Hugh_Hoy Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 "US-born radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, has been killed in Yemen, the country's defence ministry said." The same artical notes that "Mr Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing last year." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879 While I have no qualms about the action, I wonder if I'm the only one who detects a "bit" of hypocrisy on the part of the U.S. "commander-in Chief". (Small "c" for emphasis.) For those who may have a short memory, Obama is the guy who campaigned on closing down GITMO and subsequently pushing for criminal trials on U.S. soil for those captured on a foreign "battlefield" (rather than appearing before military tribunals). Obama has also endeared himself to his liberal base and the liberal Eurocrats for denoucing "enhanced" interrogation techniques/renditions. So, out of one side of his mouth he attempts to gain favor with cuntries (pun intended) who have criticised the U.S. response to terrorists (and accepting an ill-deserved Nobel Peace Prize) while, out the other side of his mouth, directs an assassination of an American citizen on foreign soil without giving the guy his day in court. WTF ? Maybe Obama has decided, "If I can't try them in court, I'll just put a bounty on em." Obama, being the legal "scholar" he is considered by many, seems to not know or care that even U.S. sovereign states (if there is such a thing anymore) have laws against "dead or alive" rewards. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I wrote about this as well. I am glad the bastards got theirs. I won't lose a bit of sleep over them but its illegal to target American citizens for killings without due process. That said, if its a reason not to vote or support Obama, I would ask if anyone thinks any of the Republican candidates wouldn't do the same? Not exonerating Obama for it. He's wrong to do it. But he's looking more 'Republican' with his actions and I am surprised Republicans aren't cheering it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 "They" have to keep the "war on terror" going. A war that has no specific enemy, no way to conclude when it is won but funded with mountains of $$$...can you say, scam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 "They" have to keep the "war on terror" going. A war that has no specific enemy, no way to conclude when it is won but funded with mountains of $$$...can you say, scam People will follow the beat of any drum if they believed their is danger. Fear is a great tool of the manipulators [politicians]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 I wrote about this as well. I am glad the bastards got theirs. I won't lose a bit of sleep over them but its illegal to target American citizens for killings without due process. That said, if its a reason not to vote or support Obama, I would ask if anyone thinks any of the Republican candidates wouldn't do the same? Not exonerating Obama for it. He's wrong to do it. But he's looking more 'Republican' with his actions and I am surprised Republicans aren't cheering it. Obama does seem like a Republican. As I have said before I will not be surprised if one of the USA drones flying in the USA or Mexico pulls up behind a car (probably in Arizona) and launch a missle killing all drug dealer suspects. USA's lack of recognition of other country's soverignity and the right not to give a person a fair trial but instead an extrajudicial execution seem to be the trademarks of the Republican party. By the way, isn't it the 'bad guys' who are suppose to be doing the extrajudicial executions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted October 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 But he's looking more 'Republican' with his actions and I am surprised Republicans aren't cheering it. Nah...he's just, once again, demonstrating his ability to be a hypocrite and a run-of-the mill politician. Certainly not the principaled savior of the planet or one who should be teaching constitutional law. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 "They" have to keep the "war on terror" going. A war that has no specific enemy, no way to conclude when it is won but funded with mountains of $$$...can you say, scam 100% agree. I was totally against it from the start because it was obviously a ploy for the government to do certain things. Same with this war on drugs. What is the definable end? Total 100% eradication? That will never happen. What is the specific goal to this war on terror? How do we know when this war is over? Got news, it wil never be over and the powers that be know that and want that. If al qaida surrendered tomorrow in some statment they'd still find a way to keep it going. The concept will expand and be assigned to something not intended. Similar to the RICO act which was specifically targeted to the mob but has been applied to even Wall Street now. Before you can say whats wrong with that, if you and I got together on something deemed illegal we can have it attributed to us as well and that opens us up to wire tapping and all sorts of civil liberty violations. I've said this before and I'll repeat it. We are no longer a Republic. Oh, we still get the vote but it means nothing when both sides are in the same game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamui Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 Nah...he's just, once again, demonstrating his ability to be a hypocrite and a run-of-the mill politician. Certainly not the principaled savior of the planet or one who should be teaching constitutional law. HH The Repubs are strangely quite in regard to Obama's war on terror. Since he is running the show Al Qaeda leaders are being killed one after another. With Obama's success the Reps lost a major line of attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 Nah...he's just, once again, demonstrating his ability to be a hypocrite and a run-of-the mill politician. Certainly not the principaled savior of the planet or one who should be teaching constitutional law. HH The right labled him as some leftist socialist and he's nothing close to one. The liberals are disappointed in him HH, that alone should tell you something. I know the right has it in for him for the sole reason he's not one of them. I guarantee you if Obama was a Republican the right would have nothing bad to say about him. At least nothing remotely close to the level he's criticized now. Clinton changed social welfare drastically and with the Financial Services Act gave the powers that be all kinds of ways to screw us over and the Republicans still hated him. Why? He wasn't their guy. Same with Obama, its no longer on ideological ideas as much as they pretend it to be. Its raw naked power. Nothing else. Had McCain won I guarantee you the economy would still be in a mess and would have not have improved more. The problem has to be fixed over a long period of time. Romney and Perry have said NOTHING to make me believe they can do any better. I'm no big fan of Obama. However, I see NOTHING from the leading Republican candidates that will win me back to vote for them again. Paul is about the only one and the Republican leadership don't like or want him which tells me all I need to know. They don't want ideas, just power and whomever polls best against the guy in the other party. Romney is favorite because he polls the best agains Obama, no more, no less. Its about getting Obama out and NOTHING to do with the country. They got you fooled HH. The only reason you should be beholden to the party is if you're the CEO of Northrup-Grumman or Bank of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh_Hoy Posted October 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 If Obama was a Republican? Yeah, and IF pigs could fly. Barry IS a socialist. No 2 ways about it. In fact, he's a Marxist. Sure, nobody who is a liberal, socialist or commie will admit it. They'd be scorned the same as a pedophile, here in the U.S. The libtards now like to be called "progressive". LOL. Now, if the left wing of the Demoncrap Party is soooooo disappointed and disenchanted with Barry, why doesn't it nominate a "better" Marxist? I think that the answer is clear: there is no known/admitted Marxist of Barry's charisma and brand that could do as well. Barry is the face of the left wing of the party. There is nobody else that element can turn to. On the other hand, the GOP has a fistful of attractive alternatives. Sure, no candidate will from any party will "tick off" everybodies lists of "wants" and "don't wants". But the GOP has more candidates who are good for the country than the lefties have. (Not hard to do, as the left has NO candidates who are good for the country.) Steve...beholden to the GOP? I voted Libertarian last time around. Sure, I'll admit to being more aligned with the GOP than the Communist...er, I mean, Demoncrap Party. BTW, how did you switch from being a "small-L" libertarian to being "progressive"? Not even being in the same area code, my friend. I guess you got snatched while sleeping. Getting Obama out of power has everything to do with what is good for the country. He is an evil m-fkr. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.