Subject: let's argue about Awlaki
You're twisting the argument.
There's no chance I might have a sincere point of view?
Why does every disagreement
come down to me being a liar?
We all know that cops in America kill
people........some cops have a shoot first,
ask questions later mentality. And some cops plant weapons on people
they've killed who were unarmed.
but that's waaaay off-topic and we need to keep moving forward.
If everybody could just admit I'm right, we could move on.
But you can't use
your analogy of the cop shooting someone coming at them.
a place to start a discussion.
Remember the torture debate we
never had because nobody would agree that
they might consider breaking a certain terrorist's
finger to save their child?
was a logical to start a debate - but nobody would budge.
I guarantee that Bono, MLK, John Lennon
and Ghandi would fight to save their kids,
but it's so easy to take a "never" position in a debate.
This way, I've gotten people to admit
that some cops deprive
suspects "extra judiciously."
what I call progress.
that we've admitted life can be taken without a warrant, maybe we can
that debate and discuss under what circumstances that judiciousness can
Awlaki was accused by the U.S. of
plotting terrorist attacks on Americans, and he certainly was very
openly verbal about the need for jihad against America. But the
rationale for killing him rests solely on
U.S. intelligence (very often an oxymoron) and not on any hard proven
facts or judicial proceedings.
not share your concerns.
If the Giggling Murderer said
we needed to murder 250 "maybes" in Yemen, I would vote no.
But Obama would still be
dithering over Libya had Hillary not straightened him out.
This Awlaki slug was the biggest al Qaeda threat - he was essentially
How big a resume should we
allow this punk to build before we put his lights out?
a few weeks ago, some Pakistan handjobs orchestrated an attack on our
We knew it was the Paks because our
military was tapping their damn
They heard the attackers call "home" and ask for further instructions,
so I assume Awlaki made some phone calls and it cost him his ass.
you asking to read the transcripts of those tapped phone calls?
I'm certain Obama wouldn't bet his presidency on a maybe.
Possible Truce Point:
It feels like I'm always arguing the opposite side in a "In a perfect
Is it wrong to deprive a guy of his civil rights?
perfect world, yes, but what if you can save an airliner by taking
Do you want to be on that side of that argument?
"I could've saved
that plane, but my warrant had a typo, so I held back."
That sounds very Democratic.
may times over the years have I suggested that my debate partner and I
about different things? I think this disconnect has caused a lot of bad
blood and it's because
I have failed to make the point I'm making now.
wars be avoided?
Yes, at almost any cost.
Yes, in almost every case.
it wrong to shoot a cop?
In almost every case, yes.
If you check, you'll see
I'm consistent in that I'm always arguing the concrete, facts in our
and my opponent often says, "That's always
wrong, no matter what," which isn't very real
To use your cop analogy, the guy stands
on a soapbox exhorting a crowd to go blow up a police station
and kill cops. The cops observe this, but instead of arresting him for
inciting violence, putting him on trial,
convicting him, sending him to the slammer where he belongs; they kill
him. The rationale for killing him is
that he was a threat to society and needed to be removed. A court would
call this extra judicial murder, and
sentence the cop for contravening U.S. law. No conviction, no execution.
If the murderer was standing
right there next to the cop, unarmed, killing him would be wrong.
BTW, are you under the impression that Awlaki was some kind of
cheerleader or heckler?
He was godfather to the Shoe
Bomber and the Underwear Bomber.
He helped that Times Square bomber build his didn't-work bomb.
was e-mailing that Captain that shot up Fort Hood and killed 20 or so
Please stop thinking
he's some dude with a smart mouth and a modem.
that why people want him treated more fairly?
Because some see him as "just some dude with an opinion?"
Until the U.S. reverts
back to the rule of law, these killings will be seen as nothing less
than vigilante justice;
to the detriment of our world standing, and more importantly our
ability to counter terrorism worldwide.
Every extra judicial killing only convinces more people (misguided as
they may be) to join the extremists in fighting the "Great Satan".
I think Obama got this one
e-mail to Bart
Back to Bartcop.com
e-mail to Bart
Back to Bartcop.com