I am sure the reappearance of this thread will piss off a few people, but obla dee, obla da
FWIW ... The goal of re establishing a new Caliphate is no longer an Islamaphobic CT ... it is fact and for those unafraid of the truth, was foreseeable ... Candidate Obama warned about it. President Obama let it happen ... he could have prevented it. He knew ...
Just because the President (Bush 43) misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.
You didn't have to comment on bin Laden, Kurt. Israel & Palestine irrelevant ? About as irrelevant as the Nazi holocaust, right ? Otherwise the rest of what you say here seems in favor of propping up a rotten to the core status quo & brutal foreign policy that continues to radicalize moderate Muslims. If you want to know what irrelevant is, its anything that spills from any POTUS mouth. Obama like Bush like Clinton is just another empty suit. They are paid to keep the engine of illusion that keeps the populace spellbound running. That's it end of story. Had weeyes to see we would see that its all irrelevant & meaningless to what's reallygoing on because what's really going on looks like an Arab Reformation that is beyond the control of the CIA, Mossad & MI-6 which in turn is frightening the living daylights out of AngloAmericaZIONIST corporatocracy. This bodes well for the global community but not so for Israel it doesn't, which should tell you something about the true nature of Israel & those beholden to it, no ?
For the point I was making about Obama, the Isreali and Palestinian problem is irrelevant.
But if you want to discuss it in context of Obama and the "big picture" the IP (Israeli - Palestinian) problem is tool of divisiveness that serves the purposes of those you are trying expose. Resolving it is counter productive to the goals of those you are trying to expose. True that there was a miscalculation on their part in the resolve and understanding of Jihad, but they have since made the adjustment. Somewhere here years ago, I pointed out that miscalculation in discussing the war in Iraq.
Those that you are trying to expose go to great lengths to keep as many pots boiling to cause distraction while they accomplish their longstanding goals. They want to keep the IP pot boiling just as they seek to keep the pot of racial divide boiling here in the States. Instability and chaos are their weapons and tools of establishing shiny distracting objects in the right hand so you ignore what the left hand is doing. Racism is big business complete with government programs and contracts worth mucho dinero to the administrators and participants. Keeping the IP problem amped up not only keeps the fear of annihilation and Armageddon to the uninformed too busy trying to stay on the hamster wheel alive, but it serves the Military-Industrial complex, Wall Street speculators and those that you are trying to expose. Fear and loathing allows the speculators to manipulate prices, make money and destroy the US and world economy(s) all at the same time.
Obama's remark about 1967 (boundaries) assures that the IP problem will remain unresolved. It plays into the emotions of those under Hamas and serves Hamas by making it appear that the POTUS has become their advocate furthering their resolve to achieve their unrealistic goals. Ask yourself this question, what will happen if Israel is wiped of the map ? Will it bring peace ? Will it quench the thirst of the Jihadists ? Or will it embolden them to keep going and establish their Caliphate throughout the world ? Candidate Obama warned of the establishment of a Caliphate, but President Obama has poo-pooed the notion of a Caliphate as merely the muckraking of CTer's.
I've been paying attention to the problems you raise for nearly 20 years in the context you try and raise. You are a Johnny come lately and still haven't got the facts sorted out, but you are on the right track. Right for the wrong reasons. Go back and explore Jefferson and the Pirates of the Barbary Coast and follow it to the present. Dig deep and you will find the understanding that you need to truly understand the problems we face with the world of Jihad. You have worked the chain of the Rothschilds, now go back to Jefferson and dig. There you will find the definition of the problem we face today.
You make a strong case and your points are well taken. However:
1. I don't know if you're right about this. Every news report I've seen said that he was an American citizen.
I got my information that he claimed to be born in Yemen from news reports.
The question is whether you're going to blindly accept the news reports as if they're conclusions, or follow the evidence.
The first point of evidence is whether or not he qualified for US citizenship in the first place. We know that he didn't qualify for "right of blood" citizenship because his parents were Yemeni citizens. In fact his father, Nasser al-Aulaqi was a member of the government of the nation that he came from. As it happens, one of the reasons why he might not have the "right of the soil" (the only other way to be born a US citizen) is by being born to a foreign government official. All of this may be moot, however, because he insisted that he was born in Yemen.
I found a great site that's not only authoritative by itself, but also links to the US law that is behind it when I did my last research. (EDIT: found it) Unfortunately I can't find the same site now, but I do have one that at least cites the US law. As you can see, there are various ways to forfeit US citizenship. One way is to swear allegiance to another country, which is what he did when he applied for a social security card.
Another way is to become a citizen of another nation. Someone who lived for 11 years in North Yemen, and another 10 years in unified Yemen clearly isn't there on a tourist visa. But again, that could also be moot. The big ones, that he waged war against the US, and (provided he really was a bona fide US citizen) committed treason against the US are ironclad. You can argue that the language says "nation" and that Al Qaeda isn't a nation. My response to that is that between the Patriot Act and Congress declaring war against Al Qaeda renders that technicality irrelevant.
Again, all of that evidence may be moot because he was killed as "an enemy combatant or officer."
I think I made my point technically, but let's just look at this in context. This guy did everything he could to not be a US citizen. He spent half of his life not living in the US. He declared war against the US, and the US did the same against his organization. He waged war against the US. His father lost a lawsuit in the US because his son was of legal age, and he was the only one who could claim the protection of the US, which he did everything but. Technicalities and nit-picking aside, is there really any doubt that he was a bona fide enemy target?
2. This may be true. Still, it was the US government which carried out the sentence. Whether the Yemeni government wanted us to or not isn't the issue.
You just contradicted yourself there. The US didn't carry out any sentence. I don't even know if the Yemeni government even sentenced him. A dead or alive arrest warrant is a completely different thing. Remember that we're talking about sharia-based law here; it is barbaric. Although the US' role was purely one of warfare, the fact that Yemen did find his body per the warrant, declared him dead and withdrew the warrant serves to satisfy the military rules of engagement of the US. What Yemen didn't do was complain to the UN that the US had committed an act of war against Yemen (a good thing since they accidentally bombed themselves the next day ) or retaliate against the US. This adds to the pile of evidence that this was a righteous kill.
>3. We can argue over semantics, but the fact is that the USA deliberately engaged in a premeditated liquidation of an American citizen, reputedly under Obama's orders. This person was executed without benefit of a fair and impartial trial, under direct orders from a "don", and done completely in secret. Sounds like the proverbial "hit' to me. As far as I'm concerned our government acted exactly like the Mafia:
But he wasn't executed. He was killed as a military target at a time of war, by a strictly military munition (Hellfire missile) launched from a military aircraft that was piloted by a military pilot at war. You can argue for courts martial, but you have no basis to say that a foreign combatant killed on foreign soil somehow has some yet-to-be-determined right to the courts on US soil.
It looks like you're trying to make the argument that was made for the people incarcerated at Gitmo. The thing is that Gitmo is US soil, and Yemen is not. So that argument doesn't apply here.
Also. I thought we were at war with Afganistan, not some fanatical fundamentalist religious organization.
Where did you get that idea? For all practical purposes, the US owns Afghanistan. The US can't be at war against itself!
It looks like you're still using the 19th century definitions of warfare. A lot has changed since then. There's Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia and just about every country in Indochina at one time or another. None of those were declared wars. Then there are the invasions of Grenada and Panama. The US invaded both of those sovereign nations for no better reason than to take people back with them when they left.
Finally there's 2001-09-11, the day that defined warfare in the 21st century. It's not just the US either. Long before 2001-09-11 a lot of nations around the world had to deal with domestic and global terrorism. Although they don't care for the way the Bush administration handled things, they don't have any problem with treating a standing army as a standing army even if that army carries no flag. So if you thinking of dismissing 21st century warfare as a US-only anomaly, I think you'll find more international support for the legitimacy of going after stateless armies than you expected.
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, the guy probably deserved it. On the other, it is distressing to me that virtually no one questions this action on the part of the US government - it did in fact send a hit squad to kill an American citizen without trial.
1. As I enumerated in my previous post, there is ample evidence that this man was not a US citizen. Remember that both his parents are foreign nationals, or they were when he was born. He claimed himself that he was not born in the US from the start, and there's absolutely no doubt that he forfeited any chance of US citizenship when he willingly expatriated himself in multiple ways.
2. Traditionally the authority of US courts is limited to US soil. Just because the Bush administration completely ignored the limits of US sovereignty doesn't mean that the US has any sovereign authority in Yemen, through US law, Yemeni law or international law. In other words, only Yemeni courts have any actual power to charge, try and convict people on Yemeni soil. And, in fact, that is precisely what happened.
3. A drone strike is not a "hit squad". It's a military operation. The last time I checked, Congress still hasn't withdrawn its Constitutional power to wage war against Al Qaeda, and the vast majority of the US people have passed up every opportunity to direct Congress to change this. Remember that democracy doesn't mean that you get what you want all the time; it means that the majority gets what it wants, collectively.
The whole incident reminded me of the scene in the film 'Syriana', where the Saudi prince was liquidated by a corporation, orchestrated by technophiles back at the Pentagon. I was raised to believe that every person, even a child molesting pedophile, had a right to his/her day in court. This sets a bad precedent in my view.
I was raised to believe a lot of things that weren't true too. It's called indoctrination. Welcome to reality.
If you're like me, you were taught that people in the US were entitled to the US court system. (US citizenship isn't even a requirement.) However it was made crystal clear to me that being a US citizen didn't entitle me to shit when I stepped across the border. Before I entered Communist territory during the Cold War I was cautioned in no uncertain terms that I could be arrested as a spy there, and according to Geneva Convention rules I could be executed on the spot. Don't think for a minute that the US has somehow been above that provision during all the time it sent all those people into foreign lands to fight wars.
This guy always had the option to do what he did on US soil, which would have entitled him to a fair trial. He chose not to. End of story.
The Republican candidates' backhanded congratulations to the President were pretty amusing to watch.
Then there was the clueless Ron Paul, who called it "an assassination" of "an American citizen". The guy might have been born in the US, but both his parents are Yemeni, he listed Yemen as his place of birth when he applied for a social security card, lived outside the US for fully half of his life, and declared war against the US. Even his own Yemeni government had a "dead or alive" warrant against him. He was killed in a country that wanted him dead. "Assassination" is a bit over the top for a person who was a nobody in the Arab world. He was only a big name to a handful of Muslim terrorists living in the US.
Jadewahoo, there are many RPeeps who have succeeded in scaring me off this forum...you're one of the few that inspire me to keep this place bookmarked. I wish I could link to the above text on my fb page! (I would have sent you this in a pm but the last time I pm'd someone here she called me an asshole so no more pm'ing...)
Got ta love them Texans. Finding reasons to love em more everyday.
Disclaimer: I may be out there in my own outfield, but I ain't a truther or the extreme religious type usually affiliated with those links. Never been to any of them before I heard about all this stuff. Nor do I think I can infuence anything. Its more of a notice of an event that may have made those brown shirts blue. No one will be able to say there were no signs or warnings.
Funny that a line was drawn in Texas. Remember the Alamo ...
Jadewahoo, there are many RPeeps who have succeeded in scaring me off this forum...you're one of the few that inspire me to keep this place bookmarked. I wish I could link to the above text on my fb page! (I would have sent you this in a pm but the last time I pm'd someone here she called me an asshole so no more pm'ing...)
Just cut and paste. But make sure you give Jade credit, otherwise he's likely to sic somma that shaman juju on you.
Someone called you an a$$hole? Dang, I thought I was special...
Thar was some big tornadoes in Missouri, I heerd it on the news. Yep, and that thar Obama feller, he is the Persident of all these united states an' it happent on his watch too. He is one sneaky feller I tell ya, cuz he was off in the United Kingdom curtsying to them Brtits what we already had a to do with back in the seventeen hunnerds, so he has what them types call 'plausible deniability'. In cahoots with them Brits, I'd say, yes siree. I seen them teleephonic movies them yunguns took and I can tell yer, that thar tornado were being intelligentlemanly controlled, it were. The way it were dancing and movin', shakin' an' a rollin', wast a mighty disgrace to the Lord. My Priccher tells me it were God's Redemption on display, but I think he were wrong, I think it were that thar Obama feller's misruption of them weather patternistics. I is sure glad for this here innernet web thingamajig cuz now the ones of us who know the Truth About Wht Is Going On can get the werd out to all the other hungry Souls who is wondering what this Obama feller is up to next, by dang.
Yep.
Jadewahoo, there are many RPeeps who have succeeded in scaring me off this forum...you're one of the few that inspire me to keep this place bookmarked. I wish I could link to the above text on my fb page! (I would have sent you this in a pm but the last time I pm'd someone here she called me an asshole so no more pm'ing...)
Thar was some big tornadoes in Missouri, I heerd it on the news. Yep, and that thar Obama feller, he is the Persident of all these united states an' it happent on his watch too. He is one sneaky feller I tell ya, cuz he was off in the United Kingdom curtsying to them Brtits what we already had a to do with back in the seventeen hunnerds, so he has what them types call 'plausible deniability'. In cahoots with them Brits, I'd say, yes siree. I seen them teleephonic movies them yunguns took and I can tell yer, that thar tornado were being intelligentlemanly controlled, it were. The way it were dancing and movin', shakin' an' a rollin', wast a mighty disgrace to the Lord. My Priccher tells me it were God's Redemption on display, but I think he were wrong, I think it were that thar Obama feller's misruption of them weather patternistics. I is sure glad for this here innernet web thingamajig cuz now the ones of us who know the Truth About Wht Is Going On can get the werd out to all the other hungry Souls who is wondering what this Obama feller is up to next, by dang.
Not sure where to put this but ... but Obama is directly involved and its on his watch ... ... Are we having fun yet ...
Thar was some big tornadoes in Missouri, I heerd it on the news. Yep, and that thar Obama feller, he is the Persident of all these united states an' it happent on his watch too. He is one sneaky feller I tell ya, cuz he was off in the United Kingdom curtsying to them Brtits what we already had a to do with back in the seventeen hunnerds, so he has what them types call 'plausible deniability'. In cahoots with them Brits, I'd say, yes siree. I seen them teleephonic movies them yunguns took and I can tell yer, that thar tornado were being intelligentlemanly controlled, it were. The way it were dancing and movin', shakin' an' a rollin', wast a mighty disgrace to the Lord. My Priccher tells me it were God's Redemption on display, but I think he were wrong, I think it were that thar Obama feller's misruption of them weather patternistics. I is sure glad for this here innernet web thingamajig cuz now the ones of us who know the Truth About What Is Going On can get the werd out to all the other hungry Souls who is wondering what this Obama feller is up to next, by dang.
AUSTIN - Sen. Dan Patrick, one of the most prominent conservatives in the Senate, lashed out at Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst Wednesday, blaming him for the death of a bill that would have banned airport security pat-downs.
... The bill would have forbidden Transportation Security Agency personnel from searching certain body parts with their hands without first obtaining probable cause. Supporters have said that the body searches are an affront to privacy.
Tuesday night, Patrick accused Dewhurst of actively campaigning against his bill on the Senate floor.
"Apparently, for political reasons ... he came up with this elaborate political play to kill the bill without his fingerprints," Patrick said Wednesday of the letter from U.S. Attorney John Murphy.
The letter warned legislators that TSA would "likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of the passengers and crew."
"I think members realized there had been a letter from the U.S. Attorney, and some people started changing their minds," Dewhurst told reporters late Tuesday night.
An astounding Department of Justice threat to cancel airline flights to and from Texas, in addition to underhanded lobbying by TSA representatives, has killed efforts in the state to pass HB 1937, a bill that would have made invasive pat downs by TSA agents a felony.
HB 1937, a bill that would have made it "A criminal act for security personnel to touch a person's private areas without probable cause as a condition of travel or as a condition of entry into a public place," was headed for an imminent Senate vote in Texas having already passed the House unanimously 138-0, before the federal government stepped in to nix the legislation.
In a letter sent to Texas lawmakers, including to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, the House Clerk, and the Senate Secretary, U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy threatened to cripple the airline industry in the state if legislators did not back down.
"If HR 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute," Murphy wrote. "Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew."
"We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote," Murphy added.
The fact that Murphy can't even get the name of the bill correct is almost as disconcerting as the rampant mafia-like attitude of the DOJ in using de facto economic terrorism to shoot down the legislation.
Following a fiery debate in the Texas House last night, Senate sponsor Dan Patrick (R-Houston) pulled the bill, remarking that TSA representatives had been "lobbying" the Texas Senate in an effort to mothball the legislation.
"I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas," Patrick said.
Patrick added that TSA officials had warned him passing the bill "could close down all the airports in Texas," which he regarded as a ‘heavy handed threat' by the federal government.
The staff of Rep. David Simpson said the DOJ had "thrown down the gauntlet" in using such stark language to oppose the bill.
"Either Texas backs off and continues to let government employees fondle innocent women, children and men as a condition of travel," the staff wrote, "or the TSA has the authority to cancel flights or series of flights."
"... 97 percent of people who go though the nation's airports do not go through these offensive searches. And yet, a United States Attorney warns that flights to Texas could be shut down because TSA would not be able to ensure the safety of passengers and crew if agents could not touch genitals. Someone must make a stand against the atrocities of our government agents ..."
In a point by point refutation of the DOJ letter, Simpson compared the battle against the TSA to the Texas revolutionary war against Mexico, writing, "Gentlemen, we find ourselves at such a watershed moment today. The federal government is attempting to deprive the citizens of Texas of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9, of the Texas Constitution. If we do not stand up for our citizens in the face of this depravation of their personal rights and dignity, who will?"
The fact that the Department of Justice and the TSA have resorted to threats of economic terrorism in addition to underhanded lobbying techniques again illustrates the fact that the federal government is increasingly behaving like a criminal enterprise with total disregard for the Constitution.
The TSA's initial response to HB 1937 was to claim that it could not become law because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2), a law that the TSA claimed "prevents states from regulating the federal government."
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
"So, in simple terms, what does the supremacy clause mean? Just what it says. The constitution is supreme. And any federal laws made in line with the constitution is supreme. Nothing more, nothing less," writes Boldin.
As we have documented, TSA grope downs and body scans are now being rolled out on highways, street corners, public buildings, at sports events, and even at local prom nights.
Despite the fact that the federal government has resorted to thuggish intimidation tactics to kill the anti-grope down bill in Texas, this only marks the latest chapter in an epic states' rights battle that has centered on the agenda of the TSA to become a literal occupying force in America, manning internal checkpoints that will litter the entire country.
) or retaliate against the US. This adds to the pile of evidence that this was a righteous kill.
