• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Kent State and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki

TuffaloDeac10

TuffaloDeac10

🌹☭
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
13,517
Reaction score
487
Location
Hacker-Festzelt
Why can't this kid's murder by the federal government inspire the same reflection that the deaths at Kent State did? Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki was every bit as American and innocent of any crime as the four kids at Kent State were.

Abdulrahman-from-Facebook.jpg


kent1_mini.jpg
 
Fear mongering has desensitized Americans to the deaths of anyone with an Arabic name. It's pretty shameful that while Oklahoma and Kentucky are doing whatever they can to prevent Sharia Law from invading, that no one seems to be questioning this.
 
I agree with Spot on this one.

The kids at Kent State were on American soil and exercising their Constitutional rights.

This is quite different than targeting someone who has declared war on the United States, had Americans killed and was promising to kill more Americans.

The son was not the target. It was an unfortunate tragedy that the father allowed to happen. The father knew he was a target and should not have allowed his son to be with him.

One is collateral damage of an enemy of the United States. The other firing on 100% innocent citizens, on American soil who were peacefully exercising their constitutional rights. They are not at all alike.

I'm not surprised Devil tries to equate them.

Spot is correct.
 
No one on this end has tried to equate anything. Are you on Obama's kill committee?
 
I supported W using drones. I support Obama using drones. I am consistent.

There are two differences here. Obama is good at it versus W's incompetence.

The second is you were completely silent about W doing it versus opposing Obama.
 
RJKarl said:
I agree with Spot on this one.

The kids at Kent State were on American soil and exercising their Constitutional rights.

This is quite different than targeting someone who has declared war on the United States, had Americans killed and was promising to kill more Americans.

The son was not the target. It was an unfortunate tragedy that the father allowed to happen. The father knew he was a target and should not have allowed his son to be with him.

One is collateral damage of an enemy of the United States. The other firing on 100% innocent citizens, on American soil who were peacefully exercising their constitutional rights. They are not at all alike.

I'm not surprised Devil tries to equate them.

Spot is correct.
Click to expand...

Anwar Al-alawki had been dead for weeks when Abdulrahman was murdered by the CIA.
 
We don't have a declared war with Yemen. For all we know, Abdulrahman was roasting some all-beef franks with his friends when the drone cut him down. I am shocked that other people are not shocked at this
 
He wasn't the one targeted. The drone killed a designated target. If it had been three weeks after his father's killing he should have known better than to be traveling with another target.
 
And let's be serious. Bad as Anwar (the father) may have been, he had not turned in his passport and had not been tried in a court of law when he was killed by Obama's flying death robots.
 
He had declared war on the US, trained people and planned attacks. Sorry in a state of war, he is a legitimate target.
 
RJKarl said:
He wasn't the one targeted. The drone killed a designated target. If it had been three weeks after his father's killing he should have known better than to be traveling with another target.
Click to expand...

So you don't have a problem with drones killing innocent people if they're spending time with those who are targets?

The defense of drone use is disgusting and maybe the single most disappointing thing that Obama has done during his presidency.
 
Congress effectively declared war on al qeada. He was an al qeada leader.
 
seventwofour said:
So you don't have a problem with drones killing innocent people if they're spending time with those who are targets?

The defense of drone use is disgusting and maybe the single most disappointing thing that Obama has done during his presidency.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that innocent people die in a war. It's a lot better than an invasion.

What's most disappointing to me is that no one from Wall Street or the mortgage industry has been sent to jail. There should be 1000s of them in jail.
 
Drones force civilians and innocents in those countries to live in an area essentially occupied by our military, but without being able to see the faces or interact with those who are occupying their land. I don't like it.
 
Drone attacks are completely legal and are leaps and bounds better than the number of lives that would be lost on both sides if we weren't using them.
 
I don't see any real problem with this. There's collateral damage in nearly anything and this is unfortunate, but it is what it is. I don't see how it's anyway comparable to Kent State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top