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

lolwut?

rtsy what are you going to do to stop Obama from killing innocent Americans besides making threads?

 

The obvious politicized answer, as sammy pointed out, is "that sucks"
cause that's all rtsy cares about anyways... what it means politically. not what it means legally, much less morally. there's a reason why he bolded and highlighted in red the one sentence he did. because his recent 48 hour crusade associated with the kill list is about getting Obama out of office, and nothing more.

That said, the question of due process of law, and the idea of a "kill list" is worthy of discussion. Is the concept that it was okay to drone strike/kill the father but not the son? Is that because they father was an obvious threat and the son less obvious?

As far as I know, we are currently fighting a war, right? To that end, the kid was killed as part of the war effort. He may have been wrongfully killed or may not have to that end. I don't know. I'm not privy to such information.

All that said, Gibbs response was unfortunate. He clearly should not have been killed solely because he was the son of a bad guy.

 

He's pouring some out on the curb for Anwar and replaying the Boyz II Men repeatedly

GARY JOHNSON HOO AHH!

 

His father didn't pull the trigger. Sorry you lose.

 

Is your problem with drone strikes as a whole, regardless of where, when and how used? Is your problem with the fact that we are in a "war", in quotes, but not a "real" war? Is your problem with Robert Gibbs justification (that's what the thread title implies, but its not clear from your posting)? Do you just want to find something to hang onto as a way to get rid of Obama?

Nobody knows!! Increasingly... nobody cares.

 

Hightop?

 

You keep repeating this. It's clearly not true.

 

Those who voted for Obama like me that are against these extrajudicial killings of US citizens. Most liberals I know are unaware of this issue; the ones that are aware say "**** happens in war" and shrug it off. I also think there would be more outrage if Bush or McCain were in office. In case you missed it, see this post:

Most liberal Americans interact or see homosexuals in their daily life, and can speak passionately in the Chick-Fil-A thread on anti-religion and/or civil rights arguments. Very few have visited places like Afghanistan or Pakistan, eaten dinner with the people who live there, or worked within the military-industrial complex to see things like corny videos of drones in action at a weapons expo, etc. Like JD, the few that do care feel powerless and too removed from the decision-making.

The older I get, the more I appreciate thinkers like Edmund Burke, George Orwell, and Noam Chomsky. I watch with morbid unease at how this country has changed in the decade after 9/11, and where this trend will be twenty years from now.

 

So, your measure of these things is this messageboard? You don't seem to take into account different motivations - you are hardcore anti-Obama. You hate him and you think he's destroying the country. I doubt you actually care about the people killed by these strikes ... but it's incredibly clear that you care about preventing a second Obama term. The fact is, it looks like you're just playing politics, and judging by your rhetoric, most people have very little reason to believe otherwise.

The fact that you're the "only one" making threads about this speaks more to the fact that you prowl specific political blogs (that link to other articles on other sites) and then post threads here as soon as they post a new story on the subject "Obama sucks." (this article was published October 24th. You posted it on October 24th.)

You have it in your head that anyone who doesn't agree with all of your perspectives, or those who don't share your same political agenda (because let's be honest here - this is all about politics to you), you automatically label as an Obama worshipper or whatever. I'm sure there are some here, but those of us who think Obama is slightly-less-worse than Romney aren't just some blind acolytes. To quote Nook from another thread, many answer the question like this:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm completely aware that Obama has perpetuated and continued some absolutely horrendous programs under the guise of "national security". I'm also aware that most the Romney's foreign policy advisors got their start with George W. Bush (17 out of 24 of them, to be precise.) In matters like this, I don't think either candidate is going to be any "better" than the other. In terms of wiretapping and domestic spying, I don't believe that either candidate is going to be any "better" than the others. So, I have to look at this from the perspective of other issues, because as important as this may be to me, there is no politically-feasible way for me to stop it.

I've stated this before, but black-and-white thinkers seem to think it's impossible - I have not, and will not, vote for Obama. I will either vote for myself or a third party candidate. But, if I was in a swing state, I'd vote for Obama - the logic is the same. I don't think Obama's a good choice, and I wouldn't use the words "the best choice." I think he's the least-worst choice out of two terrible choices.

Now, your hyper-partisan perspective apparently makes you incapable of understanding that not everyone is a hyper-partisan as you are. The only way you're going to be satisfied on this matter is if everyone starts taking their talking points from reason.tv, advocates for a complete removal of the federal government, and blesses the "free market" as a holy institution that will be infallible in setting us all free from tyranny.

What you need to do here is recognize that the fact that when people don't agree with you point-for-point on the platform you've adopted whole-hog from free-marketeer websites, and don't take up that pre-fabricated banner with the same fervor you have, that doesn't mean that they're ignorant of all the horrible things Obama has done.

It's like the only way you can understand people is in terms of absolutes. You've set up a certain set of conditions - either someone resolutely agrees with you on every talking point you regurgitate, or that person is a socialist communist terrorist Obama-lover.

...and I've typed all of this out, and I know it will have no influence on you whatsoever. You already have your mind made up about everyone who doesn't religiously adhere to the same party platform that you've adopted.

 

If thread title was different I might have actually read the OP's post. When you obviously have an agenda its hard to remain objective.

 

Derecho.

Discuss.

 

I'm liberal. I think the kill list isn't cool, even understanding it's war. It could be necessary but I'm not the one making those choices. That said, I think most of the shift to disenchantment happened after 9/11. Many of the Right wing's "you're with us or against us" or "you do what you have to in war" rhetoric naturally dulled the senses of a lot of Americans, including those on the left. There is a feel of we've heard it before.

Lastly, on this message board and rest of internet, there are a TON of posts (on both sides) attacking the other side. I made this argument before that if you jump on every little thing and never admit mistake/defeat, like the boy who cried wolf you end at some point discredited no matter how appropriate your current argument is. Just a thought.

 

it's human nature, nothing to do with political party.

 

I like how Republicans go on and on about how life is so sanctified, how precious Americans are, etc. There's no irony at all here.

After all, these same people basically call poor people leeches of society and try to deny them any chance of recovery in life by denying all social welfare. They layoff firefighters, teachers, policemen. You know, those who help save American lives each and every day. They allow companies to endanger American lives for the sake of more corporate earnings. They start wars and wish to expand American military presence in foreign countries at prohibitory costs. They would deny veterans help in adjusting to society and basic healthcare from combat injuries.

But let's ignore all that. Because stuff like what the OP says is obviously much more of a danger towards American values and livelihood. And lord knows Bush would never, ever hurt Americans in any way close to the atrocities Obama committed.

 

How about the 100K Iraqis that were killed by USA army?

Life does not mean anything to USA.

 

Trooper in copter fires on vehicle; 2 killed
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/lo...-copter-fires-on-vehicle-2-killed-3982867.php

Two people died Thursday in the Rio Grande Valley after a trooper in a highway patrol helicopter opened fire on a vehicle fleeing law enforcement.

A Texas Department of Public Safety helicopter joined a pursuit initiated by Texas Parks and Wildlife on Thursday afternoon near La Joya in Hidalgo County, DPS spokeswoman Catherine Cesinger said.

A DPS officer “discharged a weapon” during the chase, according to Cesinger's statement.

She confirmed that two people traveling in the vehicle died, one was injured and transported to a hospital, and six others were captured.

Troopers were looking for additional subjects Thursday afternoon and the Texas Rangers are investigating the incident, Cesinger said.

Additional details were unavailable Thursday night.

DPS has taken an aggressive role on the border in recent years, increasing the number of troopers there, deploying boats and dispatching helicopters with designated marksmen armed with powerful rifles.

As a result, the agency has been involved in a large number of high-speed chases — sometimes ending in what troopers call “splashdowns,” when smugglers drive their vehicles into the Rio Grande to escape U.S. law enforcement.

Cartel operatives on the Mexican side often use boats to try to recover contraband from the smugglers' trucks.

The agency's director has said it's been forced into the role because federal agencies aren't doing enough to secure the border and because smugglers have become more aggressive, resorting to splashdowns, using other vehicles to block pursuits and throwing homemade spikes at officers.

But their methods have been questioned, including decisions to shoot at fleeing vehicles from patrol cars and helicopters, a tactic eschewed by other law enforcement agencies.



jbuch@express-news.net