Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

[HarryCallahan]

was he actually operational, or more like a spokesman/rhetorician? again, evidence points to the latter... or more accurately, it's severely lacking for the former. so does violent rhetoric against your own country count as treason? particularly if it inspires real action? i say no but plenty of americans believe it shouldn't be tolerated. if assassination strikes are the best way to prevent further terrorism, so be it. i'm quite skeptical towards that personally lol

Violent rhetoric like:

Our position needs to be reiterated, and needs to be very clear. The fact that the US has administered violent homicice of over 1 million civilians in Iraq; the fact that the US is supporting the deaths and killings of thousands of Palestinians, does not justify the killing of one US civilian in New York or Washington DC. And the deaths of 6 thousand civilians in New York and Washington DC does not justify the death of one civilian in Afghanistan.

His dangerousness has been WAY over-hyped.

[RidonKs]

that quote is from a month after 9/11. actually, though i haven't seen any confirmation of this, apparently al-awlaki made a number of appearances around that time on network television and public radio as a moderate muslim, denouncing the terrorism against innocents and calling on americans not to blame the entire faith but rather a radical interpretation of it.

that's why i say that he was radicalized pretty much entirely by american foreign policy. because years later, he was calling the fort hood shooter a hero or a saint or something, calling for the jihadi overthrow of the american government. yes, that is violent rhetoric. no, he wasn't preaching it for his entire life. and i agree, his threat is completely exaggerated. but to deny he said some awfully disturbing and at times patently insane things is to deny either reality or your own moral compass.

[KeylessEntry]

your argument that al-queda has shifted from a real network of cells and training grounds to... what? "terrorism inspiration"? i mean, that's what it becomes from the view of the united states? the war was declared against terror, but according to the actual legal basis -- authorized use of force act -- it's against al-quaeda and its affiliates. now that was already on pretty f*cking shifty ground in my opinion, since only in rhetoric ("on drugs", "on poverty") has a war ever been declared that wasn't against an actual state actor.

but now the definition has changed to a boundary-less war on actions, words, thoughts, each more poorly defined than the last. and it's on the assertion that al-qaeda itself has changed. now "its affiliates" is anybody anywhere who happens to like or admire or commend or agree with al-qaeda, who has similar goals or was inspired or think similarly on some things but not necessarily everything. i mean you see where that kind of definition of your "war" leads? it leads to endless global conflict. it leads to Senator Graham leading high military officers into answers like these that proclaim executive rights to pursue endless wars on terror anywhere around the globe. just forget the legality for a second... we know how well teams of lawyers for any particular justice department can work around legal disputes. how do you feel about it? how does it not strike you as insane?

War of terror.

[KevinNYC]

not exactly. it implies incidental. but the actual phrase, by the justice department's own words, is "not specifically targeted". whatever the hell that means.

It means they thought he was an anonymous Al Qaeda soldier and they were willing to take him out. Collateral damage generally means killing civilians and destroying civilian property.

and al-awlaki is intensely interesting because of his story. this is a guy who was radicalized by American foreign policy. you can't read or hear his story without coming to that conclusion, it's completely uncontroversial. he was a muslim moderate in the aftermath of 9/11. this guy didn't come out of the afghan Mujahideen, he was raised in the west and by all accounts, loved it here.

He was raised here for 7 years and then moved to Yemen for 11 years. He came back here for college. During one summer in college he visited Al Qaeda and came back talking about Abdullah Azzam, who is best known as Osama Bin Laden's mentor. Also before 9/11 he was the vice-president of a fake charity that funneled money to terrorists. Also the three 9/11 hijackers who came to see him at his mosque? Just bad luck.

Also you.....your PKK argument.....that's just drunk talk.

As for operational are we talking about the same thing, do you believe that someone who recruiting willing bombers/attackers or gave their spiritual blessing to bombers/attackers would qualify as operational? Or is that not enough?

[MadeFromDust]

aren't you the same guy who asked people here about accepting your decision to declaw (i.e. chop the first digits off) your new cat, then ran away when everyone told you how cruel that would be to the animal?

or is that a different madefromdust...?

Hey ain't nothing wrong with protecting your hard-earned investment in nice furniture and carpetting against the little varmints

[HarryCallahan]

that's why i say that he was radicalized pretty much entirely by american foreign policy. because years later, he was calling the fort hood shooter a hero or a saint or something, calling for the jihadi overthrow of the american government. yes, that is violent rhetoric. no, he wasn't preaching it for his entire life. and i agree, his threat is completely exaggerated. but to deny he said some awfully disturbing and at times patently insane things is to deny either reality or your own moral compass.

I think I know the one you're talking about. I'm paraphrasing but in that speech(sermon?) he said something like "You have two choices; kill or convert. He (Nidal-Hassan) made the right choice." Or something to that effect.

[gigantes]

so the SEA (syrian electronic army, a cyberterror group) just successfully attacked twitter, NYtimes and others. this is an unusual article... really gets in to the specifics:
http://www.informationweek.com/secur...tack/240160541

the idea is that it's a warning shot fired against the US and UN. i.e., don't mess with syria, or next time it will be stuff that matters much more that gets its security compromised.

to me this is one of the most interesting things yet in the syria situation. that is, cybersecurity is still very bad all around the world at almost all levels, considering the deadly potential of modern hacking. the chinese army has a massive dept devoted to just this kind of thing, i.e. cyberterrorism. it's not just for research and national defense, either. corporations and govts around the world are under daily attack by the chinese.

Hey ain't nothing wrong with protecting your hard-earned investment in nice furniture and carpetting against the little varmints

haha, i take your point. pardon me for being an ass.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

So yeah, this aint happening

[gigantes]

just keep this for when needed:

[oh the horror]

just keep this for when needed:

Nice. Will share via FB

[oh the horror]

Obamanation the hyppocrite war monger.

All ewe Bush railers that support this either apologize or fall on a sword please.

Am I the only person that thinks this guy posts drunk?


I'm even drink right now and auto-correct saves me.

[oh the horror]

"I'm even drink"


Didn't save me that time.

[RidonKs]

He was raised here for 7 years and then moved to Yemen for 11 years. He came back here for college. During one summer in college he visited Al Qaeda and came back talking about Abdullah Azzam, who is best known as Osama Bin Laden's mentor. Also before 9/11 he was the vice-president of a fake charity that funneled money to terrorists. Also the three 9/11 hijackers who came to see him at his mosque? Just bad luck.

i'm not going to defend him. all i'm going to call him is a remarkably interesting story -- specifically with regard to the fact that he was very clearly radicalized by American policy. ignoring that fact will get you nowhere. i don't know anything about his vp-ship at a terrorist embezzling charity. i do know there's been a ton of propaganda in our media, emphasizing his love of hookers and pizza and his contact with the hijackers, who he didn't seek out i might add. he was also involved in peace rallies beginning with the gulf war and continuing along with the ongoing sanctions. he happened to be a very popular and gifted public speaker. lots of contradictory information for anybody's life story.

my point is that he was a public mouthpiece for the islamic experience in america, which you know wasn't very nice in the first few years after 911. that point is underlined by the quote posted above. he was on NPR and CNN as a "regular muslim" because the entire mass media apparatus were in search of answers to that question (that had ironically already been answered): why?

he is proof of why. his ends didn't change, only his means. in the ensuing years, he clearly became convinced that only radical action could possibly alter the status quo. hence support for horrific acts like killing a dozen innocent and untested american soldiers, which is obviously fked up by every definition of the phrase.


as far as operational goes? my definition is probably the same as yours. recruiting definitely qualifies. but the problem i suppose lies in our contradictory definition of recruiting. he emailed back and forth with the fort hood shooter, the underwear bomber, plenty of people. but as far as i can see it, more importantly as far as any evidence anybody has seen clearly shows, he didn't initiate contact. isn't that the definition of recruiting? again, no evidence that he was a senior al-qaeda operative has ever been provided. all we know is he supported their cause, which despicable though it may be, does not warrant execution as far as i'm concerned and as far as us law is concerned.



as for "collateral damage", well thats semantics. collateral deaths were incidental insofar as they were not specifically targeted. the definition of what counts as an "anonymous al-qaeda soldier", according to american intelligence, is completely ****ed. it's based on assumptions that don't pass even the most basic moral test of scrutiny.

[OJ SIMPSON 2.0]

Wow, Russia's moving warships to Syria I guess to scare off the U.S. I don't see why Russia and China are so againstthe USinterfering in Syria.The own governmenthis using chemical weapons on their own people it must be stopped. It's a humanitarian problem and NEEDS intervention from another country. Syria is a dangerous country, they must be stopped and the US must see that the rebels seize victory before the corrupt government takes over and builds weapons of mass destruction and attack our friends Isreal or even us.

[KevinNYC]

Obama's got to take this decision to Congress.