Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 262 of 262
Like Tree96Likes

Thread: Obama using drone attacks to kill Americans, american children and "first responders"

  1. #201  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Maybe I'm wrong jumping in here. Because I am thoroughly confused, now. If the event did not happen on U.S. Soil, what purpose is there in pointing out that Holder admitted that killing citizens on U.S. Soil in that manner is unconstitutional?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Maybe I'm wrong jumping in here. Because I am thoroughly confused, now. If the event did not happen on U.S. Soil, what purpose is there in pointing out that Holder admitted that killing citizens on U.S. Soil in that manner is unconstitutional?
    You should look at a video of the exchange or a full transcript. Cruz was trying to find out what the guidelines would be for attacking terrorists who are US citizens on US soil. Holder did his best to avoid a direct answer, until he was pinned down. That's why I say he admitted that it would be unconstitutional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You should look at a video of the exchange or a full transcript. Cruz was trying to find out what the guidelines would be for attacking terrorists who are US citizens on US soil. Holder did his best to avoid a direct answer, until he was pinned down. That's why I say he admitted that it would be unconstitutional.
    But it's a red herring.

    If that's purely hypothetical and not what happened- why bother with it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You should look at a video of the exchange or a full transcript. Cruz was trying to find out what the guidelines would be for attacking terrorists who are US citizens on US soil. Holder did his best to avoid a direct answer, until he was pinned down. That's why I say he admitted that it would be unconstitutional.
    But it's a red herring.

    If that's purely hypothetical and not what happened- why bother with it?
    Don't you want to know what your constitutional rights are? Doesn't it bother you if the president thinks he can kill you without a trial?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Unfortunately one cannot discuss or debate with blind dedicated followers. You show them the sun and they will call it the moon. The people they follow can do and say anything and they will defend them, their actions and words in any and all ways they can. The mind is a funny thing sometimes.

    It is wrong to redefine imminent threat, terrorist, combatant, due process, ect..
    It is wrong to target and bomb 16 year old american kids.
    It is wrong to target and bomb cafe's.
    It is wrong to target and kill children.
    It is wrong to target and bomb first responders.
    It is wrong to target and bomb funerals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Don't you want to know what your constitutional rights are?
    How is that relevatn to a Red Herring?
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Doesn't it bother you if the president thinks he can kill you without a trial?
    I would think he does not think he can kill me without trial. However, he may think, like a mod on a net forum might think, that a very undesirable member being eliminated won't inspire many tears.
    I do not disagree with the principle you argue from.
    But I also think you cannot assume the president has gone bat shit crazy and is out to kill us all, either.
    Did he overstep his bounds? Sure.
    But I'm just not that despondent over a known al qaida supporter/member being bumped off. Now... if he bumped off Ron Paul (Whom I do not agree with much politically) I would have good cause to be up in arms over it.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is wrong to redefine imminent threat, terrorist, combatant, due process, ect..
    It is wrong to bomb 16 year old american kids.
    It is wrong to bomb cafe's.
    It is wrong to target and kill children.
    It is wrong to bomb first responders.
    It is wrong to bomb funerals.
    Wrong by what absolute?
    Realistically, it's all good to eliminate known threats. The point of contention seems to be whether or not he gets a trial before he's executed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    In neither of those cases are the combatants engaged in warfare with the USA. You seem to keep missing this key point. This isn't just civil or criminal action, but war. Why is this so difficult for you to understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Unfortunately one cannot discuss or debate with blind dedicated followers.
    True - but I will keep trying to debate you.

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You show them the sun and they will call it the moon.
    And then they blame Obama for extinguishing the sun.
    Go figure.


    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The people they follow can do and say anything and they will defend them, their actions and words in any and all ways they can.
    Even to the point of using twitter as evidence.
    Crazy, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is wrong to redefine imminent threat, terrorist, combatant, due process, ect..
    It is wrong to target and bomb 16 year old american kids.
    It is wrong to target and bomb cafe's.
    It is wrong to target and kill children.
    It is wrong to target and bomb first responders.
    It is wrong to target and bomb funerals.
    With the exception of targeting and bombing cafes, do you have anything other than Twitter to show that any of these things happened?
    Please note your own use of the word 'target'.
    For a start: please show some evidence that Obama has ordered the targeting and killing of first responders - and please, not just some twitter feed.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Never posted twitter. Just because the government calls someone a threat, it does not make them one. The excuses and blind support given advocating for these powers to be used is something some of you guys and gals have to live with.

    Remember, always, some of you supported and wanted Obama to kill and continue to kill people in these ways and under his new definitions. Dont cry when future presidents and their admins use the same powers and twist/redefine words and meanings.
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neveryfly, Obama might not want you or people like you dead, after all, you are supporting him. However, by his definition you are a combatant, an imminent threat, and the next admin might classify you and/or some in your party as extremist.

    You support the new definitions created by Obama. You support no due process. You support the executive branch being able to label, lock up and kill whomever they want. This is a power the white house will keep if not stopped now.
    Last edited by gonzales56; March 13th, 2013 at 04:34 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Never posted twitter. Just because the government calls someone a threat, it does not make them one. The excuses and blind support given advocating for these powers to be used is something some of you guys and gals have to live with.

    Remember, always, some of you supported and wanted Obama to kill and continue to kill people in these ways and under his new definitions. Dont cry when future presidents and their admins use the same powers and twist/redefine words and meanings.
    You mean like the way you've been crying and using an emotionally based argument this entire thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Don't you want to know what your constitutional rights are?
    How is that relevatn to a Red Herring?
    I don't see how you are calling it a red herring. It is right in line with the OP. A white paper surfaced which contained the administration's guidelines for killing suspected terrorists. These guidelines have a very loose definition of imminent threat, which causes serious concern by the ACLU (not a right wing anti-Obama organization) for our constitutional right of due process. It seems natural to find out how those guidelines would apply within US borders.

    If we have a government which does not respect constitutional rights we may as well not have them. If the people don't stand up for the Constitution, we're going to lose it. I can't make you care about that, but it's sad if you don't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Doesn't it bother you if the president thinks he can kill you without a trial?
    I would think he does not think he can kill me without trial. However, he may think, like a mod on a net forum might think, that a very undesirable member being eliminated won't inspire many tears.
    I do not disagree with the principle you argue from.
    But I also think you cannot assume the president has gone bat shit crazy and is out to kill us all, either.
    Did he overstep his bounds? Sure.
    But I'm just not that despondent over a known al qaida supporter/member being bumped off. Now... if he bumped off Ron Paul (Whom I do not agree with much politically) I would have good cause to be up in arms over it.
    It's not only about Obama. Whatever liberties Obama takes with our rights, all subsequent presidents will also claim. It's not too far of a stretch to see some future president using those powers to kill off their political opponents. You already see politicians accusing one another of treason, don't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's not only about Obama. Whatever liberties Obama takes with our rights, all subsequent presidents will also claim. It's not too far of a stretch to see some future president using those powers to kill off their political opponents. You already see politicians accusing one another of treason, don't you?
    Yeah god forbid that the republicans join Al-Qeada in this ongoing war. What a dishonest manner to represent this current state of affairs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's not only about Obama. Whatever liberties Obama takes with our rights, all subsequent presidents will also claim. It's not too far of a stretch to see some future president using those powers to kill off their political opponents. You already see politicians accusing one another of treason, don't you?
    Yeah god forbid that the republicans join Al-Qeada in this ongoing war. What a dishonest manner to represent this current state of affairs.
    Republicans can use Obama's playbook an classify political groups as extremist, thats always a possibility.

    Since everyone and anyone can now be classified as an imminent threat and a combatant, and due process means the president and his people can be your judge, jury and executionor, you might want to take this more serious.

    Republicans, like Obama, are going to use these new powers. Unfortunately, you trust politicians and think very highly of them, seeing nothing wrong with these new powers and new defintions.
    Harold14370 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Maybe I'm wrong jumping in here. Because I am thoroughly confused, now. If the event did not happen on U.S. Soil, what purpose is there in pointing out that Holder admitted that killing citizens on U.S. Soil in that manner is unconstitutional?
    All of the US is defined as a warzone and battlefield in this war on terror. They just wanted Obama's justice department to state their policy towards people in the US. Obama had refused for years to state that he would not drop bombs on people in the US. He can, by his own definition, and so can future admins, just call americans an imminent threat and kill them by any and all means, including drone strikes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neveryfly, Obama might not want you or people like you dead, after all, you are supporting him.
    I did not vote for Obama, nor does he gain much political support from me, either in finance, action, voting or expressed political opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You support the new definitions created by Obama. You support no due process. You support the executive branch being able to label, lock up and kill whomever they want. This is a power the white house will keep if not stopped now.
    Support is a strong word.
    I don't necessarily disagree with what you just said. I just also think that the definition is not anywhere near as broad as you claim. This was not some innocent kid caught in the crossfire. Your best argument is of proper due course, but it is not one of creating a circumstance where all of us suddenly qualify as terrorists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't see how you are calling it a red herring.
    Because you pointed to it as an admission, yet the scenario was one that never actually happened. It is hypothetical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If we have a government which does not respect constitutional rights we may as well not have them.
    Valid point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If the people don't stand up for the Constitution, we're going to lose it. I can't make you care about that, but it's sad if you don't.
    You are right- it would be sad if I didn't. I do agree we must stand up for it. But claiming he admitted to something that didn't happen as unconstitutional is still a red herring. It didn't happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's not only about Obama. Whatever liberties Obama takes with our rights, all subsequent presidents will also claim. It's not too far of a stretch to see some future president using those powers to kill off their political opponents. You already see politicians accusing one another of treason, don't you?
    Now, come on, Harold... It is a far stretch to say they will murder political opposition.

    Here's why- the U.S. citizens might tolerate a bit of shadiness when a known al quaida member gets questionably bumped off but they will not tolerate political assassinations. You've been making very good arguments out of principle but the projections are a bit weak.

    See my sig.

    The thing is, during war, questionable things happen that would not be tolerated during peace time. Does it compromise our principles? Yes. Is it dishonorable? Yes.
    Should Obama have to answer to this? I think he should.
    But I also think this topic needs to keep perspective: Saying they will go wild n' crazy and start political assassinations and the like is a far stretch. That smacks of Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh.
    For example, If I think you're about to slug me in the face, I might preemptively strike you first. But that's a far cry from then claiming I will murder you in your sleep someday just because I punched you one day.
    Do you see?

    If you want to make a case against the Obama Administration- focus on the deed, not predictions about the deed.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, people will blindly support anything and any action. Case in point, you keep calling the 16 year old american boy an al quada member and someone who was not innocent. Both statements are completely unsuported yet it does not stop you from saying them.

    We know Obama's admin lied twice about how and why the boy was killed. This is just a fact.

    There has been no proof the kid was al quada, no proof the kid was up to no good, nothing. You cant claim the white house cant kill whomever they want because the american people wont let him. not only will they let a president do it, they will blindly support that presidents actions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Never posted twitter.
    I guess that you didn't bother actually reading the links you posted in your OP.
    If you had, then you would know why I was talking about twitter.

    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda
    do you have anything other than Twitter to show that any of these things happened?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Just because the government calls someone a threat, it does not make them one. The excuses and blind support given advocating for these powers to be used is something some of you guys and gals have to live with.

    Remember, always, some of you supported and wanted Obama to kill and continue to kill people in these ways and under his new definitions. Dont cry when future presidents and their admins use the same powers and twist/redefine words and meanings.
    It would have been a lot quicker if you had just said: "No, I don't have anything."

    Now that we have established that you have no evidence, I will let you get back to posting baseless claims, innuendo and lies.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I don't see how you are calling it a red herring.
    Because you pointed to it as an admission, yet the scenario was one that never actually happened. It is hypothetical.
    It's an admission because he had to be badgered into it. If he had immediately stated that killing a suspected terrorist in a cafe in the US is unconstitutional, as he should have, nobody would be calling it an admission.
    Now, come on, Harold... It is a far stretch to say they will murder political opposition.

    Here's why- the U.S. citizens might tolerate a bit of shadiness when a known al quaida member gets questionably bumped off but they will not tolerate political assassinations. You've been making very good arguments out of principle but the projections are a bit weak.
    I think we are headed down a slippery slope, and I don't like what's at the bottom. Once you start shading the rules, there's no telling where it stops.

    We let hardened criminals off because the cops made a typo on the search warrant, or something similar. That's not because we think the cops are going to start coming after ordinary people tomorrow, if we let them make typos on search warrants today. It's because we need to follow the Constitution to the letter. If we don't, then there is probably some kind of police state in our future. This is no different.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I think we are headed down a slippery slope, and I don't like what's at the bottom. Once you start shading the rules, there's no telling where it stops.
    As you correctly identify, that is the Slippery Slope fallacy.
    Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Case in point, you keep calling the 16 year old american boy an al quada member and someone who was not innocent. Both statements are completely unsuported
    We can both go back and forth about unsupported claims on this one since neither of us really have access to crucial information.
    Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[7] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[7]
    I have also said he may have been hanging out in a den of thieves.
    If you are going to claim he was the target- you must support that claim.

    Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and Why You Shouldn’t Stand Next to an Al Qaeda Terrorist

    I do not have any more access than you do- only google. But the thing is, it's as much rhetoric claiming "Obama assassinated an innocent kid" as it is to say, "The kid was a terrorist."
    This is just how it is and you're arguments are rather biased in your favor.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    We know Obama's admin lied twice about how and why the boy was killed.
    I do not know. did that administration lie? Support the claim, please.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    There has been no proof the kid was al quada, no proof the kid was up to no good, nothing.
    Except for placing himself with high level al qaeda members during a strike... Proof? Maybe not. Putting himself next to high profile targets? Definitely.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    You cant claim the white house cant kill whomever they want because the american people wont let him when his supporters and people like you let him kill an american kid and then attack the kids character, slandering the kid. If he can do this, he and future presidents can surely attack and kill people for political gain and power.
    Provide evidence that the person associating with high level al qaeda members (Including standing next to them during a strike, becoming a casualty of war- which is your OTHER fallacy in claiming he was the target- an unsupported assertion and contrary to reports), printing leaflets and pamphlets recruiting for and supporting al qaeda was "slandered."
    Otherwise, you are the one doing the slandering.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's an admission because he had to be badgered into it. If he had immediately stated that killing a suspected terrorist in a cafe in the US is unconstitutional, as he should have, nobody would be calling it an admission.
    You have not addressed the fact that the event in question never happened. It is still a red herring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    We let hardened criminals off because the cops made a typo on the search warrant, or something similar. That's not because we think the cops are going to start coming after ordinary people tomorrow, if we let them make typos on search warrants today. It's because we need to follow the Constitution to the letter. If we don't, then there is probably some kind of police state in our future. This is no different.
    Valid point.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I think killing americans and american children, bombing first responders and funerals, redefining imminent threats, combatants and due process, is already pretty far down the slope.

    The white house went from locking up foriegners, calling them combatants, torturing them to labeling non threats and non combatants as imminent threats or combatants and killing them. We are hitting doctors, nurses, police, first responders, funerals, diners, americans, american kids, children, ect.. If you can strike down children and get away with it, you can kill anyone and get away with it, and i would imagine that if you can kill children or over look people who kill children, killing others or overlooking the deaths of others has to be no problem for them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I think killing americans and american children, bombing first responders and funerals, redefining imminent threats, combatants and due process, is already pretty far down the slope.
    You need to support your claim that the kid was the target- Period.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Not true neverfly. The kid was not next to any other target, he was also not al quada or a real combatant. Read my links. Obama's admin lied about those things, they are not true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I think killing americans and american children, bombing first responders and funerals, redefining imminent threats, combatants and due process, is already pretty far down the slope.
    You need to support your claim that the kid was the target- Period.
    I posted a link to a former obama admin member stating the boy was killed because of who his father was. Now why not ask obama for proof the kid was al quada? Why not ask obama for proof the boy was with al quada? Obamas admin also tried to say they killed the boy because he was a 21 year old combatant. Another lie ofcourse.

    The boy was with other kids eating. No al quada, boom, kid dead. Obama did that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I posted a link to a former obama admin member stating the boy was killed because of who his father was. Now why not ask obama for proof the kid was al quada? Why not ask obama for proof the boy was with al quada? Obamas admin also tried to say they killed the boy because he was a 21 year old combatant. Another lie ofcourse.
    I also posted a link with a quote. Occams razor dictates that the actual target is who was claimed to be and the boy was someplace he wasn't supposed to be, causing him to become a casualty.

    It appears you are squirming out of the burden of proof with this latest post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's not only about Obama. Whatever liberties Obama takes with our rights, all subsequent presidents will also claim. It's not too far of a stretch to see some future president using those powers to kill off their political opponents. You already see politicians accusing one another of treason, don't you?
    Yeah god forbid that the republicans join Al-Qeada in this ongoing war. What a dishonest manner to represent this current state of affairs.
    Republicans can use Obama's playbook an classify political groups as extremist, thats always a possibility.

    Since everyone and anyone can now be classified as an imminent threat and a combatant, and due process means the president and his people can be your judge, jury and executionor, you might want to take this more serious.

    Republicans, like Obama, are going to use these new powers. Unfortunately, you trust politicians and think very highly of them, seeing nothing wrong with these new powers and new defintions.
    So to put this in the context of this thread, you propose that Republicans:
    1. Would be victimized by an attack, this includes American civilians, military, and governmental personnel and infrastructure from some other political group.
    2. Republicans then would then declare war on these political groups
    3. A Republican President would then have the authorization to use weapons of the military against these political groups.
    4. The Republicans in congress could still limit the methods of conducting war of the President
    5. If the Republican President refused, then the republicans in congress could impeach the president and remove her/him from office.


    Now, that is proper example of what we are talking about here. BTW, that is what exactly happened in 2001.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The law I cite is the Bill of Rights of the US constitution, which trumps any other law you can cite.
    I cite the natural law of continued existence, whereby people can defend themselves from those actively engaged in attacking them.

    This is similar to a state defending itself once attacked. The state in question is the USA which has in it's Preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

    When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Again, I remind you that without an existing entity (person or state), there are no rights to bestow them on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMojo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The law I cite is the Bill of Rights of the US constitution, which trumps any other law you can cite.
    I cite the natural law of continued existence, whereby people can defend themselves from those actively engaged in attacking them.

    This is similar to a state defending itself once attacked. The state in question is the USA which has in it's Preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

    When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    Again, I remind you that without an existing entity (person or state), there are no rights to bestow them on.
    All you are proving is that you are capable of rationalizing just about anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Is there something wrong with my brain that I can see where both of you are coming from and I agree with most of what both of you say even though they are in conflict?
    Use of the word, "true" is subjective:

    The constitution must be standard- true.
    In the real natural world, there are no constitutions- true.

    In time of war, the law falls silent-true.
    No matter when the time, one must adhere to honor and principles-true.

    A faulty administrative/executive decision must be challenged-true.
    Understanding the reasons for questionable actions includes not jumping to conclusions or predictive speculations-true.

    All is not as it is presented...

    The kid was not some innocent victim and probably was not the target of the strike.
    The action was not innocent nor in full awareness of constitutional rights.
    The handling of the situation was very poor.
    The accusations/predictive speculations are far-fetched and over-reactive.
    The constitutional standard must be upheld.
    There was no drone strike on U.S. Soil. Its constitutionality is not relevant to this topic.
    There is a lot of speculation and there are a lot of claims but little in the media of actual substance and facts.
    The policy is a Bush Policy.
    It doesn't matter who carried it out, what matters is that it was carried out and he who carried it out should step up to address the issue.
    No one is going to vindicate assassinating presidential candidates using the U.S. military. Period.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Masters Degree MrMojo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    South Florida, USA
    Posts
    618
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    All you are proving is that you are capable of rationalizing just about anything.
    All I've proved is a better argument and evidence than you can counter.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Just because the government calls someone a threat, it does not make them one.
    But you are assuming that they definitely were not a threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    It is wrong to kill a 16 year old American kid.
    Not if he is actively planning to attack America. Keep in mind that his father was involved in 3 terrorist attacks on America1. Furthermore, the government probably cannot provide evidence of the "American child's" involvement because it involves classified surveillance equipment (listening equipment on a drone) or classified human sources (spies).

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    It's not too far of a stretch to see some future president using those powers to kill off their political opponents.
    This is an important, valid point. However, I would argue that there is a place for drone strikes in order to protect against a spectacular attack if the action is approved by multiple branches of government - thus ensuring the executive branch could not do this alone.

    1 Source: Senator Feinstein's remarks (echoed by John Brennan) during the CIA Director's confirmation hearing
    MrMojo1 and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, the wiki link you posted concerning banna and the boy was a flat out obama lie. I gave you links in one of my earlier posts. They struck what they thought was banna and said they killed him in a convoy of three cars well away from the boy. The news reports are clear. Obama did not kill the boy in a strike on banna.

    After that lie did not work Obama's admin tried to then claim the American boy was a 21 year old combatant. When this too was proven to be a lie the Obama admin shut up concerning the boy until one of them slipped up and said they killed the boy because of who his father was.

    You keep repeating old Obama lies concerning the boy that are just not true.

    One has to be a fool to think they killed the boys father and then just happened to accidentally kill the boy weeks later. If you believe that then I have a copper image of Lincoln I will sell you for a 100 dollars all day long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neverfly, the wiki link you posted concerning banna and the boy was a flat out obama lie.
    This is just Obama hate speech, though, Gonzo. You need to provide evidence within a reasonable doubt that he is lying.
    Did Obama himself lie? Did someone in his cabinet? Someone for P.R.?
    Now, I'm not claiming Wikipedia is fully reliable but the onus is on you to demonstrate that we are being lied to by the government.

    And don't get me wrong, I am not acting as though the government doesn't lie or that conspiracies do not happen. They absolutely lie and conspiracies do happen.
    But because some people question the stories, they get caught. They get caught when evidence is provided. And evidence must be provided to support the accusations.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I gave you links in one of my earlier posts. They struck what they thought was banna and said they killed him in a convoy of three cars well away from the boy. The news reports are clear. Obama did not kill the boy in a strike on banna.
    Are you suggesting that the boy was the target and if so, do you have any evidence that demonstrates him as the intended target?
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    After that lie did not work Obama's admin
    That is better...
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    tried to then claim the American boy was a 21 year old combatant.
    This is not accurate. Every report I read said they claimed he was of Legal Age to join the armed forces, there- a questionable claim which also appears to be inaccurate.
    But nowhere did I read that they specifically claimed he was 21 years old.
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    When this too was proven to be a lie the Obama admin shut up concerning the boy until one of them slipped up and said they killed the boy because of who his father was.

    You keep repeating old Obama lies concerning the boy that are just not true.

    One has to be a fool to think they killed the boys father and then just happened to accidentally kill the boy weeks later. If you believe that then I have a copper image of Lincoln I will sell you for a 100 dollars all day long.
    Ok, so you are suspicious- and making allegations. But you provide no concrete evidence for those allegations except some of it circumstantial and some of it speculative.
    In the reports I have read, the boy was a proponent of Al Qaeda, printing out pamphlets and promoting Al Qaeda actions while in the United States.
    Was that, too, a fabrication?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    And Neverfly, if they can kill American children and claim they can't give any evidence or reason for doing so, and thats acceptable, then they can kill anyone and declare the same thing. I contend that anyone who can kill children and get away with it can kill anyone and get away with it.

    You don't think republicans can use Obama's new powers to declare Obama's preacher a combatant and hate monger? You don't think they can use Obama's definition of imminent threat and combatant and go after him?

    Didn't Obama's guys say that Ron Paul supporters might be terrorist? Don't they believe that Americans who have more than 7 days of food might be terrorist?

    If they can kill children and prove nothing, even get caught lying, they all can kill anyone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    And Neverfly, if they can kill American children and claim they can't give any evidence or reason for doing so, and thats acceptable, then they can kill anyone and declare the same thing. I contend that anyone who can kill children and get away with it can kill anyone and get away with it.You don't think republicans can use Obama's new powers to declare Obama's preacher a combatant and hate monger? You don't think they can use Obama's definition of imminent threat and combatant and go after him? Did Obama's guys says that Ron Paul supporters might be terrorist? Don't they believe that Americans who have more than 7 days of food might be terrorist?
    It does make it touchy. How much evidence deals with national security or might compromise informants if released?

    I really don't think so. Clearly, they are not having much luck with a guy that may have had intent to harm the nation.
    I highly doubt they can try to knock off just anyone as you're trying to claim.
    Look at the news for this case: He's not being accepted, he's not being clapped on the back. I can not find any really reliable unbiased journalism on this one. I've looked.
    Factcheck.org is still looking into it- so there's nothing there, yet. Not that I have found, anyway.

    I do agree that if the boy was the target, they need to give us a clear reason as to why he was.

    I do agree that honesty is required.

    I do agree that his being killed is open for scrutiny.

    I do not agree with idle speculation, bold unsupported assertions, allegations without proof and accusations without evidence.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, I already posted links. Not my fault you do not read them. The boy was not killed on a strike on banna. Any and all claims are a lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neverfly, I already posted links. Not my fault you do not read them. The boy was not killed on a strike on banna. Any and all claims are a lie.
    They were no more substantial than any of the other links. You need to show that it is a lie, not just keep claiming that it makes sense to you that it must be a lie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Neverfly, I will try this one more time with you concerning the Obama lie about banna being the target.

    http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2011101564019722483
    The media chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been killed along with eight other people in an air strike in southern Yemen, according to the Yemeni defence ministry.The ministry said in a statement on Saturday that Egyptian-born Ibrahim al-Banna was killed on Friday night in Shabwa province.

    Security officials said the air strike was among five that targeted al-Qaeda positions in Shabwa.The statement added that al-Banna was wanted "internationally" for "planning attacks both inside and outside Yemen."He was one of the group's most dangerous operatives," it said.

    The first strike late Friday targeted a house in the Azan district of Shabwa, but hit just after al-Qaeda fighters had a meeting in the building, security officials and tribal elders said.

    They said a second strike then targeted two sport utility vehicles in which al-Banna was traveling along with several others, destroying the vehicles and leaving the men's bodies charred.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/wo...pagewanted=all
    on Oct. 14, a missile apparently intended for an Egyptian Qaeda operative, Ibrahim al-Banna, hit a modest outdoor eating place in Shabwa. The intelligence was bad: Mr. Banna was not there, and among about a dozen men killed was the young Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had no connection to terrorism and would never have been deliberately targeted.It was a tragic error and, for the Obama administration, a public relations disaster, further muddying the moral clarity of the previous strike on his father and fueling skepticism about American assertions of drones’ surgical precision. The damage was only compounded when anonymous officials at first gave the younger Mr. Awlaki’s age as 21, prompting his grieving family to make public his birth certificate.

    ----------------------------------------------

    Obama and company knew exactly where banna was and they tried to lie and say they killed the boy striking banna. It is and was a flat out lie. Two different strikes, two different places.
    Last edited by gonzales56; March 14th, 2013 at 12:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Allow a bit of time to read all of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    It is pretty simple. 5 strikes.

    1st one on house.
    2nd one on the convoy that left the house (news reports).

    Banna is said to be in this convoy driving. Convoy hit, banna said to be hit and dead.

    The 3rd, 4th and 5th strikes take place somewhere else and afterwards. One of these strikes was at an outdoor eatery where the American boy and a few of his young family and friends were eating. No al quada on site, just the boy.

    Remember intelligence is Tracking all this. They know where everyone is and who everyone is. They know who is in the convoy and this is why they order the hit. They know who is eating dinner at the outdoor eatery too, the boy was there, banna wasnt and they knew it, and they hit it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Remember intelligence is Tracking all this. They know where everyone is and who everyone is. They know who is in the convoy and this is why they order the hit. They know who is eating dinner at the outdoor eatery too, the boy was there, banna wasnt and they knew it, and they hit it.
    You don't know that. You assume that. What you claim as malice I can claim was incompetence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    The drone program, according to the White House, is something Obama is highly involved in and orders/approves the strikes... If it was incompetence, how, and what are the odds, the unbelievable coincidence, that they would unknowingly kill the son of a man they just killed weeks earlier?

    Lets say the drones hit the first two targets and the other three strikes had direction or orders to seek out groups of people and bomb them, what does that say about Obama's drone policy and who he is really targeting?

    Why claim the boy was with banna knowing full well he wasn't though? Why then go on to claim the boy was a 21 year old combatant?

    For me, lying about why and how the boy was killed, combined with what is known, makes me believe it was no accident. Why was the eatery even hit? There was no one there that would have been followed, spotted or tracked at that eatery, no one of any importance or significance, except for the boy... I also find it highly unlikely that Obama killed his father and then just happened to accidentally killed the boy a few weeks later.

    If a police officer shot and killed a man, a claimed enemy of his, then two weeks later shot and killed that man's 16 year old son while the son was having dinner at an eatery, claiming it was an accident that happened when he was shooting someone else, which is found out to be a lie, and then the officer tries to claim the boy was a 21 year old robber, which is another lie, would anyone in their right mind believe it was an accident?
    Last edited by gonzales56; March 14th, 2013 at 02:22 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neverfly, I will try this one more time with you concerning the Obama lie about banna being the target.
    You provide 2 links, both of which confirm that Banna was the target.

    But you still cannot - despite being asked several times - provide any evidence that Obama targeted the boy.
    I guess that means that you can't.

    Do you not find it weird that you cannot back up your claims, or is that normal for you?


    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Obama and company knew exactly where banna was
    You post 2 links and neither claim what you say they claim.

    Can you ever post anything honest?
    Do you even read your own links?

    I know you need your lies to support your world view; allowing you to continue your racist partisan rants; but we in the real world need facts.
    Perhaps, just this once, you would at least try to be truthful.
    Go on...you should try everything at least once.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Neverfly, I will try this one more time with you concerning the Obama lie about banna being the target.
    You provide 2 links, both of which confirm that Banna was the target.

    But you still cannot - despite being asked several times - provide any evidence that Obama targeted the boy.
    I guess that means that you can't.
    Actually, the links say pretty much what Gonzales said they do. You shouldn't be accusing people of dishonesty. There were 5 strikes that night. The second one killed alBanna. This is stated in the first link. Second link said they had bad intelligence on alBanna's whereabouts and that's why they hit the eatery. But how bad was their intelligence if they had killed him already on the second strike?
    The two links do not confirm Banna was the target. They confirm that he was claimed by the administration to be the target.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Actually, the links say pretty much what Gonzales said they do. You shouldn't be accusing people of dishonesty.
    Then you will have no trouble quoting the parts where they show that Obama targeted the boy.
    Can you do that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The two links do not confirm Banna was the target. They confirm that he was claimed by the administration to be the target.
    Do you have any evidence that they are lying?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Actually, the links say pretty much what Gonzales said they do. You shouldn't be accusing people of dishonesty.
    Then you will have no trouble quoting the parts where they show that Obama targeted the boy.
    Can you do that?
    It is a reasonable conclusion from the evidence provided.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The two links do not confirm Banna was the target. They confirm that he was claimed by the administration to be the target.
    Do you have any evidence that they are lying?
    Yes. They claimed they had bad intelligence about where al Banna was. In fact they had good intelligence because they had killed him that same night. They also falsely reported his age. This is evidence that they are lying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Actually, the links say pretty much what Gonzales said they do. You shouldn't be accusing people of dishonesty. There were 5 strikes that night. The second one killed alBanna. This is stated in the first link. Second link said they had bad intelligence on alBanna's whereabouts and that's why they hit the eatery. But how bad was their intelligence if they had killed him already on the second strike?
    The two links do not confirm Banna was the target. They confirm that he was claimed by the administration to be the target.
    I admit, I have not gotten all the way through the NY Times article, yet.

    But for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct.

    Let's say that the administration did target the son of a terrorist specifically.
    (Hypothetical).
    Let's say that he was the target, was killed in a strategic strike and the administration, fearing public backlash, covered it over with an air of incompetence.
    The following questions must be answered:
    Was he a proper target as a known threat and treasonous party?
    Was there any evidence to support that conclusion?

    If he was killed overseas in a situation where he may have been acting against national security, was the strike constitutional or not?
    Is there any evidence that he was acting against national security?

    These are the important questions, should it be that he was the target.
    It's not been established that he was the target and the coincidence of his death not long after his fathers is not surprising considering he was not sitting in New Mexico studying his major, he was overseas mingling with Al Qaeda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Actually, the links say pretty much what Gonzales said they do. You shouldn't be accusing people of dishonesty.
    Then you will have no trouble quoting the parts where they show that Obama targeted the boy.
    Can you do that?
    It is a reasonable conclusion from the evidence provided.
    Then you will have no trouble quoting the parts where they show that Obama targeted the boy.
    Can you do that?

    I have asked twice now.
    The only reason I can think of for you avoiding the question is dishonesty.
    Perhaps you can prove my assumption wrong by actually answering the question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They claimed they had bad intelligence about where al Banna was. In fact they had good intelligence because they had killed him that same night.
    If they had good intelligence, then why did it take 5 attacks to kill him?
    Oh yes - because they didn't have good intelligence - it was merely good enough to eventually get him.
    (You seem to think that after they attack a convoy they send in CSI who then identify the bodies - but instead, they often have to wait for al queda to report who died.
    You appear to think they see him in their sights, pull the trigger and then report back to HQ: "I done killed him!" - but that is just plain naive and wrong.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    They also falsely reported his age. This is evidence that they are lying.
    Or a mistake.
    Do you have any evidence that they were lying?

    I'll keep asking for evidence, but I expect as little from you as I go from Gonzo.
    The only thing guiding your claims is your own personal agenda - and you steadfastly refuse to let a lack of facts to get in your way.

    Maybe this will help:
    DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA ORDERED THE 16 YEAR OLD BOY KILLED?
    I can make the text even larger if that will encourage you to answer the question.

    Seriously. Why not answer the question? Is there something wrong with you?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    If they had good intelligence, then why did it take 5 attacks to kill him?
    Oh yes - because they didn't have good intelligence - it was merely good enough to eventually get him.
    (You seem to think that after they attack a convoy they send in CSI who then identify the bodies - but instead, they often have to wait for al queda to report who died.
    You appear to think they see him in their sights, pull the trigger and then report back to HQ: "I done killed him!" - but that is just plain naive and wrong.
    This should be repeated to make sure that it is read and understood.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    If they had good intelligence, then why did it take 5 attacks to kill him?
    Oh yes - because they didn't have good intelligence - it was merely good enough to eventually get him.
    Oh, so they are using the shotgun approach and hitting 5 places they think he might be? I thought this was supposed to be a surgical operation that minimized civilian casualties.

    Maybe this will help:
    DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA ORDERED THE 16 YEAR OLD BOY KILLED?
    I can make the text even larger if that will encourage you to answer the question.

    Seriously. Why not answer the question? Is there something wrong with you?
    I see. You want conclusive ironclad proof that will hold up in a court of law. That's a higher standard than you require for Obama to kill people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Oh, so they are using the shotgun approach and hitting 5 places they think he might be?
    It looks that way, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I thought this was supposed to be a surgical operation that minimized civilian casualties.
    Are you claiming it didn't minimise civilian causalities?
    (And I am not sure what a 'surgical operation' is in a military context. I think you have got your phrases confused.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I see. You want conclusive ironclad proof that will hold up in a court of law. That's a higher standard than you require for Obama to kill people.
    DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA ORDERED THE 16 YEAR OLD BOY KILLED?

    I said I can make the text larger.
    Can you answer the question?
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Is the boy dead? Yes. Was he killed by Obama? Yes.

    I can prove Obama ordered the strike. I can prove Obama dropped a bomb on the kid. You act like Obama did not do these things when he did.

    I do not have to have paperwork or a statement stating that Obama targeted the boy, only obama and a few close to him can provide that, I only have to prove he kill the boy, they lied about how and why, and that he has provided no just cause or reason for doing so. The fact that they have lied about the whole thing, the lies they told, combined with actually killing the boy, with no justification or reason for doing so, is more than enough to get any common person easily convicted in any and all juristictions in America.

    I get the standard here though. As long as the president states, eventually or at any point, and regardless of other statement or facts, that the people he kills or killed were not his targets, then he is just and innocent.
    Last edited by gonzales56; March 14th, 2013 at 05:11 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I want to stress the point these people are trying to make here. They are trying to say that a president can kill someone, anyone, justifiably and legally, as long as the White House, at anytime, claims and states that the people they killed where not targeted for death, even though they are dead, even though no justifiable targets are around, even if the president lies and tries to claim the people they killed were justifiable targets when they were not.

    This is kin to police or FBI being able to walk up to a family, kill them all, and then get off by simply and finally saying the family was not their target, even though they first claimed they got in the crosshairs of a fight when they didn't, and then they claimed it was just and right to kill the family because they were bad people who deserved it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    The fact that they have lied about the whole thing, the lies they told, combined with actually killing the boy, with no justification or reason for doing so, is more than enough to get any common person easily convicted in any and all juristictions in America.
    No it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    I do not have to have paperwork or a statement stating that Obama targeted the boy
    Then stop making shit up.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    I think you meant to ask Obama to stop making things up.

    I think Obama's man was being pretty honest when he said the boy was killed because who his father was. Add in obama's lies, with the fact that Obama killed the American boy, and you are right to ask Obama to stop making things up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Good.
    At least we have shown that you have nothing to support your claims except your own hatred for Obama.

    If you had had something other than your warped imagination to back up your claims then we would have had to take you seriously.
    But luckily, that is not the case.

    You are just another conspiracy nut shouting on a forum.
    Good luck with that.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Lets not lose sight of the reality and fact that a 16 year old American boy is dead because Obama killed him. There is no conspiracy theory, obama killed this boy, he is dead, and obama blew up an eatery to do it (terrorist target and blow up civilian eateries, when did this become awesome and wonderful for us to do?). Lets also not lose sight of fact that some are angry, and will say anything, to attack those who point out Obama is killing Americans, American kids, innocent people, first responders and people at funerals. I understand that blind followers have no moral compass or just vision when it comes to whom they follow, and that's unfortunate but, that's the way it is.

    Support these attacks, support these killing and good luck with that. The evidence is clear and I don't support Obama killing these people.

    Hopefully the UN, so be it innefective and toothless, will still step up and find Obama responsible for war crimes in these killings. Hopefully, the ACLU and the boys family, in the one killing, get their day in court in the US.

    I would also suggest that the killing of these people does not make the west safer. I would suggest that the victims and those people could very well end up hating the west and westerners, even wishing harm to come to them. I would also suggest that killing these people in these ways gives the west no right to tell others that bombing and attacking the same type of people in the same type of places is wrong or a crime.
    Last edited by gonzales56; March 14th, 2013 at 09:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by gonzales56 View Post
    Lets not lose sight of the reality and fact that a 16 year old American boy is dead because Obama killed him.
    Forget that!
    What about the FACT that Obama orchestrated the 9/11 attacks!

    As a non-American muslim he should have been kicked out of the country before the attacks.
    And if it wasn't for his powerful Jewish friends in the media he would have!

    And he was the guiding force behind the faked moon landing!!

    And he makes all those crop circles!!!
    Lynx_Fox and MrMojo1 like this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    I am not here to defend Obama but....there is a very real chance that Obama has actually prevented a terrorist attack by using the drone program.

    Just something to think about.
    Last edited by markashley; March 15th, 2013 at 07:04 PM. Reason: unimportant word correction
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by markashley View Post
    I am not here to defend Obama but....there is a very real chance that Obama has actually prevented a terrorist attack by using the drone program.Just something to think about.
    He could have also prevented a very bright child from growing up and finding a cure for cancer. Maybe the American boy could have grown up and became the next president of the United States.

    The point is, who is the terrorist and who is not when both are targeting and blowing up Cafe's? What is the difference between blowing up men, women, children and babies at funerals and the guy who killed those people in Aurora? What is the difference between Obama targeting and killing first responders and the guy in NY who set a fire and then killed firefighters when they arrived?

    Can you explain the difference to me?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    70
    Gonzales56: I respect your point. But, I would argue, that you have not considered the possibility that classified technology detected the son of a known terrorist plotting attacks against the United States. And that the United States decided to take this person out in order to prevent the killing of innocent people.

    Basically, I feel like you are concentrating too much on the "innocent child" and not enough on the innocent children that could be killed in a terrorist attack.

    Note that I agree with you that the U.S. military should be more careful regarding collateral damage and the killing of innocent civilians.
    Lynx_Fox, MrMojo1 and RedPanda like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. "Kill List" found outside Texas Junior high school
    By seagypsy in forum In the News
    Replies: 199
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2013, 01:12 PM
  2. "American Copernicus" Claims Self As Center Of Uni
    By alanpartridge in forum Links
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 11th, 2011, 08:14 AM
  3. "smarter people has less children" Misguided?
    By Raziell in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 12:57 AM
  4. "The American Era?"
    By Pendragon in forum History
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: March 16th, 2009, 10:20 PM
  5. Censorship and Ad Hominem Attacks From "Moderators"
    By Total Science in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 7th, 2008, 08:55 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •