• 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!

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American Citizen

Top Cat said:
Nothing vague about it. You failed to comprehend the post. Just grow a pair and sack up.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The other kids are calling for you to go back to the jungle gym; run along now. :roll:
 
VanceMack said:
Truly amazing. If this were GWB, those opposing the current actions by Obama would be leading the charge. Those championing Obamas anti-terror efforts would be burning Bush in effigy. What a country.

Obama is right to continue the Bush policies re the war on terror. He is right to target specific terrorists. If they happen to have been born on American soil and 'choose' to go to foreign lands to fight for their 'cause', say hello to 'consequence'.
Click to expand...

I would still oppose GWB or any other president in these actions.

1. You are correct, the 16 year old kid was born in America
2. You are incorrect in that he 'chose" to go to foreign lands and 'fight' for their cause
3. Hello consequence
 
hawke812 said:
I would still oppose GWB or any other president in these actions.

1. You are correct, the 16 year old kid was born in America
2. You are incorrect in that he 'chose" to go to foreign lands and 'fight' for their cause
3. Hello consequence
Click to expand...
If you choose to drive drunk and choose to do so with your child in the car you MAY suffer the consequence of arrest and having your child taken by COS. You also MAY hit an oncoming truck and kill yourself and your own child. In either case the choice and responsibility belongs to the individual that chooses to act irresponsibly and in a manner that invites consequence. Obama did not send the 16 year old to the ME to hang out with terrorists. Now...if that 16 year old were home on the stoop in Brooklyn and Obama launched a predator strike to take him out...now we are having a completely different conversation. And Im glad to see you are consistent. In opposition but similarly, I support both Bush AND Obama in their efforts to fight terror.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
If you choose to drive drunk and choose to do so with your5 child in the car you MAY suffer thew consequence of arrest and having your child taken by COS. You also MAY hit an oncoming truck and kill yourself and your own child. In either case the choice and responsibility belongs to the individual that choses to act irresponsibly and in a manner that invites consequence. Obama did not send the 16 year old to the ME to hang out with terrorists. Now...if that 16 year old were home on the stoop in Brooklyn and Obama launched a predator strike to take him out...now we are having a completely different conversation. And Im glad to see you are consistent. In opposition but similarly, I support both Bush AND Obama in their efforts to fight terror.
Click to expand...

From the article/video:

<Robert Gibbs defended the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists.>

This right here is my problem with their "fight on terror". It is not a matter of personal choice & consequence. Obama (administration) has shown a complete lack of regard for civilian casualties. This does not help our cause at all. It only incites more violence and unnecessarily prolongs the war. The killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki perfectly shows the administration's mindset.

The more we disregard civilian casualties, friends and family will take up arms against us, as anyone in that situation would. This means a longer war, and more American lives lost. You can keep supporting this all you want. I will keep voicing my concerns of actions that lead to an endless circle of violence.
 
hawke812 said:
From the article/video:

<Robert Gibbs defended the strike, not by arguing that the kid was a threat, or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists.>

This right here is my problem with their "fight on terror". It is not a matter of personal choice & consequence. Obama (administration) has shown a complete lack of regard for civilian casualties. This does not help our cause at all. It only incites more violence and unnecessarily prolongs the war. The killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki perfectly shows the administration's mindset.

The more we disregard civilian casualties, friends and family will take up arms against us, as anyone in that situation would. This means a longer war, and more American lives lost. You can keep supporting this all you want. I will keep voicing my concerns of actions that lead to an endless circle of violence.
Click to expand...
I got news for you. It is entirely unlikely that dood was hanging out with unconcerned innocent civilians. Its also highly unlikely that they lobbed a missile at an anonymous gathering of innocent civilians.
 
VanceMack said:
I got news for you. It is entirely unlikely that dood was hanging out with unconcerned innocent civilians. Its also highly unlikely that they lobbed a missile at an anonymous gathering of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

It is beyond unlikely that the drone killings are legal. It is certain that they are in violation of US and international law.

Those who defend it are morally and legally confused.
 
Henry David said:
It is beyond unlikely that the drone killings are legal. It is certain that they are in violation of US and international law.

Those who defend it are morally and legally confused.
Click to expand...
All you have to do is cite the law they are violating and then bring them up in international courts. Me...Im all for taking out terrorists.
 
VanceMack said:
All you have to do is cite the law they are violating and then bring them up in international courts. Me...Im all for taking out terrorists.
Click to expand...

I cannot afford to take them to international courts, even though a fair number of Europeans and others are talking about it.

If you're all for taking out terrorists, you might check out the District of Columbia. For your goal, that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. ;)
 
Henry David said:
I cannot afford to take them to international courts, even though a fair number of Europeans and others are talking about it.

If you're all for taking out terrorists, you might check out the District of Columbia. For your goal, that would be like shooting fish in a barrel. ;)
Click to expand...
Within our borders we ARE taking out terrorists. In the ME...same thing. Let the Euros take it to the international courts all they want.
 
VanceMack said:
I got news for you. It is entirely unlikely that dood was hanging out with unconcerned innocent civilians. Its also highly unlikely that they lobbed a missile at an anonymous gathering of innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

Also from the article:

U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities.

You should really read the article:lol:

The problem here is the government is not even sure who they are killing in drone strikes. As I have stated, complete disregard for human lives, civilian casualties. Oversight is sorely needed.
 
hawke812 said:
Also from the article:

U.S. drones are targeting people who've never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States. Take Pakistan, where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities.

You should really read the article:lol:

The problem here is the government is not even sure who they are killing in drone strikes. As I have stated, complete disregard for human lives, civilian casualties. Oversight is sorely needed.
Click to expand...

And you should quote the entire article...not just the snippets you like. In that same paragraph the article states the are targeting terror groups...not random unknown innocent Pakistanis.
 
VanceMack said:
And you should quote the entire article...not just the snippets you like. In that same paragraph the article states the are targeting terror groups...not random unknown innocent Pakistanis.
Click to expand...

One needs to be identified first before being placed in a terror group:lol:
 
hawke812 said:
One needs to be identified first before being placed in a terror group:lol:
Click to expand...
Known terror groups are identified by using intel resources. I get that you find it hard to grasp, but we actually have a lot of HUMINT and other forces providing intel and it is entirely unrealistic to wait til you can walk up to someone in a mountain camp in in Pakistan and say "I say there, chap...you wouldnt happen to be a terrorist would you?"
 
VanceMack said:
Known terror groups are identified by using intel resources. I get that you find it hard to grasp, but we actually have a lot of HUMINT and other forces providing intel and it is entirely unrealistic to wait til you can walk up to someone in a mountain camp in in Pakistan and say "I say there, chap...you wouldnt happen to be a terrorist would you?"
Click to expand...

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not part of a terrorist group. He was a minor, an American citizen. A civilian.

The government killed one of it's own citizens. A civilian. There is no proof he was involved with any terrorist groups, nor was he involved in terrorist activity at the time of his death.

We clear so far? This one story right here disproves and invalidates everything you have been saying. No amount of spin on your part can change the facts.
 
hawke812 said:
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was not part of a terrorist group. He was a minor, an American citizen. A civilian.

The government killed one of it's own citizens. A civilian. There is no proof he was involved with any terrorist groups, nor was he involved in terrorist activity at the time of his death.

We clear so far? This one story right here disproves and invalidates everything you have been saying. No amount of spin on your part can change the facts.
Click to expand...

The gov can kill a thousand of them if they are chillin in terrorist camps in the ME.
 
VanceMack said:
The gov can kill a thousand of them if they are chillin in terrorist camps in the ME.
Click to expand...

1. Once again, this is not the issue. No one ever said they <can't> (at least not me). Maybe I or someone else said they should not be able to without oversight, but that is totally different from <they can't>. Theoretically they <can> do <anything> really. What is your point?

2. What do you mean by <terrorist camps>? The places where terrorists train?
 
hawke812 said:
1. Once again, this is not the issue. No one ever said they <can't> (at least not me). Maybe I or someone else said they should not be able to without oversight, but that is totally different from <they can't>. Theoretically they <can> do <anything> really. What is your point?

2. What do you mean by <terrorist camps>? The places where terrorists train?
Click to expand...
Terrorist camps are the places where intel sources indicate they are camping, residing, training, or whatever. I think you believe that the administration is merely launching drone attacks at anything that moves and NOT merely acting on actionable intel.
 
VanceMack said:
Terrorist camps are the places where intel sources indicate they are camping, residing, training, or whatever. I think you believe that the administration is merely launching drone attacks at anything that moves and NOT merely acting on actionable intel.
Click to expand...

Drone strikes on first responders? At funerals? No civilians here, only terrorists. Keep drinking the kool-aid kid:lol:

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com

<But it concludes that drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.
"A significant rethinking of current U.S. targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue," it says. "U.S. policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of U.S. targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.">

Other links:

Drone 'Double Tap' Targets First Responders - Business Insider

Report Cites High Civilian Toll in Pakistan Drone Strikes - NYTimes.com
 
hawke812 said:
Obama (administration) has shown a complete lack of regard for civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer the WWII alternative that gave the world Dresden and Hiroshima?
 
VanceMack said:
Terrorist camps are the places where intel sources indicate they are camping, residing, training, or whatever. I think you believe that the administration is merely launching drone attacks at anything that moves and NOT merely acting on actionable intel.
Click to expand...

Here is another one:

Drone strike kills 13 civilians — RT

Suspected U.S. drone strike kills civilians in Yemen, officials say - CNN.com

How about that intel! No terrorist, all civilians. Hmm, could this be due to them not identifying their targets? Oh wait nooo way, WAR ON TERROR! AMERICA! YEAH!

Yeah, keep on trying buddy. You are doing a fine job:lol:
 
hawke812 said:
Here is another one:

Drone strike kills 13 civilians — RT

Suspected U.S. drone strike kills civilians in Yemen, officials say - CNN.com

How about that intel! No terrorist, all civilians. Hmm, could this be due to them not identifying their targets? Oh wait nooo way, WAR ON TERROR! AMERICA! YEAH!

Yeah, keep on trying buddy. You are doing a fine job:lol:
Click to expand...
Both of your articles cited the same strike. So...2 points...1-Take it up with the Yemen government that authorized the airstrike. 2-"A senior Defense Ministry official said the strike initially targeted two members of al-Thahab clan who lead the terror network's operations in the province. He said the militants were in a vehicle near the one that was hit, and fled unharmed."
 
hawke812 said:
Here is another one:

Drone strike kills 13 civilians — RT

Suspected U.S. drone strike kills civilians in Yemen, officials say - CNN.com

How about that intel! No terrorist, all civilians. Hmm, could this be due to them not identifying their targets? Oh wait nooo way, WAR ON TERROR! AMERICA! YEAH!

Yeah, keep on trying buddy. You are doing a fine job:lol:
Click to expand...

Civilian causualties have been steadily dropping. Would you rather we returned to "shock and awe"? We can't leave them alone to plot.

types%20of%20deaths%2010-01-2012.jpg


The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net
 
hawke812 said:
Drone strikes on first responders? At funerals? No civilians here, only terrorists. Keep drinking the kool-aid kid:lol:

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com

<But it concludes that drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.
"A significant rethinking of current U.S. targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue," it says. "U.S. policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of U.S. targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.">

Other links:

Drone 'Double Tap' Targets First Responders - Business Insider

Report Cites High Civilian Toll in Pakistan Drone Strikes - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...
Im afraid you are the one drinking the koolaid. You take one or two lines and a misleading headline and use that as your 'evidence'. There is no 'targeting' of first responders. The drones launch two missiles at the target.

Did you watch the video? Do you consider that an unbiased source?

Best way for drone attacks to stop...stop housing and hiding terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Diogenes said:
Would you prefer the WWII alternative that gave the world Dresden and Hiroshima?
Click to expand...

If you can read my previous posts, I have already stated we need congressional oversight. That is actually what this whole thread is about, abusing executive powers.

And I see what you are doing. We have a bad situation, and you offer a worse situation. Very lame attempt to change the subject:lol:

I see a few flaws with your suggestion.

First, the US was officially at war with Germany and Japan. We are not at war with Pakistan or Yemen.

Second, these drone attacks are being conducted by the CIA 'secretly' with no congressional oversight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom