How about the constant drone attacks in Pakistan, that continues to kill civilians that are not part of the war in Afghanistan? How about the continued support of Israel, who recently killed children in a shelling and not one peep from the United States or UN on the issue? Do I need to continue?I would prefer you make your case rather then me having to decifer it through a link just thrown over the fence. If you refer to a member of Al Qaeda, the way I understand it they declared and have enacted war on the US...no?
How about the constant drone attacks in Pakistan, that continues to kill civilians that are not part of the war in Afghanistan? How about the continued support of Israel, who recently killed children in a shelling and not one peep from the United States or UN on the issue? Do I need to continue?
Palestinians killed as Israel shells Gaza - Middle East - Al Jazeera English
Yes it is murder. Try as you may to be an Obama apologist, but he has authorized the killing of more people than even Bush did in 8 years. President Obama even has a kill list of Americans suspected of being terrorists or those who are anti-government. He's sought out people and killed them in countries where we are not even at war with, nor have permission to enter to conduct such operations.The death of civilians is tragic and obviously not intented, but is that murder? That is the one of the points of using drones rather than bombs. Murder, and per the link I gave you, has a legal definition. Is that murder?
Yes it is murder. Try as you may to be an Obama apologist, but he has authorized the killing of more people than even Bush did in 8 years. President Obama even has a kill list of Americans suspected of being terrorists or those who are anti-government. He's sought out people and killed them in countries where we are not even at war with, nor have permission to enter to conduct such operations.
So assasinating a 16 yr old who is only suspected of being a terrorist is doing a good job? Way to support the murder of citizens who have not been given a fair trial.Yes, I do agree. He is a doing a better job of whacking Al Qaeda, good for him. And if your claim is he has killed more terrorists then Bush, you are correct. Again, good for him.
So assasinating a 16 yr old who is only suspected of being a terrorist is doing a good job? Way to support the murder of citizens who have not been given a fair trial.
Over an affair? C'mon now, Obama has sanctioned murder and he got re-elected. I guess marital affairs trumps murder as far as morality goes in this country.
The death of civilians is tragic and obviously not intented, but is that murder? That is the one of the points of using drones rather than bombs. Murder, and per the link I gave you, has a legal definition. Is that murder?
A contract killing is a form of murder, in which one party hires another party to kill a target individual or group of people.
So assasinating a 16 yr old who is only suspected of being a terrorist is doing a good job? Way to support the murder of citizens who have not been given a fair trial.
Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, an al Qaeda propagandist killed by a U.S. drone a year ago. But the child was killed in a separate strike some two weeks after his father was killed. Gibbs wasn't entirely familiar with the situation, and didn't know that al-Awlaki's son was killed two weeks after his father was killed, a person familiar with his thinking at the time he was interviewed told HuffPost. We Are Change bills itself as a non-partisan media organization "working to expose corruption."
"I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don't think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business," Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, told the interviewer from We Are Change, when asked to justify "an American citizen that is being targeted without due process, without trial -- and, he's underage, he's a minor."
Having "alot of young, talented Republicans lining up as candidates for 2016" doesn't mean "squat" if the conservative tail (Tea Party) is still wagging the rest of the GOP.I heard on TV yesterday that there's a lot of young, talented Republicans lining up as candidates for 2016. Who are they?
Also, they said the Republican party is in trouble because of all the young minority kids in America growing up.
Maybe the problem can be solved when the Republican candidates no longer look like this?
Thankfully, change can occur and many conservatives - both before and after - have noted that...although sadly, many still act idiotic enough to actually ignore where many things supported by conservatives are also advocated by those who are liberal (thus meaning compromise/working together being possible instead of avoiding things due to labels) and others tend to deem any/all other conservatives disagreeing with those in the Tea Party ideology as being "liberal" (dumb stance) and not even knowing what the terms mean.Having "alot of young, talented Republicans lining up as candidates for 2016" doesn't mean "squat" if the conservative tail (Tea Party) is still wagging the rest of the GOP.
Women, Hispanics and young adults will constitute an even larger % of the American electorate in 2016, so unless the Republicans are committed to making a dramatic turn toward the center of the economic and social political spectrum, they're "toast!"
The caricature we get when an idiot like Atkins or the other guy pops up, saying stupid stuff like "If you become pregnant when you were raped, it's obviously God's will." No... it's not. Liberals like to paint us as mostly being this way and it doesn't help that many of us have a knee-jerk reaction to defend such stupidity. I mean, the other day I saw a liberal say that an unborn child perfectly matches the definition of a parasite. Really? Is that "social liberalism?" I'm willing to bet no. Yet we're allowed to be painted by the worst, most inaccurate members of our views, while the liberals are not.
Yes. That is murder.
A contract killing to be exact.
Contract killing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The president has a kill list. There is no oversight for this list. Tell me that doesn't bother you.
But if those targeted are of a group who have declared war on the targetees, what then? I do believe Al Qaida has both declared and have conducted activities of war on the US, with the US recipicating. We are no longer allowed to target participants of war?
Given there is no oversight of Obama's kill list we have to just take his word on who is on it.
I wasn't aware that democrats supported a leader who is able to give the thumb up or down and can end someones life with no oversight. I thought we had moved beyond that.
Yes. That is murder.
A contract killing to be exact.
Contract killing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The president has a kill list. There is no oversight for this list. Tell me that doesn't bother you.