Re: Aren't you glad we killed him?

Post #376,173 by rcareaga 6/10/13 2:21:16 PM Reply	Re: Aren't you glad we killed him? I hold no brief for these targeted assassinations, but note that this clip is almost a dozen years old. It's my understanding that the man's rhetoric hardened very considerably in the years preceding his murder. Assuming you were to put your question before two groups of a thousand apiece, the first sample to be shown these two-and-a-half minutes and the second an excerpt of equal length from one of the later, infinitely more inflammatory speeches, I predict that the trend of the responses would be very different between the two groups. So I have to ask you: what, really, is your point here? What is the correspondence between your subject line and the content of the linked video? cordially,
Post #376,175 by folkert 6/10/13 2:38:40 PM Reply	Oh come now. Nobody ever changes. EVER. That means we've killed an "Innocent Man." Just like cute Lion Cubs... they never, ever grow up and become ravenous killing and eating machines. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #376,176 by mmoffitt 6/10/13 2:55:50 PM Reply	Even if I grant that he "became radicalized later" ... Is it not worth considering that he may have been pushed in that direction? If you are curious about him (and the US Version of the Stasi. Note that I'm recommending this after only having made it through about 1/2 the book) I'd suggest this: http://www.amazon.co...rs+jeremy+scahill
Post #376,195 by rcareaga 6/10/13 4:38:40 PM Reply	he may have been pushed in that direction Of course he may have been. Following those early field tests in central Asia in the 1980s, this country's policies have been producing jihadis in job lots. I'm going to guess that our present high-handed deployment of drones over Pakistan will ultimately yield a jihadi-dominated state there with even more liberal views on proliferation than those espoused in living memory by Mr. A.Q. Khan, and a sour view of the US government that will make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look like Tony Blair. But your original post said nothing about the "push," and employed a conspicuously innocuous speech in lieu of several more recent and more incendiary ones in order to make a point of mock astonishment, and it was difficult to assume that you did so for any other reason than that you were unaware of the other material, or that you were being disingenuous in the service of a rhetorical point. If the latter, it served to undercut that point. cordially,
Post #376,241 by mmoffitt 6/11/13 8:37:54 AM Reply	Point taken. I assumed everyone was familiar with his much publicized more recent rantings. After all, it was the "proof that we needed to kill him" provided us by our major media. However, I was and am unsure how many were familiar with his earlier sermons. I've had a number of otherwise well informed people tell me they were either unaware or couldn't recall all the television and radio interviews he did here in the aftermath of 9/11. Neither could they recall that he was considered "a moderate imam" by no less than your nascient security state apparatus nor that he'd been invited to dinner at the Pentagon after 9/11. I'll confess I'd forgotten most of that myself. It was partially for that reason that I chose to post the link of that speech made a month after 9/11. The other reason was (although most here probably didn't need reminding) to re-emphasize the damage that our reaction to our always-on fear can inflict. In brief, our national security state can turn anyone into a terrorist. Even those who are not initially predisposed to terrorism.
Post #376,247 by rcareaga 6/11/13 9:50:03 AM Reply	Oh, indeedy People have been observing for years that the "war on drugs" was all so much dress rehearsal, and that the subassemblies devised for that project required little modification and just a few turns of a screwdriver to put them together into the monstrous apparatus we see in place today. At the same time, even if we grant your point that the national security state can turn anyone into a terrorist, it does not follow that every terrorist—let us consider the recent Brothers Bombamazov in Boston— has been created by U.S. policies, any more than the spooky little loon in Connecticut last year was created by that state's public schools. A) Socrates is a man. B) All men are mortal. C) All men are Socrates. cordially,
Post #376,250 by mmoffitt 6/11/13 10:19:28 AM Reply	I did say "can", not "will." I'm not even prepared to claim Awlaki's apparent turn was a consequence of actions by our security state. But the more I read about him and his life the more difficult it is for me to reject that notion wholesale. At least until he went to Yemen, the sermons of his I've read include what I would call not unreasonable critcisms of US policy and a consistent message against the killing of innocents. Apparently, something happened to him. But what? My view is that we should consider that very carefully. Why? Because we assassinated not only him, but his 16 year old son in order to shut him up.
Post #376,260 by rcareaga 6/11/13 12:08:27 PM Reply	Ayup Stinks to high heaven, it does. 'Bout twenty five years ago my then-employer, Flatline, Comatose, Torpor & Drowse (after a few subsequent mergers, today's BrainDead Systems) acquired a new CEO. I asked my boss, a man extraordinarily attuned to the organization's bush telegraph, what we might expect. "It will depend on which faction captures her," he replied. It's become pretty clear which faction has captured the Obama presidency. cordially, It turned out that she fell into the lap of my own "International Division." Yay! Good times! Pretty lean years for my old colleagues since she left.
Post #376,188 by boxley 6/10/13 3:26:37 PM Reply	what ever happened to free speech Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #376,248 by rcareaga 6/11/13 9:58:52 AM Reply	Re: what ever happened to free speech Someone on the radio yesterday (it may have been noted arsewipe James Woolsey, formerly top plantain at the CIA) said that Snowdon, the leaker, is under our system perfectly entitled to speak out on anything he likes, but needs to understand that doing so in this instance could and ought to send him to prison for the rest of his life. And see, if Snowdon really believes in freedom of speech, he knows that with freedom comes responsibility, and will gladly pay that price, otherwise it's not free speech, it's self-indulgence. Ah, Erich Honecker, that you did not live to see this day! I hope this answers your question, box. cordially,
Post #376,262 by boxley 6/11/13 12:52:39 PM Reply	he knows he will pay the price Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #376,263 by rcareaga 6/11/13 1:03:35 PM 6/11/13 1:05:02 PM Reply	Re: he knows he will pay the price Which means it ain't "free," don't it? "Remember our brave troops who fought and died for your right to do hard time for speaking outÂ" —needs work. cordially, Edited by rcareaga June 11, 2013, 01:05:02 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #376,268 by boxley 6/11/13 1:49:59 PM Reply	ellsberg paid, the reward was that the borg was pushed back by the people and he was exonerated in deed. Hopefully Snowden will help the rest of us start dismantling this sheep herding exercise in stupidity Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #376,297 by folkert 6/11/13 6:50:27 PM Reply	Wow. I'm agreeing with the guy from 'laska. Never really thought that'd happen. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #376,264 by Another Scott 6/11/13 1:11:50 PM Reply	Funny that he ran to China though. There are a whole bunch of details about this leak episode that make no sense at all... http://www.businessi...stleblower-2013-6 Last I looked, $122k << "around $200k". Cheers, Scott.
Post #376,269 by boxley 6/11/13 1:51:14 PM Reply	NK doesnt have the amenaties and iran involves bowing Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #376,272 by Another Scott 6/11/13 2:12:23 PM Reply	Heh. Seriously, he seems really messed up to me (based on his actions and justifications). Why he had access to TS material/systems/whatever is beyond me. <obligatory pointer to old DRL post about narcissism> Cheers, Scott.
Post #376,275 by drook 6/11/13 2:21:58 PM Reply	That's one of the points that's been made The tactical problem with trying to discredit the leaker, as a way of invalidating the content of the leak, is that one of his points was, "What the hell were they thinking giving me access to all this?" The less qualified he seems, the more valid that question becomes. -- Drew
Post #376,278 by Another Scott 6/11/13 2:41:24 PM Reply	There are lots and lots of questions. That's a good one. But it's not the only one. There are lots and lots of seemingly underqualified people who are doing a fine job out there. He's not in trouble because he was underqualified. He is in trouble because he did a seemingly senseless series of acts some of which violated his oath and the law. (At least what has been presented thus far doesn't make much sense to me. A $20M/yr program is watching all of our electronic correspondence? Really?!? You made "around $200k" a year?!? Really?!? You could wiretap the President of the United States?!? Really?!?). It'll be interesting to see if this episode leads to any clarity on these surveillance programs and their oversight. Maybe, maybe not. http://thehill.com/h...-dead-on-arrival- Cheers, Scott.
Post #376,283 by boxley 6/11/13 3:15:38 PM Reply	I thought about this as well http://blogs.ajc.com...-traitor-or-fool/ Lindsay Mills, who writes like I dance, says in her blog that ÂMy world has opened and closed all at once. Leaving me at sea without a compass. Surely there will be villainous pirates, distracting mermaids and tides of change in this new open water chapter of my journey. But at the moment all I can feel is alone.Â ÂAs I type this on my tear-streaked keyboard IÂm reflecting on all the faces that have graced my path. The ones I laughed with. The ones IÂve held. The one IÂve grown to love the most. And the ones I never got to bid adieu. But sometimes life doesnÂt afford proper goodbyes.Â Hmmmmm Â maybe the NSA leak isnÂt why Snowden started running. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #376,285 by Another Scott 6/11/13 3:41:04 PM Reply	:-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!