Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you have a search engine?
Yes, and it tells me there was no 16 year old who was targeted for a drone strike.
Oh I see what you are doing, you are believing what the administration fed you and are saying that the 16 year old boy and his cousins were not intentionally murdered it was manslaughter. Ok we'll go with that.
If it's approved by Congress of COURSE - Just ask any neocon:
Newsflash for pvsimpleton:
Innocent people died in WWI and in WWII and in the Korean "Conflict" and in the Vietnam "War." And in the Civil War. And in the Revolutionary War. And in the War of 1812. And in every damn war that has ever been.
Good point - but was this guy targeted?
If so - why?
The linked story says he was on a "kill list" is that true? If so, why?
Not a fan at all of drone strikes outside a combat zone. It's an invitation to disaster.
But without a lot more information - like how do we know this guy was "innocent" and what made the administration put him on a "kill list" in the first place?
If the guy was involved with terrorism, no real sympathy.
But there are some good questions - imho - that should be answered.
Are you paying attention at all? It is well known fact that Obama does have a death list provide by the CIA. HE, Obama, picks from that list. HE chose to kill an innocent 16 year old American and his cousins. His excuse according to Gibbs? He had a bad father.
The only requirement we have now is that the CIA says so, do you trust the CIA? Or do you pretty much don't trust them?
Simply not true. Sadly he was killed but he was not the target of the strike was he?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that Obama didn't know that the boy was the target. The drones don't do facial recognition they hit their targets by GPS tracking so someone targeted this 16 year old.
Not a fan at all of drone strikes outside a combat zone. It's an invitation to disaster.
But without a lot more information - like how do we know this guy was "innocent" and what made the administration put him on a "kill list" in the first place?
If the guy was involved with terrorism, no real sympathy.
But there are some good questions - imho - that should be answered.
First of all the 16 year old was not in combat when killed, was never in combat against America and posed no direct threat. THAT should be enough not to be targeted. Speech is not a reason to kill Americans. If we cross that line anything could happen.
When first asked Gibbs said this, can't get much more pathetic:
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American
Newsflash for pvsimpleton:
Innocent people died in WWI and in WWII and in the Korean "Conflict" and in the Vietnam "War." And in the Civil War. And in the Revolutionary War. And in the War of 1812. And in every damn war that has ever been.
Good point - but was this guy targeted?
If so - why?
The linked story says he was on a "kill list" is that true? If so, why?
That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.
I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.
I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.
Good point - but was this guy targeted?
If so - why?
The linked story says he was on a "kill list" is that true? If so, why?
That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.
I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.
I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.
The truth is that Japan was finished we didn't have to invade or drop the bomb. But I don't condemn Truman because at the time the Japanese were looked upon as nothing more then animals. We should fess up to what dropping the bomb(s) and the fire bombing of Dresden really were, acts of terror. Up until WW2 modern warfare avoided civilian targets, the allies changed all of that.
Not a fan at all of drone strikes outside a combat zone. It's an invitation to disaster.
But without a lot more information - like how do we know this guy was "innocent" and what made the administration put him on a "kill list" in the first place?
If the guy was involved with terrorism, no real sympathy.
But there are some good questions - imho - that should be answered.
First of all the 16 year old was not in combat when killed, was never in combat against America and posed no direct threat. THAT should be enough not to be targeted. Speech is not a reason to kill Americans. If we cross that line anything could happen.
When first asked Gibbs said this, can't get much more pathetic:
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American
How do you know that this guy was "never in combat against America and posed no direct threat"????
That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.
I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.
I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.
The truth is that Japan was finished we didn't have to invade or drop the bomb. But I don't condemn Truman because at the time the Japanese were looked upon as nothing more then animals. We should fess up to what dropping the bomb(s) and the fire bombing of Dresden really were, acts of terror. Up until WW2 modern warfare avoided civilian targets, the allies changed all of that.
Yeah, cause the blitz never harmed any civilians .....
and someone forgot to tell the Japanese they were finished.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the governments targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta
So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.
Yes, and it tells me there was no 16 year old who was targeted for a drone strike.
Oh I see what you are doing, you are believing what the administration fed you and are saying that the 16 year old boy and his cousins were not intentionally murdered it was manslaughter. Ok we'll go with that.
I've called you out for claiming that he was targeted every time I see you do it. I've pointed out to you numerous times that the President is authorized to conduct the campaign against al Qaeda as he sees fit.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the governments targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta
So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.
No, you're only exhibiting your ignorance concerning the issue, as those targeted are afforded administrative due process.
Yes, both sides bombed civilian targets but it was the allies that started it, and maybe for good reason. What it did was get Hitler to move his target from radar and military targets to civilian.
First of all the 16 year old was not in combat when killed, was never in combat against America and posed no direct threat. THAT should be enough not to be targeted. Speech is not a reason to kill Americans. If we cross that line anything could happen.
When first asked Gibbs said this, can't get much more pathetic:
How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American
How do you know that this guy was "never in combat against America and posed no direct threat"????
All evidence is all I have. Unless you have some evidence he was. A direct threat means what? Direct threat means, to me, in actual direct combat. Kind of like if a person threatens you with a gun and you shoot them they were a direct threat. Verses someone you perceive as a threat and killing them.
What would you think if Russia did such a thing?
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the government’s targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.
So the 16 yr old boy from Denver waged war on the US?
Are you simple or is it just a bad day?
Which 16 year old boy was targeted again?
Do you have a search engine?
Good point - but was this guy targeted?
If so - why?
The linked story says he was on a "kill list" is that true? If so, why?
That is a fair question. For now, I don't yet know the answer.
I am not entirely comfortable with the notion of kill lists. But there may be valid room for exceptions.
I can tell you for sure certain that such ugly decisions and the process of making such decisions are often unpalatable. For instance, a decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan thereby consigning LOTS of otherwise innocent civilians to horrific deaths had to be a tough call. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the decision NOT to have done so would have resulted in FAR FAR more deaths of Japanese, Americans and civilians alike.
The truth is that Japan was finished we didn't have to invade or drop the bomb. But I don't condemn Truman because at the time the Japanese were looked upon as nothing more then animals. We should fess up to what dropping the bomb(s) and the fire bombing of Dresden really were, acts of terror. Up until WW2 modern warfare avoided civilian targets, the allies changed all of that.
OMG you don't bother reading the links. HE is what the lawsuit was all about. There are pictures of him at the link I provided. Have you nurse do a google for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQlbnulmnEw
Here is a picture of who the CIA/Obama murdered.
He was not the target of the strike. No matter how many time you claim he was.
My proof is that he was killed, what is your proof that he was not targeted?
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a lawsuit in 2012 challenging the governments targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone. Oral argument was held in July 2013 in Washington, and the court dismissed the case in April 2014.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta
So if Jeb Bush gets elected president then he pretty much can kill anyone he wants as long as the CIA says they are a threat. Interesting.
No, you're only exhibiting your ignorance concerning the issue, as those targeted are afforded administrative due process.
