I wonder how many of the New York protestors are being sent to secret prisons for rioting around a time when a suspected US terrorist was killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/w...al-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all

Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.
-----------------------------------

The memorandum examined whether it was relevant that Mr. Awlaki was in Yemen, far from Afghanistan. It concluded that Mr. Awlaki’s geographical distance from the so-called hot battlefield did not preclude him from the armed conflict; given his presumed circumstances, the United States still had a right to use force to defend itself against him.

As to whether it would violate Yemen’s sovereignty to fire a missile at someone on Yemeni soil, Yemen’s president secretly granted the United States that permission, as secret diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks have revealed.

Click to expand...

So lemme get this staight... Because the US is having armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq the US can target people in Yemen because its "close enough"?

But that raised another pressing question: would it comply with the laws of war if the drone operator who fired the missile was a Central Intelligence Agency official, who, unlike a soldier, wore no uniform? The memorandum concluded that such a case would not be a war crime, although the operator might be in theoretical jeopardy of being prosecuted in a Yemeni court for violating Yemen’s domestic laws against murder, a highly unlikely possibility.

Click to expand...

So now the war on terror (fighting the guys with no uniforms) is being executed by warhawks not in uniform to subvert warcrime laws?

These fools cant even awnser basic questions. What is the point of this guy being a go-to guy for awnsers if he cant awnser crap?



If the assassinated was a proven member of an extreemist group called "The Muslim Brotherhood" why would he denouce 9-11?