It’s not about deserving it. His dad took him to a war zone while he was working for a non state military. Not everything is personal or even about the person who gets killed in a warzone. Soldiers call it rolling the dice for a reason. The bomb on the roadside goes off. Does it hit the humvee with the gun crew, or the cargo truck carrying refugees? Nobody knows until it happens. One is seen as a normal part of war and the other as something despicable. But the difference is less than a second. Nobody woke up that day and said, “today we’re going to kill that kid”.
Not like that. Satellites still can’t see inside of hard cover. Hollywood really oversells how much the military can see and undersells how much explosions hurt.
Who was with his terrorist father in Yemen at the time
According to the United States government, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki’s father, Anwar al-Awlaki, was a leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[2] Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone strike several days before his son’s death.[3]
You could try not being disingenuous and read a couple more sentences.
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.[7] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki 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.[
He was there because his father brought him there. Nobody was aiming for him.
Oh for shit’s sake taking refuge in semantics when you know damn well the word could mean either thing is ridiculous. I’m not going to waste ten comments explaining the exact meaning of the word “time” in this specific case while you just keep throwing No True Scotsman at it.
Actually, joining an enemy military strips you of your citizenship. But even then, it’s not a stable area. You can’t just ring up the Yemeni police to go arrest them and the NYPD is going to laugh at you. So you call on the guys who can reach the area. Problem, they’re the military and this is a war. So even without the first sentence we’re back to using a missile instead of the police because nobody is going to commit suicide for this and we’re not going to let them operate freely on the notion that we’re not allowed to fight that particular enemy.
Which is why joining an enemy military is an automatic loss of citizenship.
When did Al-Qaeda become a military? It’s a terrorist organization.
And when did it become a war. Congress hasn’t declared a war since World War 2. Legally, all of killing in the Middle East has been done under the guise of military policing actions.
Are we going to drone strike proud boy leaders now? They did try to overthrow the US government a few years ago. Oh wait, they just got slaps on the wrist.
So do we only blow up US citizens and deny them their rights when it would be difficult to get them? I guess the FBI can stop spending so much money on training agents to apprehend suspects, if they’re running or have already fled the country, we’ll just assassinate them because that’s way easier and safer.
The fact that this guy, regardless of what he did, was assassinated on the orders of a US president, and nothing happened, should be deeply disturbing. You don’t have rights if someone can just blow you up from out of nowhere for any reason. You just have privileges that can be revoked at any time.
He had the right to a trial. Not a privilege to have one, a right. An attempt to apprehend him should have at least been made.
Nobody said you had to be connected to a geographic state to be a military.
An AUMF is a declaration of war. Read the War Powers Act. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. It does not require Congress to use a set of magic words.
The proud boys are fucking infants in comparison to Al Qaeda, they’re also well within reach of law enforcement agents. But if you want to know for real, check out the times governors have deployed the National Guard for an armed stand off. There is absolutely a military remedy to a domestic insurrection in US law. We do try to avoid that but if someone really pushed it they would take the leash off the military.
This is also a far cry from FBI agents working with police in developing countries. This isn’t trying to figure out which Argentinian cop would tip off the arrest target. This is the Yemeni militia laughing at the FBI agents while letting AQ know there are Americans around to be captured.
Again. Nobody is going to commit suicide to provide you with a trial if you are actively making war against the US. Nor have they ever been required to because that is an insane imposition to the defense of the country. Reducing this to a manhunt ended for the sake of convenience is a straw man. You’d have a point if this happened somewhere like India. But it didn’t. And we’re under no obligation to let the enemy keep operating on the hope they travel to the wrong country.
At some point all of these MAGA people will have to be stopped permanently or another country will invade us and punish us for doing nothing but voting and crying online.
A ground war in the US would be over before it begins. Infiltrating via the internet and collapsing the social fabric, on the other hand, is a very viable strategy that we’re watching right before our eyes :D
If you notice the contrast between jurors that convicted dementia donnie vs. those that convicted Hunter…the difference between the two “sides” here is thrown into stark contrast.
No matter how much the “liberal media” tries to bothsides the two parties, they just cannot cover it up.
Likening your ideological opponents to rats and other vermin was used by the Nazis to brutally persecute Jews and other minorities.[1]
By portraying a group’s ideology as a sickness or infestation, it becomes easier to justify segregating, oppressing, or even killing them under the guise of social hygiene or self-defense against this perceived plague.[1][2] This dehumanizing rhetoric lays the groundwork for escalating violence.
If you want to get philosophical, society always has to turm authoritarian when it needs to deal with people who reject society. You either forcefully reject the ones who refuse to partake or you let them warp society in their image.
Being anti-vax is the same as being against society. Now, completely trying to get rid of them, like nazis tried with jews, is a bit extreme but penalizing antivaxxers IMO is perfectly fine. You can’t simply endanger others just because you refuse to partake in society.
When it comes to laws, I agree that the whole point of laws is to benefit society and that people who don’t want to follow the laws are subject to an authoritarian response. In the case of covid vaccines, the law stopped short of requiring them by law. It nearly did so through executive mandates, but not quite. But even if it were so, dehumanizing language like “plague rat”, and it being a step towards a dark societal path, is not the same as consequences for breaking the law in the context of what a healthy society looks like. ANY dehumanizing language is bad and dangerous and there are no exceptions.
That animosity is a policy failure because they should have just vaccinated and castrated all resistance just like farmers do with sheep. I can say that because I am a Christian, so it’s fine as the connotations are different.
You can’t jump to full authoritarian without going through the first steps. I actually don’t understand your second point at all though, about being a Christian.
Sheep hold significant symbolism in Christianity, representing God’s people and their relationship with Jesus as the Good Shepherd. Here are some key points about the symbolism of sheep in Christianity:
Sheep represent God’s followers who are helpless and in need of guidance, protection, and provision from the Shepherd (Jesus).[1][2] They are portrayed as defenseless, prone to wandering, and entirely dependent on the Shepherd’s care, mirroring humanity’s need for God’s guidance and salvation.
Jesus refers to himself as the “Good Shepherd” who lays down his life for his sheep (John 10:11).[1][2] This metaphor highlights Jesus’ sacrificial love, leadership, and intimate knowledge of his flock (believers).
Sheep are contrasted with goats, representing the separation of believers and non-believers on the day of judgment (Matthew 25:31-46).[1] The sheep (believers) will inherit eternal life, while the goats (unbelievers) will face punishment.
The imagery of a shepherd tenderly caring for his sheep is used to depict God’s compassionate love and attentive care for his people (Isaiah 40:11, Psalm 23).[1][3] Sheep recognize the Shepherd’s voice and follow him, just as believers are called to follow Christ’s guidance.
Jesus is also called the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29), symbolizing his sacrificial death to take away the sins of the world.[1][3] This connects the imagery of sheep and lambs to Christ’s atoning work on the cross.
I guess it’s political in that it is an acknowledgement that Jesus is the highest authority, higher than governments on earth. I don’t think it’s saying that the king of the land (or the government) is Jesus. Most Christians view government as being subjects of God, subject to God’s authority. The government makes laws that are within its scope to do, but cannot exceed that scope. The constitution was written with this in mind, very intentionally, as a way to limit the power of government, although they used the term natural law I think, which Christians interpret as God’s authority.
But that said, obedience to government is a duty and obligation for Christians as well.
I’m still not really sure what your point is, so I’m kinda just spewing what I know on that general topic.
It’s about the divine right of kings, you probably know the Chinese version which is the mandate of heaven
The divine right of kings was a political and religious doctrine that asserted monarchs derived their authority directly from God, not from the people or any earthly authority.[2][3] It held that kings were accountable only to God and rebellion against them was a sacrilegious act.[2][3]
The key principles were:
Monarchs were ordained by God to rule and were not subject to the will of the people, aristocracy, or church.[2][3]
Any attempt to depose or restrict the monarch’s powers went against God’s will and constituted treason.[2][3]
The monarch was accountable only to God, not to any earthly authority.[2][3]
The doctrine emerged in Europe during the medieval period, rooted in the idea that God bestowed earthly power to kings, just as He gave spiritual authority to the church.[3] It gained prominence under monarchs like James I of England and Louis XIV of France in the 16th-17th centuries, justifying their absolute authority in political and spiritual matters.[2][3]
Yes well the nature of government is changed now, so the divine right of kings would be more like the divine right of the democratically elected government, including all of the limits, checks and balances established by that government. As such, a government exceeding its own authority, as determined by itself, is not within the established divine rights.
And so your argument about forcibly vaccinating the populace (as though they were sheep), and it being justified by a divine right to rule, does not hold up unless laws were written specifically to allow that. But even that might be exceeding the scope of current western governments and would certainly be challenged along those lines.
Jesus is King. The United States is part of God’s Kingdom on Earth irregardless of whatever form of government it has, and God would not permit any individual to hold power in government without His consent and blessing. Man’s opinion on this is irrelevant.
Then you’ve never lived in a rural area with animal herds. The Sheppard has a responsibility to take care of the animals, he doesn’t ask the sheep if it’s comfortable getting a shot.
Well in any event, the government did not in fact hold people down and vaccinate them like shepherds do with their sheep. They also don’t shear us and make clothing from our hair, or butcher us for food. So the shepherd analogy isn’t meant to be literal in every sense.
The jurors for Hunter were out there giving interviews after the fact. The jurors for donnie are more or less in hiding as far as I can tell.
And for good reason. It’s not “both sides”; the Republicans have been getting crazier and more violent every year and they adore donnie the wanna-be dictator. They were trying to dox the jurors, and the jurors would be right in trying to keep quiet and lay low and hope to keep their identity secret. Honestly, if he “wins” this fall, and I were them? I’d get the fuck out of this country. A great many of the donnie leg-humpers are crazy and murderous.
Meanwhile, as you point out - who GAF about Hunter, honestly. His plea deal being spiked and this trial is likely entirely political, but if he faces consequences for misfiling some paperwork while addicted to crack, I doubt any Democrat or leftist is going to be making death threats to anyone, least of all the jurors that found him guilty.
Kaitlan Collins, to her credit, interviewed Bill Barr and asked about an anecdote that I had shared about a meeting he and I were both in the Oval Office, where Trump straight up said a staffer who leaked a story should be executed. And Bill Barr kind of danced it and said I don’t recall that specific instance, but there were others where we talked about executing people. How do you rationalize that is a person fit in sound judgment to be president of the United States?
Add comment