A US Teenager Who Grew Up In Denver Was Executed WITHOUT TRIAL With a DRONE

[cannabineer]

I guess you prefer to be wrong. Dresden, one of the more famous air assaults they completely leveled the city and huge numbers of civilians were slaughtered. The factories on the edges? Not so much. One example of many. Believe what's been spoon fed to you if it helps you sleep at night I guess. Just know you are complicit in your support for some really evil policy.

That was part of LeMay's end game. The Dr's version is much more closely aligned with the histories I have read. cn

 

[deprave]

that's why you are a Republican and not a libertarian Dr Kyn..

-Pro-authoritarian [ Check ]
-Only follow constitution when it fits your thinking [ Check ]
-Doesn't believe in non-aggression principle [ Check ]

some would call you a libertarian I guees, and some call themselves that who share your beliefs, perhaps I am too much of a radical libertarian to see this remotely as such but you clearly agree with republicans on everything in my view. Is there anything you don't agree with republicans about?

Also I fail to see really how Dr and OG are disagreeing in last few posts, seems pretty redundant, they just seem to think they are disagreeing with each other.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I guess you prefer to be wrong. Dresden, one of the more famous air assaults they completely leveled the city and huge numbers of civilians were slaughtered. The factories on the edges? Not so much. One example of many. Believe what's been spoon fed to you if it helps you sleep at night I guess. Just know you are complicit in your support for some really evil policy.

hurp a derp!

i did mention dresden as part of the NEW PLAN devised by general Lemay to deliver unto the germans what germany delivered unto the british! the old plan was to avoid casualties. Lemay's plan was to reverse that idea in response to indiscriminate bombing by germany.

read harder.

 

[Dr Kynes]

that's why you are a Republican and not a libertarian Dr Kyn..

-Pro-authoritarian [ Check ]
-Only follow constitution when it fits your thinking [ Check ]
-Doesn't believe in non-aggression principle [ Check ]

Also I fail to see really how Dr and OG are disagreeing in last few posts, seems pretty redundant, they just seem to think they are disagreeing with each other.

i am a strict constitutionalist libertarian.

- i am anti authoritarian, save the authority vested in our government by the people through our constitution.
- i follow the constitution all the time. every day and in every way.
- i oppose incitement of violence, but if aggressive response is not allowed we would have had to roll over for the brits in 1776, and 1812, to the germans in ww1, and the japanese in ww2. the political leadership in the run up to ww1 and 2 was lacking, the nest of treaties and obligations that caused the problems that led to both world wars were the cause of the wars, not the solution. I personally have never started a fight in my life, but i been in LOTS. when somebody takes a swing at me i swing back with everything i got. thats how i roll, and how our founding fathers rolled. you think theodore roosevelt would ahve taken this shit from al quaeda? fuck n0o, he would have hunted them down like rabid dogs and put them in the dirt where they belong. the failure of bush 1 clinton and bush 2 to FINISH THE JOB led directly to the world trade center attacks. the problem with america's policy towards threats in the late 20th century till now is the bullshit doctrine of proportionalityl when some asshole pokes us we should not poke back, but lay them out cold. then the next guy will think twice. this does not mean bullying, this means making it clerar if you attack america you lose, not coercing compliance from foreign nations. our dealings with foreign powers should be limited to trade (with tariffs and regulation), and negotiation on matters of mutual interest. not bribes for "good behavior" or threats against "bad behavior" this aint kindergarten, and if foreigners want to wrassle, let them wrassle, as long as they keep in in their yards not ours.

thats what i believe. if thats not libertarian, then you need to go back to reading pamphlets from dead boston communists.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

hurp a derp!

i did mention dresden as part of the NEW PLAN devised by general Lemay to deliver unto the germans what germany delivered unto the british! the old plan was to avoid casualties. Lemay's plan was to reverse that idea in response to indiscriminate bombing by germany.

read harder.

Yeah, bomb civilians, ignore factories. The latter part, was not only happening in Dresden. Ford owned factories? Mostly unscathed. GM Bush/Walker financed facilities? Ditto and including Auschwitz which was used for slave labor for the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company the Bush/Walker conglomerate was heavily invested in and it was well known what was going on. Sorry, your countries leadership has a long history of pure evil and playing both sides of the fence at the cost of civilian lives on both sides for their own gain.

 

[deprave]

i am a strict constitutionalist libertarian.

- i am anti authoritarian, save the authority vested in our government by the people through our constitution.
- i follow the constitution all the time. every day and in every way.
- i oppose incitement of violence, but if aggressive response is not allowed we would have had to roll over for the brits in 1776, and 1812, to the germans in ww1, and the japanese in ww2. the political leadership in the run up to ww1 and 2 was lacking, the nest of treaties and obligations that caused the problems that led to both world wars were the cause of the wars, not the solution. I personally have never started a fight in my life, but i been in LOTS. when somebody takes a swing at me i swing back with everything i got. thats how i roll, and how our founding fathers rolled. you think theodore roosevelt would ahve taken this shit from al quaeda? fuck n0o, he would have hunted them down like rabid dogs and put them in the dirt where they belong. the failure of bush 1 clinton and bush 2 to FINISH THE JOB led directly to the world trade center attacks. the problem with america's policy towards threats in the late 20th century till now is the bullshit doctrine of proportionalityl when some asshole pokes us we should not poke back, but lay them out cold. then the next guy will think twice. this does not mean bullying, this means making it clerar if you attack america you lose, not coercing compliance from foreign nations. our dealings with foreign powers should be limited to trade (with tariffs and regulation), and negotiation on matters of mutual interest. not bribes for "good behavior" or threats against "bad behavior" this aint kindergarten, and if foreigners want to wrassle, let them wrassle, as long as they keep in in their yards not ours.

thats what i believe. if thats not libertarian, then you need to go back to reading pamphlets from dead boston communists.

so an american citizen was killed without trial, a child, in sovereign territory via an unconstitutionally declared war and you support this yet somehow believe in strict adherence to the constitution?

so someone who was killed who was not an immediate and direct threat to this country or anyone and yet you believe in non-aggression principle?

so you believe in history as written by the winners and everything the authoritarians say? you even make up your own excuses for them?

No its not libertarian, its half ass fake libertarian, its republican.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

so an american citizen was killed without trial, a child, in sovereign territory via an unconstitutionally declared war and you support this yet somehow believe in strict adherence to the constitution?

We don't have any evidence the people killed were terrorists either. Evidence is a fundamental concept in a society governed by laws and not the whims of a political executive with their own motivations.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Also I fail to see really how Dr and OG are disagreeing in last few posts, seems pretty redundant, they just seem to think they are disagreeing with each other.

he is disagreeing on the minutia of my statements not the thrust, declaiming the bombing of dresden as proof of collaboration between the us and germany etc etc etc... he holds the illuminati grand conspiracy theory type view that all events are tied together regardless of personal motivations (greed power and fear of a greater threat) that might drive individuals and organizations to act in ways that are foolish or even criminal.


i prefer to see many small conspiracies based on greed, not some Doctor Evil style world domination plot by shadowy forces in league with the illuminati (deliberately not bringing up 7 foot tall reptilian jewish bankers)

OG just has it twisted on the Lemay Treatment program to kick hitler in the nuts for a shorter war.

 

[deprave]

We don't have any evidence the people killed were terrorists either. Evidence is a fundamental concept in a society governed by laws and not the whims of a political executive with their own motivations.

Yes, they won't even say they have such really, people like Dr just kind of fill in the blanks themselves...exactly what I am talking about siding with authoritarians.


I mean....If they said such a thing...that would be a different story....but they aren't telling us much really, and part of their "story" has been proven false (that he was in his 20's) ..I put story in quotes because its not even a story really its just a few brief statements which are very vague.

 

[Dr Kynes]

We don't have any evidence the people killed were terrorists either. Evidence is a fundamental concept in a society governed by laws and not the whims of a political executive with their own motivations.

nope no evidence that MOST of the people killed were terrorists. too too right.

plenty of evidence that al banni, the target, was a terrorist and thats why he got hit. the people around him might have been innocent (highly doubtful) but no real evidence. except junior. junior made numerous statements, was on the terrorist watch list for his OWN statements, not his pop's, and made clear his intention to join the radical factions and al quaeda.

or do you propose he left his family in sanna to head deep into the badlands of yemen into territory controlled by pop-pop's organization of terrorists for a touching reunion, and to beg daddy to come home and give up his life of terrorism...

now THAT would be a story.

 

[deprave]

nope no evidence that MOST of the people killed were terrorists. too too right.

plenty of evidence that al banni, the target, was a terrorist and thats why he got hit. the people around him might have been innocent (highly doubtful) but no real evidence. except junior. junior made numerous statements, was on the terrorist watch list for his OWN statements, not his pop's, and made clear his intention to join the radical factions and al quaeda.

or do you propose he left his family in sanna to head deep into the badlands of yemen into territory controlled by pop-pop's organization of terrorists for a touching reunion, and to beg daddy to come home and give up his life of terrorism...

now THAT would be a story.

Your just kind of making stuff up again, do you have a source for him making such statements? Please reference official statments by the white house and other officials, there is nothing to this effect stated ever.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yes, they won't even say they have such really, people like Dr just kind of fill in the blanks themselves...exactly what I am talking about siding with authoritarians.


I mean....If they said such a thing...that would be a different story....but they aren't telling us much really, and part of their "story" has been proven false (that he was in his 20's) ..I put story in quotes because its not even a story really its just a few brief statements which are very vague.

in the initial stories i heard right after the official announcement last year they said he was the 17 year old son of a know terrorist al awalaki. what the hell are you jabbering about? his age and birth certificate were not secret (unlike some persons we might name...) and if some dipshit with a typewriter made a mistake that got repeated in a couple rags that doesnt mean its a grand cover-up!

you might recall the "scientific study" that "proved" fox viewers were dumb and "less well informed" than those who "consume no media at all" every news outlet including fox parroted that little nugget, but none of them gave attribution.

it was an opinion poll from a public relations firm based on faulty assumptions and a complete lack of scientific rigor! even the pollsters didnt claim it was scientific, or a study, or that it proved anything! yet is sure made the rounds.

catch a clue

 

[Dr Kynes]

Your just kind of making stuff up again, do you have a source for him making such statements? Please reference official statments by the white house and other officials, there is nothing to this effect stated ever.

why should i bother, you didnt read the previous sources.

if i'm making shit up, why are you the one claiming he was targeted, innocent, and a child? (none of those are true)

ohh why not, heres some.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/12/anwar_al_awlakis_son.php

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-15/middleeast/world_meast_yemen-drone-attack_1_anwar-al-awlaki-drone-attack-drone-strike?_s=PM:MIDDLEEAST

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-15/yemen-militants-drone-strike/50784330/1

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-15/news/30282831_1_anwar-al-awlaki-shabwa-yemen

none of these contemporaneous accounts even HINTS that junior might have been an innocent victim, and a couple quote unnamed yemeni sources that say junior was a militant himself, and a suspected recruit

you know, being wrong isnt a criminal offense, you can accept it and move on.

 

[deprave]

why should i bother, you didnt read the previous sources.

if i'm making shit up, why are you the one claiming he was targeted, innocent, and a child? (none of those are true)

Yes I did, you actually didn't read the first one because you actually thought it countered what I said for some reason, you also added your own sentence to it so it conveniently fit your story.

The second one supported your story but was from a cnn BLOG and full of typos.

finally I could not possibly claim any of those things, unlike you I am not just flat out making shit up. (except for the fact that he was a child, under 18 is in fact a child). I am going by official press releases which do not make such claims, nor do they provide evidence to the for or against such accusations. Its funny how you are using Main Stream media garbage to support your shit then railing on me for going by the main stream media when I am clearly only going by official press releases.

as always you are the one who doesn't read what I write, You consistently jump to conclusions and misinterpret what I am writing as something else. You always do this. Example I explained the Libertarian argument about roads and then you argued with me citing the same argument I was arguing on two occasions even after I posted and said 'look I was agreeing with you'....same kind of shit here. You need to control your emotions really, it drives me nuts people like you who just hate on people on here for no real reasons and start misinterpreting what that person wrote cause their emotions are in the way. A good example GanjaLover immediately opposes anything I say no matter what it is, countless members oppose unclebuck no matter what, he even has fans.

 

[patlpp]

Yes I did, you actually didn't read the first one because you actually thought it countered what I said for some reason, you also added your own sentence to it so it conveniently fit your story.

.

You are a poopy pants

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yes I did, you actually didn't read the first one because you actually thought it countered what I said for some reason, you also added your own sentence to it so it conveniently fit your story.

The second one supported your story but was from a cnn BLOG and full of typos.

finally I could not possibly claim any of those things, unlike you I am not just flat out making shit up. (except for the fact that he was a child, under 18 is in fact a child). I am going by official press releases which do not make such claims, nor do they provide evidence to the for or against such accusations. Its funny how you are using Main Stream media garbage to support your shit then railing on me for going by the main stream media when I am clearly only going by official press releases.

as always you are the one who doesn't read what I write, You consistently jump to conclusions and misinterpret what I am writing as something else. You always do this. Example I explained the Libertarian argument about roads and then you argued with me citing the same argument I was arguing on two occasions even after I posted and said 'look I was agreeing with you'....same kind of shit here.

Point 1: i added NOTHING to any quote. you are either wrong or a liar. i dont need to fabricate quotes. my first citation was the al awalaki wikipedia page, and a direct and full copy/paste of the section relating to junior, with neither addition nor subtraction.

Point 2: the cnn security blog is a commentary on the news and data they have access to. it is not negated due to typos (of which i saw few thank you) and made clear the point i was making, he was hit by a drone strike that killed al banni initial reports i head at the time said he was in an SUV with several other youths possibly on their way to a training camp. this is reasonable speculation, considering they were in Al Quaeda controlled territory deep in yemen, the hotbed of the most violent al quaeda affiliates. most notably it was not MY speculation, but a statement (treated as factual) by the CNN correspondent who was reporting. how nice.

Point 3: instead you choose to embrace the assertions of "The Young Turks" a fine bunch of upstanding journailsts with no hidden agenda indeed, and the hand wringing and wailing of juniors family (again, not possible agenda there) and his facebook freinds. wow, you sure are rigorous in your thought.

Point 4: and DOUBLY final, i generally oppose the actions of obama, and oppose interventions in foreign lands, but in this case, al quaeda even it's junior members, (ask the israelis how militant children behave) are a direct threat to the US and it's people. you can go ahead and feel bad for the little rat, but i reserve my right to not care about "children" who join al quaeda, or the "innocents" who hang out with senior al quaeda operatives.

should we likewise weep for the "innocent" people for whom there is "no evidence" of their terrorist ties who died in Osama's mansion with him? or is that different??

 

[Dr Kynes]

as always you are the one who doesn't read what I write, You consistently jump to conclusions and misinterpret what I am writing as something else. You always do this. Example I explained the Libertarian argument about roads and then you argued with me citing the same argument I was arguing on two occasions even after I posted and said 'look I was agreeing with you'....same kind of shit here. You need to control your emotions really, it drives me nuts people like you who just hate on people on here for no real reasons and start misinterpreting what that person wrote cause their emotions are in the way. A good example GanjaLover immediately opposes anything I say no matter what it is, countless members oppose unclebuck no matter what, he even has fans.

your assertions regarding how roads get built without government was asinine and directly contrary to facts, particularity from the perspective of someone who has spent a large amount of time building and maintaining privately built publicly accessible throughways (private roads that have no charge for driving on them)

your further assertions that your anarcho-whateverism is not a marxist idea was refuted by your own assertions that spooner was the guy who i should turn to for my answers on libertarianism and anarcho-whateverism, rather than the constitution, and logic. i would sooner take farming advice from jerry sienfeld.

protip: spooner was a contemporary of marx, they ran in the same circles (the communist internationals) and espoused the same ideal, just marx was more militant and spooner was a fake lawyer

ps, im very tired of having to argue with your edits.

 

[deprave]

your assertions regarding how roads get built without government was asinine and directly contrary to facts, particularity from the perspective of someone who has spent a large amount of time building and maintaining privately built publicly accessible throughways (private roads that have no charge for driving on them)

your further assertions that your anarcho-whateverism is not a marxist idea was refuted by your own assertions that spooner was the guy who i should turn to for my answers on libertarianism and anarcho-whateverism, rather than the constitution, and logic. i would sooner take farming advice from jerry sienfeld.

protip: spooner was a contemporary of marx, they ran in the same circles (the communist internationals) and espoused the same ideal, just marx was more militant and spooner was a fake lawyer

ps, im very tired of having to argue with your edits.

So I guess you still mis-understood, I do not believe in Market Anarchy nor Libertarian exclusively, I was simply arguing as if I did believe in both and gave arguments for both sides, but it turns out I was arguing for Market Anarchy more because less people supported that. I made the exact same libertarian argument you made and you perceived that you were arguing with me when I argued the exact same thing as you. You weren't disagreeing with me at all and basically got all flustered over nothing so much that you did so again even after I added a posts clarifying my intent.

Also, sorry this is not a chat room and I make edits in a short windows. I am a computer programmer, I write programs and then fix the errors or make additions afterwards (I don't delete or change what I said completely, only make clarifications). No offense, just bad habbit, we are allowed a very short windows to edit our posts.

 

[RIPLouDogg]

I think were all missing the point here. The real question we should be asking is: are we creating more terrorists than we are killing? If history is our teacher than we know that vengeance is a powerful motivator for violence.


BTW Dr. Kynes, Wikipedia is not a valid source for any argument. Middle school teaches you to properly cite sources better than that.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yeah, bomb civilians, ignore factories. The latter part, was not only happening in Dresden. Ford owned factories? Mostly unscathed. GM Bush/Walker financed facilities? Ditto and including Auschwitz which was used for slave labor for the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company the Bush/Walker conglomerate was heavily invested in and it was well known what was going on. Sorry, your countries leadership has a long history of pure evil and playing both sides of the fence at the cost of civilian lives on both sides for their own gain.

for your grand conspiracy theory (and it is just a theory mind you) to work, it would require the approval of FDR, the Department of War, the general staff on the ground in britain, and the strategic planners who were preparing the bombing missions, possibly even pilots themselves. your theory would also require high precision munitions (so they could deliberately miss and not accidentally hit the ford and bush owned factories) and very precise maps tho ensure that no us assets in germany were damaged.

RIIIIGHT

it would also require that british fliers also participate, during their night missions which were basically, "heres a shitload of bombs, fly northeast for a couple hours, pull this lever then come home"

it is true that prescott bush was deeply invested in germany, and maintained his ties with germany and nazi leaders during the war. after the war the us govt took his bank away, but we dont blame the sons for the misdeeds of the father.

al alawaki junior was also not held responsible for his father's terrist ties. he was killed in a strike that killed alquaeda in yemen's top pr man, it is interesting to note that he was on the watchlist due to his many close ties to other members of al quaeda besides hits daddy, and is reported by an unnamed yemeni security official as a possible recruit, and a possible militant. getting blown up with one of the top al quaeda bosses in yemen kinda makes the case for me, thats why i DONT GIVE A FUCK that the asshole is dead.