Why do they want Anwar Al-Awlaki killed and his speeches banned??

By the extensive autopsy you have done on my post,
it looks like the rules of debate here are in tiny little categories,
that no one else gets to have any input on.

I'm still waiting for you to actually say something.

And if you are trying to persuade me to your view,
well, /sarcasm you had me at hello, baby.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

By the extensive autopsy you have done on my post,
it looks like the rules of debate here are in tiny little categories,
that no one else gets to have any input on.

I'm still waiting for you to actually say something.

And if you are trying to persuade me to your view,
well, /sarcasm you had me at hello, baby.

David Grouchy

US is not transparent, that is my whole point.

Trying proving otherwise.

reply to post by oozyism

US is not transparent, that is my whole point. Trying proving otherwise.

And as if those scumbag Iranian & Syrian terrorists are!. "Pot calling the kettle black!"

Well obviously those countries are not transparent either, but the justification that America somehow has a moral high ground over any of those countries is absurd. Take a look at our foreign policy over the last century, and examine how much death and destruction the U.S.A. has caused. Why does Iran and the majority of the Middle East hate us? Because the United States has been meddling in their affairs attempting to covertly control governments for dominance over oil reserves. Is it a coincidence that Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world prior to the invasion? America has just as many problems as any of those countries, and, arguably, is a larger threat to the world because of our, now former, economic and military power.

Simply because America poses as a free society bringing the light of democracy around the world to achieve their objectives does not make them any better than those who openly flaunt their intentions. America has killed far more civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan than the terrorists could ever have hoped to kill on 9-11. America has responded to terror by committing greater atrocities abroad on other civilians who had nothing to do with any aspect of terror, fueling the ranks of the enemy through collateral damage. A tragedy happened in America, but that is not justification for the U.S. to reciprocate the pain and suffering on other innocent civilians.

Thus, the U.S. is no better than any of the countries mentioned. The guise of democracy and preserving America's national security are not adequate reasons for the costs which have resulted from these two aggressive invasions.

reply to post by MGriff

Thus, the U.S. is no better than any of the countries mentioned

Never said they were! Have a look what "Pot calling the kettle black" means

these two aggressive invasions.

Tough times require tough measures. Until I see leaders of the Allied countries convicted in a court of law they were justified & deserved!

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by MGriff

 

Thus, the U.S. is no better than any of the countries mentioned

Never said they were! Have a look what "Pot calling the kettle black" means

these two aggressive invasions.

Tough times require tough measures. Until I see leaders of the Allied countries convicted in a court of law they were justified & deserved!

So you think that the only international agencies present, which are dominated by America and their allies, are going to even charge anyone with a crime? That is ludicrous to even think charges would be brought by international organizations which America essentially runs.

Also, if you think these invasions were justified and deserved, do you think the coalition should be invading more countries? Since terrorism is not confined to Afghanistan, and by our own government's admission, the rule of Saddam Hussein prevented terrorism's development in Iraq, shouldn't we be invading all of these other countries where terrorists reside? By that logic we should be in Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Lebanon, and Yemen, to name a few.

Is the loss of 3,000 American a justification for the loss of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives? The only thing these wars have done is fuel hatred for America through collateral damage.

reply to post by Blaine91555


It's not about supporting a terrorist. It is about supporting the freedom of people to think what they wan't and speak their mind. Even if you disagree with the message. Thinking / speaking or lecturing is not a terrorist act no matter what your faux news tells you. This guy is labeled terrorist even though there is no evidence that he has any involvement in terrorist acts.

reply to post by MGriff

are going to even charge anyone with a crime?

Probably. Don't care unless someone is convicted. Until then legal, legitimate & moral missions.

do you think the coalition should be invading more countries?

If warranted. Yes

shouldn't we be invading all of these other countries where terrorists reside?

Most definitely if it can be managed logistically & financially. If there are terrorists there & the local Gov't will not silence or remove them the Allies should

reply to post by phatpackage


So then, by your estimation, the hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens the U.S. and its allies have killed as a result of these wars is perfectly acceptable in the interest of national security? Essentially, you are saying that all these lives lost mean nothing? I simply do not see the justification in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians for our 9-11. I'm actually amazed that you have no regard for human life other than the western democratic variety. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, as ludicrous as it may seem to me. I'm sure the reverse is applicable.

reply to post by oozyism


be that as it may (the USA trying to turn muslims on each other), how would this cleric deal with people like me who wants nothing to do with the muslim "way"? as much as we like to believe that we can all live in peace there are always radicals, and as what he might be saying is right about the way the USA uses a divide and conquer strategy that is no excuse to agree with him on 100% of the crap that comes out of his mouth.

Originally posted by oozyism
Hey, I will go and kill a NZ soldier then when they asked me why, I will say because Bush inspired me. [Sarcasm]

Nice argument.

This is obviously to defame him and destroy his credibility.

I didn't pass any comment on his credibility, nor did I offer any opinion on Al-Awlaki.

It's you that chose to interpret my post in that way.


I posted my comment because the case of the woman stabbing the MP has been in the news recently, and has a connection to the man that you are posting about.

It also suggests that he's quite an influential person, which actually could support your assertion that some people want him ''silenced''.


I am rather sceptical to the idea that one person's words can be responsible for another person's actions, so I was not suggesting that he was culpable for the actions of this clearly mentally unhinged woman.

reply to post by MGriff

the hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens the U.S. and its allies have killed as a result of these wars is perfectly acceptable in the interest of national security?

Yeah Justified! Well that's what you wanted me to say!!!

Originally posted by T0XiK
reply to post by oozyism

 

be that as it may (the USA trying to turn muslims on each other), how would this cleric deal with people like me who wants nothing to do with the muslim "way"? as much as we like to believe that we can all live in peace there are always radicals, and as what he might be saying is right about the way the USA uses a divide and conquer strategy that is no excuse to agree with him on 100% of the crap that comes out of his mouth.

Why not post the other crap that you don't agree with.

Don't tell me he wants you to convert to Islam or die

If so, I will also hate him as much as I hate America for killing those who do not want to convert to Democracy and Capitalism.

That still doesn't mean his speech should be banned, because it is that type of message that would stop people from listening to him.

'Capture or kill': US judge dismisses lawsuit

Source

A US judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to halt Washington's alleged programme to capture or kill Americans who join militant groups abroad.

The judge threw out the lawsuit by civil liberties organisations on jurisdictional grounds.

A judge who got it right for once...

I think Alex Jones said it was Foxnews or New York Times that published he was at the Pentagon having dinner ... a couple of months after 911... >>>? what in the hell is really going on ... check this out...


I was just sitting around waiting for a customer to call. I ran across this video
downloads.cbn.com...



let me frame a scenario, as unbiased as I can … The West has Open Arms?
For this religion of Muslims, for the better part of our history we have had
A non-engagement policy because of this issue no one wants to talk about.

Now why would a Muslim want to live in a Christian nation like France…?
And the exact same thing going on in England, and it hasn’t reached concentration
of concern here in the states as in Paris and London. And why would these governments
entertain such a disruptive element? … Same in London … Freedom of Religion we
can all agree is a Christian ideal – when conceived Islam was not funded as oil was
not in demand. So, framing the context of Freedom of Religion would mean any religion
that was not in conflict with the King James Bible (such as the plight of the Mormons),
as the Koran was a Islamic book that is semi-hostile an non-tolerant towards Christian beliefs, where their believes in (Islam) does not tolerate Christian beliefs. So as far as beliefs go … Islam is rule by word of God. That’s both religion and political form of government marriage with the church (Jordan Maxwell – connected the Vatican to Islamic Religions… so both are controlled by the same people. So, exactly what do you think is going on … Planet Earth People will Be represented in all lands of the earth, merged into a single race. (melting pot)

Anyway, I have a friend who emails way too much got me thinking about these weird
Contradictions … War on Terror while they are bringing them in by the boat load. … ?
We need to dedicate some ATS attention to exactly what are they doing…?

reply to post by oozyism


Could it have anything to do with him quickly taking over Osama Bin Laden as the new face of violent Islamic extremism? His name pops up constantly in terrorist plots as being the guy who “inspired” the Jihadists. He has been connected to loads of recent terrorist plots, that sort of guy is better of dead before he makes a move to immortalise himself in the same way as OBL by a massive terrorist attack on western soil. Then you won’t be asking the same questions.

Also what was your point about British Special forces in Iraq.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Isn't it absurd that Americans out there feel bad for Anwars death? Traitors should be killed....if you think the NSA is shady all these ATRs are lucky I am not in power....I'd have sent the lot of them to FEMA camps to serve me and Osama in our NWO getaway while we contrail the world into certain death....

nvm