BREAKING NEWS! U.S. Born Terror Boss Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed

am i going to sit here and cheer for the death of a piece of garbage like al-awlaki nope

did he derserve his trial by fire and lost some will say yes others will defend the dude simply because he was an "american" who would not renounce his citizenship and who hid behind it think he could say and do whatever he wanted.

learned the hard way actions have consequences i do love who the favorite boogieman is always introduced into these kinds of thread its a deflection tactic to push blame on to someone else instead of the dude who wasnt a very nice dude.

too many have already been caught up in the deflection and are not looking at the bigger picture of the current adminstration using another deflection tactic to get your minds off of the very real economic and financial terrorism going on in this country.

the failure of leadership at the moment and give the masses what they want "murder" "Death" reminds me of the roman colosseum and here comes the cheers.

gotta say we ameircans claim morality superiority over the rest of the world the reality is different.

dont get me wrong here 1 less terrorist in the world is a good thing it will never end tho the only thing we do is make marytrs.

In Memory Of...

www.youtube.com...

(just an intro F-Y-I: B.O. ... is my recognition of Barak Obama), cause this sh*t stinks... like BO


OK, Call me crazzzzy, but I been watching the past few months of all the assisnation missions going on and couldn't quite tell why things where just stinking to High Heaven and Obama's actions were bouncing all over the religious/political charts!? But there sadly seems, to me, to be a method for the maddness... here goes!!!

Is anyone picking up on BO's 'political pandoraing' (pun intended!)
Let's review:
- Seal team 6 take out Bin Laden... at a moment in time that BO conveniently needs to boost approval ratings
- Bin Laden's body is respectfully dump in ocean off a military ship
- Seal team 6 is taken out, in one foul 'snipe', conveniently @ the start of a major Islamic holiday
- B.O. Makes a HUGE political blundering statement... about Jew's (and openly wants Isreal to give up it's land to palestine.
-Now B.O. is now boasting of Anwar al-Awlaki's assasination being his call.

Is anyone seeing the pattern here?
It's always about his Image, and sadly there are a whole lot of people being 'offed' to make sure that politically the Cheese/ a.k.a. the stinker himself - BO, stays politically large and in charge but 'not' standing for anything, but what will revive his image, when he messes it up, with so much of his word vomit!

final review:
Bin Laden kill - (to make Americans happy)
Bin Laden honorably burried (to appease Muslim's, and no further body investigations)
Seal team 6 honored - (Amereicans happy thoughts, and revealed the infedels to Islam)
seal team 6 kill - (to keep Muslims happy, & silence military)
Anwar al-Awlaki kill - (American-Jew voters happy)

Wake up Isreal, BO will never understand your right to be the children you were meant to be, in your GOD given land.
Wake up America... this guy is not going to actually follow through on the bid for re-election, I think he will back out closer to election, and a wildcard Dem. will be propped up for take over, and Barack Hussein Obama will step onto the world stage with somekind of line of bull sounding like this...

"I feel that I can better serve my country, and fellow mankind, by working with/leading the U.N., and to hopefully further the efforts, and co-operation to the hope of, and ending achievement of PEACE, in the middle east."

OH CRAP!!! I hope I didn't just write B.O.'s conciliator speech

Originally posted by MrWendal
I can't believe anyone would find this to be good news.

Is it good that American Citizens can be executed without a trial of any kind or without actually being charged with a crime? Does not sound like good news to me. Of course he is credited with putting the "underwear bomber" into action, even though the underwear bomber was escorted onto the plane to begin with and Anwar Al-Awlaki would have had no authority at all to get airport staff to violate their own security measures and allow the underwear bomber onto the plane.

Glad these guys are history.

However, surely a "slippery slope" has now been created where the president, or maybe just someone in the government can say kill "that person". Why? Why, because we think he's a terrorist, of course.

Now the creepy part.

Remember that law enforcement directive that went out - under obama - all over the country to local law enforcement listing who to consider a terrorist? Are you on that list? Anyone you know?

Bit uncomfortable about the mafia golfer in chief is ordering peoples death without due process.

But on the other hand my heart bleeds purple piss for that prick cleric so really could not give monkeys bollocks that he is dead either.

However..

Im soo confused!

But that is my want on this friday night after diving into a barrel of beer

This is a very interesting development, Al-Awlaki had been seen by some as the next Bin Laden only more dangerous and now he has been cut of prematurely. One could argue that what the Obama administration has done here with Al-Awalki is what the Clinton administration failed to do with Bin Laden, it would seem a valuable history lesson has been learned here.

Al-Awlaki had links to a number of high profile attacks in recent years even links to 9/11 as two of the hijackers attended his mosque when he was an imam in America (perhaps why he was invited to the pentagon rather than evidence of a conspiracy). In addition to this there was also the significant links between him and the Christmas day bomber, fort hood shooting, and was believed to have been directly responsible for the cargo plane plot and inspired countless others in conducting acts of terrorism such as the stabbing of a British MP. In other words he was a dangerous individual whose name was coming up in a number of terrorism investigations, much like Bin Laden’s during the 1990’s and it is understood that he was plotting every day. This in addition to the current turmoil in Yemen, which could have seen his terrorist group Al’Qa’ida in the Arabian peninsula (AQAP) expand their operations alongside his charismatic persona and ability to speak to western radicals through mediums made him a incredibly dangerous individual. Such a dangerous individual cannot be allowed to remain a active threat and must be naturalised.

However, therein lies the problem. What has happened when we break it all down is that America has assassinated one of their own citizens in a covert extra judicial attack on foreign soil. It raises some very uncomfortable questions, are American’s and the international community comfortable with the idea that the President can authorize the killing of anyone who is deemed to be a significant national security threat in breach of international law and arguably Executive Order 12333. Al-Alwaki may have been a dangerous individual, but does the risk one man poses really justify the breaching of a foreign states sovereignty. At a deeper level, is this really how a civilized society wants to bring its enemies to justice, is this really justice, justice without a jury, judge and the presumption of innocence where a man has to stand and justify his actions to his fellow man and be judged accordingly. Then there is the chances of this increasing the threat to the west, are we by backing the animal that is Al’Qa’ida into a corner where by its only means of escape is going to be another spectacular attack.

For myself personally, I am glad that he is gone, I recognise that he was a dangerous individual and however it was done I am glad he is no longer a threat.

Can someone tell me.... since everyone seems to be ignoring it......


WHY WAS A SUSPECTED TERRORIST ALLOWED TO
DINE AT THE PENTAGON?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF SECURITY THREAT THAT IS?


Any theories other than he was or is a government intelligence operative?

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Can someone tell me.... since everyone seems to be ignoring it......


WHY WAS A SUSPECTED TERRORIST ALLOWED TO
DINE AT THE PENTAGON?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF SECURITY THREAT THAT IS?


Any theories other than he was or is a government intelligence operative?

edit on 9/30/2011 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)

I will have a bash,

In 2001 Al-Alwarki was not seen as the terrorist he was seen as in the last few years although it was apparent that he had links to 9/11 as two of the hijackers attended his mosque, it is around this time that the intelligence apparatus began to look at him. He had already been investigated by the FBI for funding terrorist groups however no indictment was ever filed. Other than this however there was little suggestion that he may have been a terrorist player of any kind, many people knew those two hijackers and there was insufficient evidence to ever prosecute him for any crimes relating to terrorism.

In 2001 there was little to suggest he was a active terrorist or radical advocate of violent Jihad against the west, any likes he did have were vague and unsubstantiated. These far outweighed his activities in the Islamic community with in America, he was Imam of the Denver Islamic Society then moved on to be the imam at a mosque in San Diego (where the two 9/11 hijackers attended), he also had been president of the Muslim Student Association at Colorado University.

It was shortly after the attacks of 9/11 that the pentagon began an outreach program to ease tensions between Muslim-Americans and the military. As a prominent Imam who had contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers one could say that he may have been an obvious choice for such a program. In hindsight he was clearly always a radical but at the time in 2001 he was not seen as a major threat at the time he was invited. He was probably seen as a perfect candidate for a outreach program targeting Muslim-Americans who were at risk of becoming radicalised as he had been the imam of a mosque that two of the hijackers attended. It would be interesting to look at a full list of those who were on that invite list.

The problem is, people see this invitation to the pentagon and get suspicious of it because they assume he has always been the bogy man that the media have portrayed him to be in recent years since the day he was born. That is just simply not true. he was not a “suspected terrorist” as you put it at the time he received that invitation. In fact if you achually look to the original source of the exposure of this invite and not the conspiracy literature the reasoning for him being invited is explained very well.

Here are some excerpts.

The employee "attended this talk and while she arrived late she recalls being impressed by this imam. He condemned Al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks. During his talk he was 'harassed' by members of the audience and suffered it well," reads one document. According to the documents, obtained as part of an ongoing investigation by the specials unit "Fox News Reporting," there was a push within the Defense Department to reach out to the Muslim community

"At that period in time, the secretary of the Army (redacted) was eager to have a presentation from a moderate Muslim." In addition, Awlaki "was considered to be an 'up and coming' member of the Islamic community. After her vetting, Aulaqi (Awlaki) was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army's Office of Government Counsel."

The article actually goes on to cast some doubt over whether he actually attended the event saying that.

Apparently, none of the FBI's information about Awlaki was shared with the Pentagon. Former Army Secretary Tommy White, who led the Army in 2001, said he doesn't have any recollection of the luncheon or any contact with Awlaki. "If this was a luncheon at the Office of Government Counsel, I would not necessarily be there," he said. The Pentagon has offered no explanation of how a man, now on the CIA kills or capture list, ended up at a special lunch for Muslim outreach. After repeated requests for comment on the vetting process beginning on October 13th, an Army spokesman insisted Wednesday that the lunch was not an Army event. "The Army has found no evidence that the Army either sponsored or participated in the event described in this report," spokesman Thomas Collins said. Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Sorry folks not conspiracy here.

To those of you cheering on this action, that is your prerogative. However-comma-space, please, take a moment to consider the precedent that is set by this. An American citizen, who committed no crime, was not indicted for a crime, and was not even suspected in relation to a (actual) crime.....has just been assassinated by order of the president.

Some one unnamed had a suspicion that he was related to the underwear bomber and the times square bomber. Lets analyze those for a moment. The underwear guy was escorted through security, only to be tackled heroically whilst in line, later. The times square guy didn't even have a friggin bomb!!!!! All he had was a can of gas, a bag of fertilizer, and the bad judgment to leave his vehicle unattended!

Riddle me this, batman; with this precedent now set - who next will be the target for assassination? What demographic of Americans will be the next boogie man?

Lastly, I leave you with the famous quote from Martin Niemöller, to chew on:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. "

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


That isn't true. He was a suspected terrorist since 98 and was even monitored by the FBI. A terror suspect cannot get into the Pentagon...it just isn't going to happen. Its a major security issue.

The FBI investigated al-Awlaki from June 1999 through March 2000 for possible fundraising for Hamas, links to al-Qaeda, and a visit in early 2000 by a close associate of "the Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman (who was serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and plotting to blow up NYC landmarks). The FBI's interest was also triggered because he had been contacted by an al-Qaeda operative who had bought a battery for bin Laden's satellite phone, Ziyad Khaleel.[47] But it was unable to unearth sufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution.[7][17][54][58][60][69][74]

He is even suspected of knowing about the 9/11 attacks BEFORE they happened and reportedly had contact wit the hijackers.

Planning for the 9/11 attack and USS Cole bombing was discussed at the January 2000 Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit. Among the planners were Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who later on 9/11 hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. After the summit they traveled to San Diego, where witnesses told the FBI they had a close relationship with al-Awlaki in 2000. Al-Awlaki served as their spiritual adviser, and the two were also frequently visited there by 9/11 pilot Hani Hanjour.[17][54][75] The 9/11 Commission Report indicated that the hijackers "reportedly respected [al-Awlaki] as a religious figure."[52] Authorities say the two hijackers regularly attended the mosque al-Awlaki led in San Diego, and had many long closed-door meetings with him, which led investigators to believe al-Awlaki knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.

The FBI interviewed al-Awlaki four times in the eight days following the 9/11 attacks. [47][70] One detective told the 9/11 Commission he believed al-Awlaki “was at the center of the 9/11 story.” And an FBI agent said that “if anyone had knowledge of the plot, it would have been” him, since “someone had to be in the U.S. and keep the hijackers spiritually focused.”

The FBI interviewed al-Awlaki four times in the eight days following the 9/11 attacks.

en.wikipedia.org...

Did this thread get hijacked and off on a tangent?
I think so....
The essence of the issue as i see it is still this
Is it within legality for the president to be able to order death without trial for any person, be they american or not, if there is no proof of terrorism.?
The crux of the matter is a defining moment in american history, and a turning point towards totalitarian democracy......
I say that tongue in cheek....
There is no democracy, nor rule of law if this is upheld.
The POTUS in my view is guilty of crime against the constitution of the USA>
I think they call that treason or something dont they?
Even military officers are at risk of prosecution for obeying illegal orders....!
This is getting very blatantly like ww2 nazi Germany.
Only with better technology,and a bigger power base.

reply to post by mnmcandiez


Yes but the FBI never had enough evidence to prosecuted him so he was never indicted for any crime although he was investigated.

The point i was making in my post was that although he was dangerous, during 2001 he was not regarded as being significantly dangerous, most of what you have ripped from wiki was only uncovered after the completion of the 9/11 commission report. Or it is stuff I have already pointed out and explained such as the FBI investigation and the interviews regarding 9/11. Interestingly the 9/11 commission highlighted a failure of the intelligence community to shear information, in this case the failure to shear the information is probably what led to him being invited had the pentagon known about the FBI’s concerns he may not have received the invite.

Either way this is not evidence of any conspiracy, you just want it to be. The truth is that had this been a genuine conspiracy to recruit him as a CIA agent and run him covertly for all these years this would have been so well covered up there would have been no chance that any news outlet could uncover it. Are you really so gullible that you would believe that the intelligence officers at the pentagon would be as stupid to invite him to the pentagon for recruitment to be their next shill. It just wouldn’t add up, if you actually look into this, and I don’t just mean a quick check on wiki you will see that this is a embarrassment for the pentagon rather than evidence of a massive government cover up.

reply to post by stirling


There are already threads on the legality of his death. How is this thread on a tangent....its topic is Anwar Al-Awlaki in general.

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


So in your world a terrorist suspect can get into the Pentagon? Think critically here.

He was most definitely seen as dangerous, hence why he was getting scoped out by the FBI in 98....and again days after 9/11.... You don't see that as a national security threat?

reply to post by mnmcandiez


He was not a suspected terrorist at that time, he was not even on a no fly list. All that had happened was that he had been investigated by the FBI, who did not find enough evidence to prosecuted him for any crime and then he was shown to have contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers and I think you will find quite allot of people fall into that category and where interviewed as witnesses rather than suspects. In addition to this the lack of intelligence sheared between the various branch’s of the intelligence apparatus in America before 9/11 and after would have meant that in all probability the FBI would never have sheared this information with the Pentagon, even with that in mind they would have had no reason do to so in the first place.

You are falling into the trap that lots of people on ATS fall into on the terrorism related topics, you are taking things on face value. If you actually think about this logically with the benefit of even a few facts about al-alwarki you will be able to work out for yourself that this invitation was more of a embarrassment to the pentagon rather than a attempt to cover up the conception of a new government super terrorist agent. There just simply is no conspiracy hear.

reply to post by blood0fheroes


The fact that he was a U.S citizen is a non-issue. He was also a dual citizen. He left the US in 2002, stayed in London a bit then landed in Yemen.

The only difference between Aulaki and Bin Laden is that one was a citizen. Aside from videos proclaiming credit, there was no "Solid Proof" that bin laden was behind any of the terrorism. yet i heard no cries of foul when he was killed... so there shouldn't be any here.

I do not feel threatened by this event in anyway, because I am not like Aulaki, I am not spouting jihadist jargon, nor do I support acts of terrorism in any way. If you fall into this, then you have nothing to worry about when it comes to your rights.

As far as Ron Paul is concerned, I think he needs to allow for certain extenuating circumstances. because if Aulaki can be accused of anything at all, it would be treason, ( yes in some ways like Obama, whether you like it or not. ) or conspiracy to commit murder/acts of terrorism.

Obama said it himself, America has gone soft, and hes right. America is soft because WAY too many people are complaining about the lack of rights for child molesters and terrorists.

You all can sleep better knowing that we aren't allowed to hang people in the middle of the town square anymore atleast.

I think this was obamas election stunt rating booster attempt look at the date its alomst october

reply to post by redrose123

no, i believe he is either dead this time, or has been dead. i doubt it went down like the government is saying, but obama wouldn't risk such a huge blatant lie so close to reelection. and reelection is what this is all about.

Awlaki was called a 'moderate muslim' in this fox news article. He has gone on record saying he doesn't beleive citizens should be killed in war. He was invited to speak at the pentagon after 9/11 because he was seen as a 'moderate muslim'. He was interviewed 4 times by the FBI after 9/11 and they didn't charge him with anything, or detain him or anything like that. The only thing he is guilty of is talking to the Underwear bomber and talking to 9/11 hijackers! Thats not a crime!!!!! He has said anti-american statements, but quite frankly with the way this country is going I say those every day multiple times a day. Just like him, i beleive our government has been out of line repeatedly in their actions in the middle east.
www.foxnews.com...

Lets take this train of logic and extend it to Bush senior.... he was a known business associate of Osama bin laden, Thereby contributing to terrorism much more directly (financially) than Awlaki ever did by just talking to these terrorist. He helped fund al queda through the cia.. Bush senior was seen meeting with Bin laden's brother on 9/11...
Ok, trial done, lets bomb this terrorist!

From my understanding, Awlaki was more likely to tell those people that they shouldn't kill innocent civillian! does anybody have a video or quote of this guy saying anything extreme like we should start killing americans?

I'm an american citizen and I beleive every american citizen deserves a fair trial or at least even a trail in absentee. Timothy mcveigh killed 160 people and we didn't even think about just killing him. WE'RE AMERICANS! Lets do things the American way!

This is the worst slippery slope ever. Whose next on this list?

s khan was 15yo when 9/11 happened. today, cnn & other msm announce obama's proclamation of a 'victory' in the fight against al-quaeda. what, something new? nope, the usual incident of some u.s. drone flying all over foreign territory freely as if it owns the sky, took out a few more terrorists and presto look america, the world is little more safer now for us all.

10yrs passed. what happened. we all know what happened to america, and thats most important. but what about at the individual level? how'd this lak-american queens, ny school kid turn into a full blown 'terrorist' we are all supposed to (accordin to potus et al) delighted to have killed?

a quick closer look at s khan's patethic life bio:

came to america at the age of 7

referred to himself as 'a typical American Kid' even years after 9/11 (according to ny times)

born in riyadh, saudi arabia

pakistani parents

between 2001 & 2003, joined islamic organization of north nmerica

IONA summer camp was the beginning of his transformation, he stated to the ny times:
"what I wanted to do with my life: be a firm muslim, a strong muslim, a practicing muslim."

his organization's website guidelines preach nonviolence:
"through active resistance the movement will use all constitutionally sanctioned means to bring about just changes in social, political, and economic practices. this includes non-violent direct action and civil disobedience."


he became a 'jihadi' web geek working out of his parents basement, started blogging by 2003 promoting Islam in North America.

2004 relocated to charlotte, NC with fam

2005 blog called "Inshallahshaheed" (if God wills martyr)

his favorite video was a suicide bomb attack in iraq:
"It was something that brought great happiness to me," he said. "because this is something america would never want to admit, that they are being crushed."

2007 (21) he moved to yemen (thru to 2011)

at some point between 2009-2010 he befriended an undercover fbi who pretended to convert to Islam but later broke his cover.

"I am proud to be a traitor to america, my faith took a 180-degree turn, knew i could no longer reside in america as a compliant citizen."

"my beliefs had turned me into a rebel of Washington's imperialism. my faith and convictions gave me strength to lambast the greatest tyrant of our time. it angered and frustrated them, while it left me in a state of peace and joy. what they were doing and continue to do in the muslim lands is what I felt, totally unacceptable to my religion."

so it was his beliefs, faith and convictions, "a typical american kid" raised here since the age of seven, had to die for being a security risk given maybe his islamic kitchen bomb instructions or whatever.