Props to the Military, CIA and, yes, to Obama

you dont seem to understand the point i am making about being at war. we are at war. i dunno why you dont understand that.

right well you are not reallty an authority so i wouldnt expect that you would have much knowledge about it.

not when we are at war and they fight for the enemy? in the civil war did the north take every confederate to court? i feel like maybe if i repeat this point about being at war around 75 to 80 times you might listen.

and just because i say grass is green dosent mean it is. but it still is.

seems unlikely you will join a terrorist group that murders innocent americans by the thousands.

true but not relevant

 

A war is when the congress votes to take military action against another nation. Having the congress vote on it makes it more substantial because the people's representatives have to sign on and answer for it. What we have now is a perpetual military engagement against "terror", mostly the construct of abuse of executive power.

The objective of war is to defend the US, not break and rebuild whatever nation encouraged our wrath. War should eliminate an identifiable and palpable threat.

 

I meant that to be an unpartial reference to the discussion, not to prove my point.

 

This is an instance where revocation is warranted.

 

We aren't at war, but I'll agree that in effect, especially in the case of terrorism, we are. Stop saying I don't understand this, I understand this, I stand behind my point despite this. Like I said before, and maybe this will bump you out of the rut in your argument, we didn't just happen across a militant Muslim shooting machine guns at American troops. This is a targeted US citizen that we've been after for years.

The only case we have that he has anything to do with al-Qaeda is alleged that I've seen. I'm not an insider, but people closer to the source haven't said anything more than alleged from what I've seen. Unless you know more about the subject than I do and you're keeping it secret, that is enough for you. I have reservations.

During the civil war there were men shooting guns on the battlefield. I'm sure rules were bent if not broken at the expense of southerners, which is tragic, but history shows the victors in a positive light and very often glazes over their abuses of righteousness. That's war, I understand, but as a member of the victors (at this point) we should strive for righteousness.

This case is different. He wasn't killed on the battlefield and was targeted for alleged violations.

I know how you feel about religion.

I'll take that as a compliment. In return, I'll say that you're tenacious.

Oh, and geaux tigers.

 

according to who? you? for what purpose? clearly it isnt necessary to revoke citizenship in order to kill an enemy in war. why do you keep claiming over and over that this is a necessary or proper procedure?

again, it clearly isnt necessary or relvant, even if you think saying it over and over and asking a thousand times changes things.

you are endlessly repeating that the citizenship thing is an issue. it isnt. an enemy is an enemy regardless of where he was born or what paperwork you beleive needs to be processed for no reason. i am prepared to say this at least 100 more times.

 

you dont understand what war is. it means you kill the opponent. it doesnt mean you fill out forms and such so idiots will be convinced the enemy is actually the enemy.

how could you think this is at all relevant? we are at war. an enemy is an enemy not matter how long you are aware that he is an enemy. we could shoot a guy we have been targeting for years, or we could shoot a guy we realized 1 second ago is an enemy. all of this without any regard to citizenship.

what you have or havent seen is not relvant. i dont go around telling soldiers on the battlefield they cant shoot fellas because i have no evidence. i am not the one who is supposed to have any evidence.

presumably your reservations are based on the fact that you are terribly unsophisticated in your thinking. this is not something i can easily fix.

and during the current war the exact same thing is true.

and what part of killing the enemy is not righteous?

it is exactly the same as killing any enemy in any other war.

yes i believe that is the proper procedure for killing enemies in every war in history.

 

a war is actually when folks start killing each other. again, if you dont think vietname and korea were wars, then you need to rethink the way you analyze things.

correct. like the terrorists that murdered my neighbors while i watched.

 

No martin. I read on the internet that a war is when the congress votes to take military action against another nation. Having the congress vote on it makes it more substantial because the people's representatives have to sign on and answer for it. What we have now is a perpetual military engagement against "terror", mostly the construct of abuse of executive power.

 

Yer right, whenever the king wants to bash something, that's called war.