Who is up for a little extra-judicial capital punishment?

[Drummond]

These terrorists are the ones killing US "with little regard to borders/consequences".

Remember?

I find it astonishing that people whose first concern is supposedly the safety and well-being of Americans, are sayng that because terrorists who have retreated behind some line in the soil while making war against us, therefore cannot be treated like they making war against us.

Are you people right in the head?

They are the enemy. They have declared themselves so. They are making war against the United States. They have killed thousands of us already... and they didn't worry about "borders and consequences" when they did it.

So now, if we see them, we kill them. And if we can do it without putting American's live in further danger, so much the better. And no, we do not put them on trial, any more than we put armed German or Japanese soldiers on trial during WWII.

And if there is an American citizen who is going to them, living with them, dressing like them, "adhering" to them (as a certain founding document put it) while they are doing these things, he would be well advised to get the hell out of the way while they are making their war against us.

What part of "WAR" don't you understand?

I can't believe I need to explain this to people.

Especially twice.

YES, I applaud this. You've expressed the proper attitude to take. I wholeheartedly agree !

[aboutime]

YES, I applaud this. You've expressed the proper attitude to take. I wholeheartedly agree !

The One, and Only question was asked: "ARE YOU PEOPLE RIGHT IN THE HEAD?"

Nothing more needs to be said. Seems like the entire country has become a tidal wave of Idiots who are in competition with EACH OTHER to prove...They are Better at being IDIOTS than everyone else.

And sadly. "THEY ALL WIN!"

[Kathianne]

"Targeting an individual" should involve sniper, not a bomb. Thus we have so many innocents killed. I can see such for a bin Laden target, when it's 'a sure thing' to get him/her, but not the way it's being used on near weekly or less basis. Too many dead, that shouldn't be.

[fj1200]

YES, I applaud this. You've expressed the proper attitude to take. I wholeheartedly agree !

Yup, the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out attitude you express. Are you going to ignore the "associated force" aspect too?

[taft2012]

I can't believe that anyone thinks it's ok to kill indiscriminately.

Are you speaking of the 9-11 terrorists or the American citizens who are working to help them kill more innocents?

[taft2012]

was Alwalki ARMED and firing at Americans or with his finger on a bomb trigger when he was drone struck?

Was his SON ARMED and firing at Americans?

what part of War don't you understand.
driving pdwn the road in your car is not and ACT of WAR or a fire fight Acorn.
Standing a Funeral is not WAR.

What part of your Brain Conflates those acts with a Germans shooting across a beach?
you've got the problem Acorn, take off the war glasses and see what going on here.

You do realize, don't you, that your prerequisite for 100% fail safe assurances against collateral damage disqualifies any military action whatsoever? That's not even really an issue worth discussing.

But I understand your genuine concern; domestic drones discovering illegal marijuana fields. So your cost may rise a little, chill out. You can fly to Colorado and Washington State to load up.

[fj1200]

You do realize, don't you, that your prerequisite for 100% fail safe assurances against collateral damage disqualifies any military action whatsoever? That's not even really an issue worth discussing.

But I understand your genuine concern; domestic drones discovering illegal marijuana fields. So your cost may rise a little, chill out. You can fly to Colorado and Washington State to load up.

Please point out his "prerequisite for fail safe assurances."

[taft2012]

Please point out his "prerequisite for fail safe assurances."

One example was provided, and there's only one number less than one... zero. Which would mean 100% assurance.

That's rather simple math and logic there....

[fj1200]

One example was provided, and there's only one number less than one... zero. Which would mean 100% assurance.

That's rather simple math and logic there....

Incorrect. You misread especially as the example here is who are citizens.

[taft2012]

Incorrect. You misread especially as the example here is who are citizens.

I apologize. Please fill me in on the other American citizens droned discussed here other than the one I see Rev posted:

[fj1200]

I apologize. Please fill me in on the other American citizens droned discussed here other than the one I see Rev posted:

No need to apologize but you're attributing statements not made. We're talking about assurances that citizens won't be targeted by drones without due process; it should be easy to not target.

[aboutime]

Please point out his "prerequisite for fail safe assurances."

fj. The prerequisite you are looking for...made easier for you to understand, would be YOU, going to the bathroom, and forgetting to WIPE.

[fj1200]

fj. The prerequisite you are looking for...made easier for you to understand, would be YOU, going to the bathroom, and forgetting to WIPE.

You're really not that smart are you?

[Drummond]

Yup, the kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out attitude you express. Are you going to ignore the "associated force" aspect too?

What I am going to ignore is the typically Left-wing attitude which invents all the excuses it can possibly come up with for minimal force, minimal remedial actions, against terrorists and suspected terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Aulaqi

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki’s son was there" before the airstrike was ordered

[Before you're tempted to comment, my understanding is that 'al-Aulaqi' and 'al-Awlaki' were the same person.]

Now, the individual you're discussing, I understand, was the son of an American born, but nonetheless loyal AL QAEDA TERRORIST. At the time he was killed, the son was in the immediate vicinity of another Al Qaeda terrorist, and a senior one at that. I ask: HOW COME, if he was such an 'innocent' ?

Try joining the dots here.

Besides ... if authorities such as the US military first found it necessary to exhaustively analyse not only the whereabouts of their enemies, but to identify and research anyone and everyone nearby before attacks were launched, THEY'D NEVER LAUNCH ANY AT ALL !!

Is this what you'd hope for ? If not ... then try applying a practical approach.

[aboutime]

You're really not that smart are you?

Darn. You caught me Imitating you again! So I guess you are correct.