You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #6: Perfect. Now AQ is our most trusted name in news [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Perfect. Now AQ is our most trusted name in news
And their word is as good as a trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Al-Qaeda joins those questioning legality of U.S. killing of citizen Awlaki Freddie Stubbs  Oct-10-11 02:45 PM   #0 
  - Unrecced for thinly veiled 'guilt by association' reporting tactics.  closeupready   Oct-10-11 02:47 PM   #1 
  - It happened and it is being reported.  Kurska   Oct-10-11 03:13 PM   #8 
     - I repeat, it's a thinly veiled attempt to discredit good Americans who question the legality of what  closeupready   Oct-10-11 03:18 PM   #9 
        - Of course it is. n/t  EFerrari   Oct-10-11 03:22 PM   #11 
        - So are you suggesting that it not be reported? If it happened then I would prefer knowing  totodeinhere   Oct-10-11 10:06 PM   #31 
        - I'm not clear how unreccing this thread keeps anyone from reporting or knowing anything.  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:05 AM   #32 
        - Not at all. And if I feel it's an attempt to use rhetorical devices to smear conscientious people,  closeupready   Oct-11-11 08:56 AM   #46 
           - Thank you. Of course you have a right to say that. n/t  totodeinhere   Oct-11-11 02:05 PM   #60 
        - Good Americans can be wrong about a lot of issues  vminfla   Oct-11-11 08:36 AM   #45 
           - Sure. I agree. They can also be correct.  closeupready   Oct-11-11 08:57 AM   #47 
              - If they believe themselves to be correct, they should attempt to impeach Obama  vminfla   Oct-11-11 09:20 AM   #48 
  - Lets give them a congressional hearing  demosincebirth   Oct-10-11 02:47 PM   #2 
  - i question their sincerity  Enrique   Oct-10-11 02:51 PM   #3 
  - But he was only *allegedly* part of al-Qaeda.  Robb   Oct-10-11 02:52 PM   #4 
  - Perfect. Now AQ is our most trusted name in news  EFerrari   Oct-10-11 03:06 PM   #6 
     - Meh. You can't have it both ways.  Robb   Oct-10-11 03:10 PM   #7 
     - You bet your icon I can argue against ends.  EFerrari   Oct-10-11 03:18 PM   #10 
     - No one wept for al Awlaki's 5th Amendment rights last year  Robb   Oct-10-11 03:34 PM   #12 
        - If anyone weeps it shouldn't be for him but for us. n/t  EFerrari   Oct-10-11 03:51 PM   #14 
        - I weep I lost my ability to be a terrorist legally. Sad day.  Muskypundit   Oct-10-11 04:39 PM   #20 
           - Our criminal justice system wasn't set up to handle cute little girl scouts  EFerrari   Oct-10-11 05:26 PM   #24 
              - He is not a criminal. He is a combatant until he turns himself in.  Muskypundit   Oct-10-11 08:31 PM   #27 
                 - Define "combatant" according to Geneva.  Downwinder   Oct-10-11 08:36 PM   #28 
                 - What utter tripe. It didn't work for Bush and it still doesn't work now. n/t  EFerrari   Oct-10-11 10:00 PM   #30 
                 - Because you say he is an enemy combatant? Or Bush claimed that?  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:17 AM   #35 
        - What does who did or did not weep last year have to do with whether an assassination is lawful?  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:20 AM   #36 
     - They created plenty of martyrs they can give ribbons to.  julian09   Oct-10-11 03:43 PM   #13 
     - What Americans are you talking about? What executions?  EFerrari   Oct-10-11 07:59 PM   #26 
     - He is not "they." And what gangsters do does not alter what the Constitution REQUIRES of government.  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:24 AM   #37 
     - And we should always take what AQ does and says at face value?  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:13 AM   #34 
     - After all, the Constitution does say that.  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:08 AM   #33 
  - This is hilarious. I question the legality of knocking down skyscrapers with airplanes.  TwilightGardener   Oct-10-11 03:05 PM   #5 
  - Why so?  gratuitous   Oct-10-11 04:16 PM   #15 
  - Spot on with that post ...  Nihil   Oct-11-11 06:33 AM   #42 
  - Obviously that one was ok  christx30   Oct-10-11 04:32 PM   #18 
  - Only because they didn't name a target?  Downwinder   Oct-10-11 04:38 PM   #19 
  - well, so did Sheikh Awlaki  Alamuti Lotus   Oct-10-11 05:40 PM   #25 
  - You find the Constitution hilarious? By the way which skyscrapers did Alwlaki knock down with which  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:27 AM   #38 
  - al-Awlaki was a US citizen AND he said that US citizens should be killed  slackmaster   Oct-10-11 04:18 PM   #16 
  - Good to know - thanks for coming clean here.  closeupready   Oct-10-11 04:21 PM   #17 
  - Did I miss a Constitutional amendment somewhere along the line?  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:30 AM   #39 
     - He wasn't penalized for anything.  slackmaster   Oct-11-11 09:22 AM   #49 
        - IOW, you have no sensible response to my post.  No Elephants   Oct-12-11 05:32 AM   #63 
           - Fleeing fugitives get killed all the time  slackmaster   Oct-12-11 08:37 AM   #70 
  - Unrec for slick attempt at comparing DUers to al-Qaeda  Kingofalldems   Oct-10-11 04:41 PM   #21 
  - Who cares? n/t  alp227   Oct-10-11 05:02 PM   #22 
  - After giving this much thought, I have inferred that we really did it  24601   Oct-10-11 05:03 PM   #23 
  - Every now and again, one of your posts surprises me. This is not one of those times.  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:34 AM   #40 
  - That makes me even more resolute in my support for killing that SOB.  Chan790   Oct-10-11 09:50 PM   #29 
  - When did what Al Qaeda does or does not think begin to inform your interpretation of the Bill of  No Elephants   Oct-11-11 01:37 AM   #41 
  - I don't think we acted outside the scope of either.  Chan790   Oct-11-11 07:57 AM   #44 
     - Where did you come up with your definition of "military conflict?"  No Elephants   Oct-12-11 05:43 AM   #64 
  - Your post proves that MSM spin works.  Odin2005   Oct-11-11 09:34 AM   #50 
  - You've clearly missed out on my fundamental hatred of pacifists.  Chan790   Oct-11-11 10:48 AM   #51 
     - WTF does pacifism have anything to do with THE RULE OF LAW?  Odin2005   Oct-11-11 11:00 AM   #54 
        - Pacifism has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of law  vminfla   Oct-11-11 11:36 AM   #55 
           - Terrorists are not soldiers, they are criminals.  Odin2005   Oct-11-11 11:40 AM   #56 
           - Again, impeach Obama  vminfla   Oct-11-11 11:44 AM   #57 
           - Red herring.  Odin2005   Oct-11-11 12:18 PM   #58 
           - Not a red herring at all, as no laws were actually broken  vminfla   Oct-11-11 12:40 PM   #59 
              - "no laws were actually broken"  Nihil   Oct-12-11 04:29 AM   #62 
              - Rules of combat, my ass. Please see Reply 64. And please tell us where you are reading  No Elephants   Oct-12-11 05:51 AM   #67 
           - Obama may be fine as a practical matter, but that has less than nothing to do with the rule of law.  No Elephants   Oct-12-11 05:47 AM   #66 
           - Why don't you take a nice countryside tour of Yemin  snooper2   Oct-11-11 02:11 PM   #61 
              - Yemen.  No Elephants   Oct-12-11 05:52 AM   #68 
           - Sorry, that is not how war or the Constitution works.  No Elephants   Oct-12-11 05:46 AM   #65 
  - Yes, killing is the answer! More killing! Lol.  krabigirl   Oct-11-11 10:50 AM   #52 
     - Of legitimate targets, absolutely n/t  Chan790   Oct-11-11 10:55 AM   #53 
        - Again, something is not a "legitimate target" simply because you so declare.  No Elephants   Oct-12-11 05:54 AM   #69 
  - Sorry, Al Qaeda doesn't get to have a say in this matter.  TroglodyteScholar   Oct-11-11 06:48 AM   #43 

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC