Yemen defense ministry: Radical American imam killed

I would not call it the world's greatest victory against terrorism (Yemen would like to call it that - but that's because their corrupt president is trying to remain America's habibi). Sheikh Anwar was a clown of the first degree --- Islam, Yemen, and America - are all better off without him.

From [url=http://www.Grassfire.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.Grassfire.net[/url] today:

"The latest comes from actress Eva Longoria who spoke of the
new "extremist movement" that is "very dangerous" and is
"not the character of America."

Who are these "dangerous" "extremists"? The Tea Party,
of course.

This comes just days after Morgan Freeman blasted the Tea
Party as "racist" and the "dark, underside of America."

The lefties call the Tea Party members terrorists. Was a line crossed today? When we deny the rights of one are we denying our rights too? Americans killing Americans. No doubt this guy was a bad guy but did he not deserve due process? When the Government determines who must die based on their definiton of "terrorist" and bypasses their right to a fair trial, doesn't that make some of us just a bit uncomfortable? Just wondering.

You pose an interesting question Trouble. It seems that the definition of terrorist has truly been changed by this administration to include who they want it to be, though I, for one, will not miss, nor grieve for this guy. He has been acting as a traitor and true terrorist for a long time.

archer wrote: I much prefer covert operations than troops on the ground though, it makes for less collateral damage and gets the job done nice and neat.

Problem is that the high tech covert operation gear that can pin the tail on the donkey with predictability and precision costs a lot more than the dumb iron used in years past. With an electorate, or a part of it anyway, clamoring for cuts in the amount of money the DoD spends, one wonders how many units that get the job done nice and neat will continue to be part of the inventory available to the commander in chief. I remember that the Clinton defense cuts resulted in most of the cruise missiles that were used over in the Balkans not being replaced in the inventory, which significantly increased the costs of arming our forces for their missions post 9/11. Will we see a similar situation develop if a new round of deep cuts to the defense budget is implemented?

Nmysys wrote: You pose an interesting question Trouble. It seems that the definition of terrorist has truly been changed by this administration to include who they want it to be, though I, for one, will not miss, nor grieve for this guy. He has been acting as a traitor and true terrorist for a long time.

The fact that he was a traitor might give the Government the right to bypass his due rights. Just like with so many things in our society today everything is relative. So one man's definition of a Patriot could be another man's definition of a terrorist. I won't miss or grieve for this guy either but I sure hope the Government didn't cross a line today. But wait...I forgot about Waco...they already did.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: I much prefer covert operations than troops on the ground though, it makes for less collateral damage and gets the job done nice and neat.

Problem is that the high tech covert operation gear that can pin the tail on the donkey with predictability and precision costs a lot more than the dumb iron used in years past. With an electorate, or a part of it anyway, clamoring for cuts in the amount of money the DoD spends, one wonders how many units that get the job done nice and neat will continue to be part of the inventory available to the commander in chief. I remember that the Clinton defense cuts resulted in most of the cruise missiles that were used over in the Balkans not being replaced in the inventory, which significantly increased the costs of arming our forces for their missions post 9/11. Will we see a similar situation develop if a new round of deep cuts to the defense budget is implemented?

I think that would depend on where the cuts are, but putting troops on the ground like in Iraq and Afghanistan is a very expensive proposition. I would love to see the dollar comparison of conventional warfare (troops on the ground plus air and sea support) vs covert ops and missile attacks.

The attack of 9/11 was a message that we are never going to be safe from every attack. We also had to send a message that there is no place for the terrorists to hide, nor do we need to ask permission to kill them. I do believe there would be much more of an uproar had this been done under Bush. At least the ACLU is consistent...lets see how the rest of the Bush haters handle this action which seems oppose the Obama administrations more "fair and just" approach that was suppose to make the world respect us more.

CriticalBill wrote: The attack of 9/11 was a message that we are never going to be safe from every attack. We also had to send a message that there is no place for the terrorists to hide, nor do we need to ask permission to kill them. I do believe there would be much more of an uproar had this been done under Bush. At least the ACLU is consistent...lets see how the rest of the Bush haters handle this action which seems oppose the Obama administrations more "fair and just" approach that was suppose to make the world respect us more.

I expect them to handle this the same way they handled the death of Bin Laden....with relief and very pleased that one more known terrorist is gone. I think you confuse known terrorists with the mass roundup of muslims during those tumultuous times after 9/11 when the US incarcerated hundreds of people without knowing if they were terrorists or not. Some were proven not to be, others were suspected, but no proof, and still others were well known to be terrorists. I see a difference....maybe others do not. But being muslim does not equal being a terrorist.....I would want more proof beyond what someone's religion is before targeting them for death.

archer wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: The attack of 9/11 was a message that we are never going to be safe from every attack. We also had to send a message that there is no place for the terrorists to hide, nor do we need to ask permission to kill them. I do believe there would be much more of an uproar had this been done under Bush. At least the ACLU is consistent...lets see how the rest of the Bush haters handle this action which seems oppose the Obama administrations more "fair and just" approach that was suppose to make the world respect us more.

I expect them to handle this the same way they handled the death of Bin Laden....with relief and very pleased that one more known terrorist is gone. I think you confuse known terrorists with the mass roundup of muslims during those tumultuous times after 9/11 when the US incarcerated hundreds of people without knowing if they were terrorists or not. Some were proven not to be, others were suspected, but no proof, and still others were well known to be terrorists. I see a difference....maybe others do not. But being muslim does not equal being a terrorist.....I would want more proof beyond what someone's religion is before targeting them for death.

I'm not aware of a mass roundup of Muslims for no reason. If they were caught on the battlefield with weapons, I think there is a pretty good chance they were not exactly friendly to Americans and should at least be held until we have more info before just letting them go. I don't think being Muslim has anything to do with being a terrorist unless they are standing with, helping, or acting as a terrorist as this guy was.

We have caught many known terrorists that could have easily been snuffed out instead of being captured, read their 'rights", and tried in civilian courts as this administration was promoting early on. I think Obama now knows that fighting terrorism is not the same as fighting crime, we have to throw out the rule book occasionally and just get the job done.

Yes, isn't it interesting that not one person at Guantanamo was put there by Obama... They were all put there as a result of the unnecessary wars that Bush started, and when they captured someone they didn't know what else to do except put them somewhere that they could torture them without interference.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't both with capture and torture... He kills them. Guess which one I prefer?