al-Awlaki killed.

Its a good thing we got him.

I would be a LOT more critical of this if it had been covered up, but the President went out and told everyone what'd been done. I still think that's it's a not-entirely-good precedent to create, BUT! If the choices had been 'let him go' or 'go for the kill', I'm glad they went for the kill. If it had been practical to capture him and hold him for trial, of course, I'd prefer that above all.

That's all my thoughts.

Good goddamn riddance. I think I'll crack a beer for this occasion.

We even captured Saddam for trial instead of executing him without one. I think the precedent we have for giving trials to everyone is a good one, and should be upheld if at all possible. After all...if we know for sure they did it, it's not like the trial is a risk to us.

It wasn't possible to bring this guy in alive.

Also, I thought the Iraqi's tried Saddam?

We do have a war on terrorism, so as far as I'm concerned terrorists are enemy combatants and thus aren't entitled to a trial.

If you think about it he could be called a traitor to his country and people,I know that might sound weird but he did plot against his own country and influence his fellow Americans to commit acts of terror.All I can say this is a Kick The Son Ofa Bitch moment.

edited 30th Sep '11 5:22:06 PM by joyflower

^ Not weird at all. though I'd have liked to see a more appropriate death

Truth, right here. He, as an American citizen, provided aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. That is the very definition of treason. Hell, he went beyond the very definition of treason. And in a time of war, treason is punishable by death.

Of course. I still prefer a trial IF POSSIBLE/PRACTICAL, even for people accused of treason in a time of war, but that obviously wasn't the case.

I DON'T think this sets a precedent for presidents to assassinate anyone they deem a 'bad guy' like the media claims.

Same reason we didn't give Osama a trial, it would of been a media circus, and turned him into an icon when we executed him; look at the goatfuck that was Saddam's trial.

Fuck it kill them. Much easier.

while it's good to capture, when fighting insurgents like this it's better to just bomb the shit out ofthem given the chance. Or send in the SEA Ls to make sure the jobs done right.

edited 30th Sep '11 5:38:57 PM by Joesolo

I prefer capture when at all possible, but it clearly wasn't possible in this case or Osama's.

^ I vote shoot first ask questions later. A dead terrorist in battle is a done deal, even a Kangaroo Court trial makes them Al Jazeera martyrs. The last thing we need in this war are high profile martyrs circulating the streets of the Middle East.

@Erock: As tempting as that sounds, we're not the Draka; we've got Ro E.

shoot em unless capture is equally easy and less risky. I'd much rather see a terrorist dead then soldiers dead.

Tom: And what happens when the guy you just shot happens to be an innocent citizen who just looks a lot like a terrorist?

What's a terrorist look like?

I meant, a known terrorist on the watch list, sorry. Like a lookalike. But that's also a good point, most of the time, you can't tell terrorists from innocents. What then, Tom? Shoot them all? Take a whole village out in the fields and shoot them all, men, women, and children, because you've received mistaken info that they're enemy sympathisers? It's happened before.

Still want to shoot first and ask questions later? I know you might not have meant that specifically, but there's a REASON that attitude pisses me off. You shouldn't be so gung-ho about taking a life. When people die, they don't come back EVER.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:03:51 PM by Katrika

Oh fucking well. Collateral damage is a fact of life in war, you can't avoid it.

sevral ways to tell.

A. there shooting at you

B. there running at you with a strange package, shouting.(warn them to go away first incase it is someone good-intentioned)

C. there driving a truck with the back covered right towards your base and wont stop.

D. there burrying somthing in the middle of the road.

sevral more ways too.

edited 30th Sep '11 6:05:33 PM by Joesolo

Kat: Is he holding a gun, staring in violent propeganda? Oh hey lets shoot him. :P

The fact that you can say that tells me you've never been out there in that situation and done it. That not only damages the person's family, it damages the mental health of the shooting soldier. But I guess I forgot it's a crime to live in a war zone.

Until you've shot someone and seen them die, no matter if they're your enemy or not, don't take that tone. Otherwise, you're just another Internet Tough Guy.

Yeah....I'm not even going to touch that one; not a talk I want to have with TVT at 9pm on a Friday.