Fugitive cleric al-Awlaki warns of future attacks

[SpartanDem]

Source: CNN

Fugitive American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki warned of new attacks on Americans at home and abroad in a new video released over the weekend.

Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to be hiding in Yemen, accused U.S. forces of deliberately killing women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. And he praised Maj. Nidal Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist charged in the November massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, calling him "one of my students."

"Oh, America, if you transgress against us, we will transgress against you, and you keep killing our people, we will kill your people," Anwar al-Awlaki says in the video. "This is the image that we need to present. These American soldiers heading to Afghanistan and Iraq will be killed. We will kill them if we can, there in Fort Hood, or we will kill them in Afghanistan and Iraq."

U.S. authorities also have linked al-Awlaki to the failed attempt to blow up a U.S.-bound jetliner in December, and he is on the list of suspected al Qaeda leaders targeted for capture or assassination. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sunday said al-Awlaki "supports al Qaeda's agenda of murder and violence."


Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/23/yemen.fugitive.cleric/

[customerserviceguy]

1. I wonder if the price on his head

is as much as the one on bin Laden's? Maybe it ought to be double.

[Turbineguy]

2. Well asswipe,

it's still not too late to start up a health insurance company.

[cliffordu]

3. Bwahahahahah...

:rofl:

[timo]

4. he should worry

and keep a sharp eye out for little red dots on the back of his head!!

[cowman]

5. Yeah

and to appease those that think we shouldn't target him because he's an american citizen, we can write the miranda warning on the missile that takes him out.

[MadMaddie]

6. Where are the protectionist for this piece of shit?

He has put a target on every American!! What say you?


This is why this guy is on the "Remove" from the world list. He is the American version of Bin Laden. He has given up his right to protection by going to another country and participating and leading a terrorist group, this was his decision.

[The abyss]

7. Hey! Whatever happened to Adam Gadahn?

Adam Pearlman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn

Where is he now??

Grandson of Carl K. Pearlman, late of the LA area.

Last I heard he got busted by the Pakistani authorities. But then again that story went bye bye.

More fake Al Qaeda?

[NJmaverick]

8. Yemeni cleric advocates killing US civilians

Source: Associated Press,

CAIRO – An American-Yemeni cleric whose Internet sermons are believed to have helped inspire attacks on the U.S. has advocated the killing of American civilians in an al-Qaida video released Sunday.
Anwar al-Awlaki has been singled out by U.S. officials as a key terrorist threat and has been added to the CIA's list of targets for assassination despite his American citizenship. He is of particular concern because he is one of the few English-speaking radical clerics able to explain to young Muslims in America and other Western countries the philosophy of violent jihad.
The U.S.-born al-Awlaki moved to Yemen in 2004 and is in hiding there after being linked to the suspects in the November shooting at an Army base in Fort Hood, Texas, and the December attempt to blow up a U.S. jetliner bound for Detroit.
"Those who might be killed in a plane are merely a drop of water in a sea," he said in the video in response to a question about Muslim groups that disapproved of the airliner plot because it targeted civilians.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100523/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_radical_cleric;_ylt=AiQa2iFH5cTJPxzIaQDUeCas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpMWJ2bWU1BHBvcwMzOQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDeWVtZW5pY2xlcmlj

---

I can't understand why people are up in arms because this guy will be targeted by drones

[Ron Green]

9. Any religion that sees enemies is a bullshit religion.

[RiverNoord]

14. Every religion "sees enemies" - it's kind of a religion thing

If someone could point out a genuine historically recognized religion that doesn't feature the concept of enemy gods, beliefs, or persons, I'd love to see it...

[The abyss]

27. Well said RiverNoord!

Welcome to DU.

It is a fun place to play. There are many smart critters here; there are also many shills.

Recommend +1 for RiverNoord’s comment

[boppers]

28. Try UU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

It's kind of focused on a "all gods are good" mentality.

"We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."

[Ron Green]

56. The Unity Church is a tolerant and forgiving felllowship, emphasizing scholarship and service.

No enemies there.

[opihimoimoi]

10. NUKE THE SOB ASAP

[slackmaster]

60. RIGHT ON!

[Better Today]

11. We kill Islam's innocent civilians, turn about seems like fair play to me.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skip Intro]

15. wtf? nt

[awoke_in_2003]

30. my thought as well. nt

[Robb]

16. Oh look, an apologist.

Or a moral relativist. Or a child. Which is it?

[Better Today]

26. None of the above. Just one that doesn't see the point in condemning others for

desiring to retaliate similarly to what is being done to them. Innocents and civilians are being killed by USA in droves and have been for almost 8 years now.

I do not favor bullies, and USA is a bully these days. If we want to get all incensed over the potential killing of civilians, then we shouldn't be killing civilians either. Otherwise, seems like fair play to me.

[Robb]

34. So no understanding of intent or proportion. Got it.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Do you know how many years we'd have to have Predators firing missiles into North Waziristan, at our current elevated rate, to even begin to approach killing (by accident) the number of civilians the Taliban has killed (on purpose) just in the last six months??

Don't get me wrong, the wide-eyed notion that they'd stop bombing girls' schools if we just sat down and sang "kumbaya" with them is adorable. But you have some mighty fucked up notions of fair play if you justify ANYONE targeting civilians.

[Better Today]

44. I understand intent, but I believe the road to hell is paved with intentions.

There's no good intention to an unfair fight. As you mention, Taliban isn't innocent either. . . however us killing their women and children as collateral damage doesn't solve the problem at all. I don't justify any warlike actions, period. But so long as we are as careless and blood thirsty as we have proven to be, and as unwilling to hold our combat murderers and torturers to account, then as far as I'm concerned we have no leg to stand on when it comes to them doing the same things. N

Furthermore, you attempt to compare my comments to being okay for Taliban to kill their own. My response is in response to the OP wherein the topic is relating to a call for the killings of Americans, who are clearly the enemy of, not the subjects of, the person speaking. Not the same at all, and not to what I was referring.

You can get your dander up all you want, but intent between enemies is of no concern of mine. We cannot honestly say we entered Afghanistan or Iraq for the benefit of women or children...it was petty revenge pure and simple.

[Robb]

45. That you continue to attempt to morally equate the two

...leaves no doubt to you intentions.

Your anti-US stance is blinding you to reality: we would have to bomb Pakistan for 30 years to approach the level of atrocity inflicted on the civilian population there recently. You either do not know this, or you do not care. I suspect both.

And an attempt to bring iraq into the conversation is just fucking silly. The company you keep when you conflate Iraq and Afghanistan to make a point includes Bush, Cheney and Powell. Nice work.

[Better Today]

50. You are correct, I am anti-US war machine, have always been. Seems I'm not chicken hawk enough

for your crowd, which suits me just fine.

If we are going to fight wars, then I will always be against demonizing those that want to do the same to our civilians as we are doing to theirs. Oh, and if I add in all the injustices that have occurred because we supported many of the regional tyrants, oops, and still do. . . well I've got no sympathy for those like yourself, nor any animosity toward those that want to get even with us.

I do not worship the USA, it is disgusting in it's war budget, in it's war tactics, in it's calling every fucking thing a war regardless of no actual war being declared. . . nope, won't go there.

But hey feel free to if you choose to. I'll just be proud as punch that you and those like you find me distasteful.

[Robb]

51. "Chickenhawk?" Careful, you might hurt my internet feelings.

So you want a declaration of war to believe the US is at war? What, all the guys in camo with the flag patches, guns and body bags and what-not too subtle?

My favorite part about your position is your unwillingness to let ignorance stop you from holding zealous beliefs. In this respect, I see your abilities for moral equivocation less as character flaws, and more as part of your fabric.

The trouble is, acting like the US is the evil party in AfPak makes the reality-based community wince. I couldn't be more thankful that your brand of apologism is just noisy fringe to the party.

[Better Today]

53. Yes, I absolutely want a clear declaration of war as the CONSTITUTION REQUIRES!

For claiming to have been a soldier, you sure seem to shiver in your scaredy cat little boots. It's just a friggin' video. I assure you that your team has killed more innocents, more civilians, and more people in general than their side. I'm appalled that you don't find that good enough for your blood lust.

Your reality is clearly warped. I want no part of it. If you insist on the need for these undeclared wars, then I will continue to resist the hypocrisy of judging others harshly for advocating against us the same considerations as we have shown against them.

[Robb]

54. What "team" would that be?

I don't know what you're talking about, I'm just some guy on the internet.

On topic: If it was "just a friggin' video," you'd have a point. Awlaki admitted on video, however, to have trained Abdulmutallab, Hasan and others. And I'm sorry, but if your following has a tendency to blow people up when riled, and you rile them, you're as guilty as Jim Jones.

Snuck in a Kool-aid reference there, that was for you.

[Better Today]

55. You're so friggin' obtuse, or

perhaps you're just too stupid to comprehend what's been typed. Either way, I'm thrilled not to be in any form of agreement with you, it would be embarrassing at best.

[Robb]

58. You advocate targeting civilians. Wondered when you'd get to name-calling.

Advocating killing civilians, then trying to hurt my feelings when I call you on it, and finally just calling me stupid.

With those rhetorcal skills it's amazing they're not lined up around the block seeking your wisdom. Hey, maybe you can get a talk radio gig.

[Better Today]

62. What lie, I didn't advocate killing anyone. I simply will not be the hypocrite you seem to be

regarding condemning someone who is advocating doing exactly what we have been others. There is a difference, but apparently you are too stupid too recognize that.

[Robb]

63. OK. To clarify, you won't condemn the targeting of civilians.

Doesn't seem like a big difference to me. Oh, and I'm stupid again. Churchillian debating, there.

[Better Today]

64. Yes, I will condemn it when applied to groups who are not already doing the very same thing.

For example, advocating the killing of Mexican civilians, or Brazilian civilians, I would absolutely condemn that, because neither they nor their governments are imperialistically claiming a right to "collateral" damage on a group, then getting their panties in a wad because the group suggests it may retaliate in similar fashion.

[Robb]

65. But you won't condemn anyone who targets US civilians.

Sick position.

[Better Today]

67. Nope I won't. Not until and unless we change our ways and accept

a fair fight, or better yet find solutions that don't involve armed conflicts at all.

[Robb]

68. That's just beyond fucked up. And hugely un-progressive.

Setting aside the childish "fair fight" business: you want to punish civilians for the acts of their government?

Something tells me you don't see a lot of daylight. Since when, oh liberaler-than-thou, is the onus put on the oppressed to free themselves?

[Better Today]

69. Again you straw man my POV. I do not want to punish anyone, simply won't partake in

your hypocritical call for revenge on someone or some group wanting to do to us what we are already doing to them.

Since you continue to blatantly attempt to revise what I'm typing to fit your narrow, winger view. I will consider this the last of this conversation with you. You are clearly a war lover, a lover over extreme revenge, and a hypocrite to boot, not worth any more of my time.

[Robb]

70. And you are a name-caller who is trying to weasel out of an absurd statement

...and yet keep digging. You can't defend an indefensible position, so truly running off is your best move.

Fortunately your words are here and on record. I certainly won't forget them.

Now I'm a "winger" in addition to being stupid? Welcome to DU. :D

By the way, I'm not buying your act for one minute. Keep it up, though. :rofl:

[proteus_lives]

23. There's a country called Islam?

Point that out on the map for me.

[slackmaster]

61. Bull-pucky. Most of the innocent Muslims who have been killed were killed by other Muslims.

They are their own worst enemy.

[Joey Liberal]

12. Just whack the idiot

We need to work with the New York crime families to start whacking these guys.

[Lucky Luciano]

18. You called? How can I help?

...agreed, let's whack the POS.

[Joey Liberal]

19. Hahaha!

That's funny:)............ Great DU name. Hey, you were banned by FR and I was banned from ABCNews.com! Nice!

[Starckers]

17. Cleric in Hiding

Doubt that we will ever find that guy....

[Turbineguy]

20. Presumably

others will be called upon to do the actual heavy lifting.

He sounds a bit like Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh.

[closeupready]

21. You see, this is the next step on the slippery slope in states where capital punishment is legal.

We have been executing convicted killers for a long time now, but the bar for evidence was very high, and the crime had to be really, really awful.

Now, even on the Democratic Underground, members here go, 'So we have started to target American citizens for execution even though they haven't been convicted by their peers, but rather, because our government believes it's a good idea? If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, and I don't see the problem here.'

To be 100% honest, these are the kinds of things I read here more frequently these days that make me not want to visit DU anymore.

[Robb]

22. Would you be more comfortable

...if we waited until he was standing on a battlefield holding a weapon?

The problem with bombing planners is you can't wait, because by then people are quite dead. It's not a question of due process, it's a question of this "shoot the gun out of their hand" TV war mentality that doesn't match reality.

Those who have been, as they say, in close proximity to death or injury, but survived and sustained no injuries, agree that if you're in a fair fight, you didn't adequately prepare beforehand. In this day and age, that's intelligence.

[closeupready]

24. Are you a Republican?

You're promoting their talking points here, and it's a filthy business, that.

Shame on you! :mad:

[Pavulon]

29. Was JFK? Google Diem.

this has been us policy across all administrations for decades.

[closeupready]

39. Is it right?

Do you agree with it?

[Robb]

33. Oh, please. Gnash your teeth and rend your garments elsewhere.

Answer the question, if you've got any argument that doesn't involve being shocked.

[closeupready]

40. You're just not very smart, are you, or you think I don't see through your bullshit.

Not playing your game.

[Robb]

41. What are you implying?

I can read and write. Tie my own shoes and everything.

You just have no solutions for a real-world issue. What, you think it's not actually a war? I've got a bunch of guys in camo with flag patches velcroed on their arms who disagree.

[The abyss]

31. So much easier in the old days.

<[br />

[NJmaverick]

35. I think the video seals the deal

[closeupready]

38. Of course you do. You would say that, wouldn't you.

Very much in keeping with your other views, NJMaverick.

[sabrina 1]

43. So all that's required in the U.S. today to get you a death sentence

is to make some threats on Utube? The Fear Factor is that strong? No more Constitution? So we lost the 'War on Terror' and they won?

I'm wondering what makes this country any different from Saudi Arabia or any third world dictatorship, where political assassinations are a way of life, and due process doesn't exist, now that we have finished the job Bush started and completely discarded the Rule of Law?

And it all happened without a whimper from the American people. It was so easy, they never needed to actually bomb anyone, all they needed to do was to say 'BOO!!'

Home of the Brave! No wonder the world laughs.

[closeupready]

48. "All they needed to do was to say 'BOO!!'" - PERFECT.

Bravo, that is what really seals it for me. I can't continue in this thread; just going to rev up my ignore. (not you, of course.)

Peace.

[Robb]

52. The beauty of ignore

...is that it will eventually start to look like everyone in the world agrees with you. You should enjoy that. :hi:

[sabrina 1]

32. I agree with you completely. How easy it is to get people

to give up their principles and rights, to rip apart the Constitution they claim to be so proud of.

Just scare them a little and they'll follow any order.

This country has far too many cowards shivering in their jackboots willing to issue a death sentence without a shred of evidence that it is deserved.

It really is pathetic to read this thread. I wonder how you get to be so frightened that you throw away all that you claim we are supposedly fighting for? I used to think Americans would fight to the death to protect the system of justice that separated us from dictatorships. I knew Rightwingers were scared little cowards, but ever since Democrats were elected, the cowards on our side have been exposed.

This thread is proof positive that 'the terrorists have won' assuming we believe that 'they are trying to take away our freedoms.' No need for that it is apparent, too many are willing to just give them up willingly.

[closeupready]

37. I always find it ironic that I lived through 9/11, I pass by 46th Street every day, and yet,

I'm more willing to demand due process for everyone, and those who don't have firsthand experience like that are so willing to throw away the rights which their families fought and died for.

Really, really sad and pathetic.

See, this is really part of why I don't like DU anymore. Way too much of that shit going on these days here.

[sabrina 1]

42. Two of my neighbors died on 9/11 and no one I know

acts the way I saw on rightwing boards after it occurred, most did not want any more bloodshed. But at least back then, it was only rightwing wackos who were calling for assassinations, detentions without charges or trials, and torture.

Seeing it here makes me wonder if I'm in the wrong place also. At least when you travel outside of this country, people are appalled, appropriately at the actions of this government.

This thread could be on FR when Bush was president.

[Robb]

47. If I'd know you'd personally known someone killed on 9/11

...I'd have accepted your absurd arguments without any question. I apologize, and will grant the appropriate latitude to your notions next time.

[laststeamtrain]

25. In a clash of civilizations you can't have one hand tied behind your back. Kill 'em all!

(A Golan-Globus Production, of course.)

"Islamophobia in defense of liberty is no sin" - Barry Goldwater

"It's a crusade." - GW Bush

No need for :sarcasm: is there?

Oh...yeah...I guess there is.

[rug]

36. More than a belief that his videos inspired violence is necessary before advocating assasination.

How much violence has this guy inspired?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Do you advocate droning him?

[Better Today]

46. Excellent point. Truly.

[smalll]

49. Oh, but they're just poor, misunderstood brown people --

and they wear sandals (why, they might even wear Birkenstocks, if they knew what they were) --

and yes, they may treat women worse than the worst Christian fundie (I've never heard of an evangelical doing a clitorectomy on his infant daughter) -- but they speak Arabic -- so full of authentic-sounding gutteral noises!

-- so they MUST be the good guys! (Especially since they hate America!)

[Flaneur]

66. Dumbest post on the thread, and that's saying something.

[ronnie624]

57. I am absolutely certain I will not die in a terrorist attack.

I will probably live my entire life, having never known anyone who has died in such an attack. For any single U.S. American, the probability for dying in a terrorist attack is infinitesimal.

The OP is unadulterated propaganda for manufacturing consent for the War On Terror™.

[slackmaster]

59. There's no point in waiting any longer. We should start bombing Yemen immediately.

They're getting ready to clobber us!

[BreweryYardRat]

71. Get rid of him.

Would capturing him alive be a good thing? Sure, I'd prefer that myself. Squeeze him for information and then put him on trial.

Is it likely that we'll actually be able to capture al-Awlaki? No.

Is al-Awlaki likely to be somewhere we can eliminate him but are unable to capture and extract him? Yes.

Should we eliminate him before he can brainwash another person into strapping on a bomb belt or going on a shooting spree? Yes.

"Do we smash the gun but not the hand that fired it?"

Caveat: I would prefer to have him eliminated by a couple guys on the ground with sniper rifles. Failing that, target him with a missile when he's at a terrorist training camp. Firing a missile at him while he's in a civilian population center is OUT. That just creates more terrorists because of the inevitable civilian casualties. It's counterproductive.