@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

Obama knew the timeline of the attack and pushed out his bogus Birth certificate a week before Bin Laden killing.

It is bogus as a 2$bill. -- The media and the left saying nothing to see here but truth was pouring out and so it was time for Obama to change the narrative.

Yea Obama does this too...

His best was when he put out a bogus birth certificate and was caught and then had to have Bin Laden 1 week later to wipe the story off the page.

He got one single thing right....when he started by saying "here is an unbelievable story".

Now let's look into the actual (not imagined like this one) relationships between the Republican party, Bushes, and the Bin Ladens. Also don't neglect the real, direct relationships between Trump and the Russian mob/Putin.

Way to over tag, Bob, so it can't be properly be tagged lies, debunked, and or fail.
I regret that I have but one downvote to give for my country.

Obama has Bin Laden killed, and Maher attributes it to the white woman...

When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

Your video, Finest Girl (F me like Bin Laden)-Popstar-Lonely Island, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think you will find that most veterans, and currently serving men and women, simply want a clear objective that allows them to win the conflict and return home. Unfortunately the nature of terrorism means that while we follow long held rules that prevent collateral damage, or seek to limit it, the enemy we are fighting do not.

Just as we learned to our sorrow in Vietnam, as the British learned in fighting the IRA, the Russians in fighting the Mujaheddin, and we are learning again in our current battles, terrorists do not feel the need to adhere to the laws of warfare. They use civilians to support them, protect targets, or provide them escape methods. They attack civilians gleefully, knowing we cannot respond in kind.

While I do not support Trump, I do think we seriously need to have a new Geneva Convention to clarify how to treat terrorists and their civilian supporters. I think that is what the ex-Seal meant at the heart of his argument, that fighting terrorists using the old "Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we have rules here" is an absolute losing proposition. Even Obama found that we needed to work outside the rules sometimes to be successful, hence his invasion into a sovereign allied nation to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his current extremely heavy use of drone attacks on suspected targets.

As far as the second veteran, I feel it is absolutely valid to question his integrity. He could have claimed CO status prior to going to conflict or simply not joined the military in the first place. Instead, he decided to claim it after experiencing combat, something my friends who have served noticed happening in the first gulf war. You really don't want a recap of some of the things they called people who left the service after seeing combat.

Finest Girl (F me like Bin Laden)-Popstar-Lonely Island has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

More Conner4Real-
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Finest-Girl-Like-We-F-ked-Bin-Laden-Popstar-Lonely-Island

@ChaosEngine.

Yeah. I know. Your last sentence says it all -- he didn't achieve near as much as was hoped for. Hence your disappointment.

From my perspective, I never believed he could do all that was hoped. Because this isn't a dictatorship (thank god, maybe we can survive Trump.) It was clear to me from the beginning that is wasn't possible.

So I wasn't disappointed. I was glad for all that he did manage to get through.

And that is what makes him consequential.

I have my list of things I am pissed at him about for doing -- including the murdering of brown people, including bin Laden. (And I'm pissed at most of the people in this country for cheering state sponsored targeted assassination and ignoring the huge collateral damage of that day and the days that followed.)

History isn't going to judge him on what he promised and couldn't get done. History will judge him on what he actually did. Half-assed heathcare is half an ass more than was managed in over a hundred years. LGBT people aren't disappointed.

And being the first black president -- he'll be in the history books for being that particular breed of person -- the minority who is 10 times better than the ruling majority, who swallows the indignities of prejudice with grace and determination, who rises above the humiliations to become The First. Think Jackie Robinson -- that is what we remember about him, that is the story that has survived. (The recent PBS doc taught me a fuller picture of who he actually was after he survived those brutal first two years in the majors.) That is the story we crave.

He's consequential, all right. Not perfect. Consequential.

And yet almost no Republican has a problem with the Death Penalty. Almost no Republican has a problem with War, in fact they love it and want more of it. Almost no Republican has a problem with Stand Your Ground and execute a guy for trying to steal your TV.

What about Jesus teaching that "blessed are the peace maker" he didn't say that there be blessings on the warmongers. Yet the party is the party of warmongers, and looking for any excuse to enter a battle and murder and kill people who haven't done anything to anyone here in the US... just on the threat they may pose. Yes, the war against bin Laden was just, but Bush and the party abandoned that soon after for a set of lies about Iraq, which had done nothing to us. How many people have to die in war after war before the so called pro-life people start saying enough is enough?

Jesus said that if somebody steals your coat, give them your shirt too, not to mention turn the other cheek. Which I don't think he meant to literally let people walk over you, but it is hard to justify the death penalty and stand your ground legislation when you support murdering another person. Murders, rapists, etc may deserve it, but it is impossible for somebody to claim to be pro-life when they support the death penalty and stand your ground.

Hell, that's all without getting into the whole fact the party doesn't want to support that life if they are poor and needy after they are born. The party wants to get rid of food stamps and all other programs to help them. It doesn't matter that half the people who work for Walmart qualify for food stamps, despite the fact they can easily pay all their workers living wages, give the benefits and still be hugely profitable, the bad guy to the Republican right is those needing food stamps, and in fact they want to reward the owners/operators of Walmart and other businesses that refuse to pay living wages while punishing those who work for them... go work 80+ hours if needed is the Republican right's response. Plus Republican's oppose their own plan to create an affordable health care plan, just because it was passed by a black Democrat. They much rather roll back to the days where only those with really good jobs could have affordable health care, let everyone else die, they way they chanted at the one 2012 debate. You want to stop abortion? Then make sure every woman has access to affordable health care, including birth control... in fact encourage the use of birth control, especially IUDs which is ultra effective in stopping pregnancy (and contrary to the Republican right's teachings, modern non-copper IUDs don't reduce the chance of a fertilized egg from embedding... even modern copper ones's have only a very slight reduction) . The only difference between the women having abortion and those not is the issue of affordable health care and access to affordable and reliable birth control... and don't give the usual bull shit about how the pill is only $5 or so, you still have to be able to see a doctor and all that goes with it... plus the pill isn't the most effective method as if she forgets...

"When someone did shoot Bin Laden, everyone cheered. If someone seriously assaulted Bieber, even people who are annoyed by him would say that's going too far. "

@ChaosEngine

You are waaaay to kind to people...I've said that before, and the answer has always been dismissed, but it seems true.

If Justin was assaulted with a knife in an alley many people would definitely laugh. They almost jizzed when he had shit thrown at his face and I know a few irl who wished it had broken shit on his face.

My own two cents. I wouldn't hurt him personally but I would feel relieved if he were to be struck by a car and seriously hurt. Why? One less self-entitled, whiny, addict, asshole that no longer influence the America my children will be raised in. Hopefully it would happen while he was drunk or stoned so it teaches kids a lesson.

Callus? Of course. Evil? No. But it shows contrasts. Those people who are good I value as very precious, go out of my way to help and more. People like Justin are comparatively worth negative capital. And yes, many would be glad to see him hurt.

OK, I honestly don't know if this is the 'upload a pic of your choice to punch' type of thing either, but I do think that exists, which means this isn't worse than that, if it's not that.
I do agree, she's not rich, and so not as protected. I don't agree that, necessarily, those playing the game have any intent to harm.
I also disagree that NO one has malice towards Bieber, I'm certain there are hundreds of people out there that would love to punch him in real life...and have said so online. I agree, she's seen it worse though.
I can't say which game would have more genuine ill intent, but really, I think more people would actually hit Bieber than kill Bin Laden...maybe I'm wrong and there are more people out there willing to kill rather than punch, but I kind of hope not.
I can guarantee if Bieber gets punched, without SERIOUS injury, tens of thousands of people will cheer! Me with them. he's getting better, but for a while there he really needed a good smack to the face.
It's possible there may be MORE people wishing actual harm against Sarkeesian, but not really likely, since as you admit, her celebrity is a black hole compared to Bieber's star, so exponentially more people know Bieber.
Yes, a game that ONLY allows you to punch blacks would be, by definition, racist. One that allows you to punch Cosby likely exists...and he's also received numerous, serious death threats, and doesn't have major security (but maybe more than her, I don't know). I would say it's also OK to pretend to punch Cosby...or anyone you feel like PRETENDING to punch...as long as it stops there.
Part of living in a free society is a bit of risk. Some face more than others, it's not fair, it's just reality. As my parents told me daily...no one ever said life is fair.

EDIT: Also, no one is forcing Sarkeesian to view the game. It only constitutes harassment if they somehow subject her to it, right? If people surrounded her on the street with Ipads and 'punched' her face in front of her, yeah, but it simply existing....well, I think that doesn't rise to the level of action by far. If I find out someone is playing that game with a picture of a newt....fine...just don't go punching any real newts or we'll have problems. Otherwise, go to it and get it out of your system. ;-)

We're not talking about a random "beat up this picture" game, or at least, that's not the impression I got (if it IS user-generated, then I retract my statements re Spurr). We're talking about a game specifically about beating up Sarkeesian.

First, it's the old comedy motto... "punch up, not down". Sarkeesian has received multiple, unbelievably vile threats against her. More to the point, those threats are credible. She's not a famous celebrity with an army of bodyguards to protect her. There's a very real chance that someone could just assault her on the street, far more so than Bieber.

Second, the people that want to punch Bieber are doing so because he's annoying. There's really very little malice behind it in almost all cases.

You can't reasonably argue that's the same for Sarkeesian. There is a genuine and widely documented movement of people on the web who have expressed serious hatred of her.

Let me put it this way, if I compared a "Punch Bieber" and a "Shoot Bin Laden" in the head game, which would you say has more genuine ill intent behind it?

When someone did shoot Bin Laden, everyone cheered. If someone seriously assaulted Bieber, even people who are annoyed by him would say that's going too far.

OTOH, if someone seriously assaulted Sarkeesian, there is a sizeable group of people who be delighted by that.

We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We must take what we know of the context surrounding something to decide whether we like it or not.

A game about punching Bill Cosby in the face? We can reasonably assume it's motivated by sexual assault allegations.
Now take the same game, and instead of Bill Cosby, you can choose any black celebrity. Again, you can make a reasonable assumption, except this time we could say it's racially motivated.

Possibly I'm misinterpreting his intentions, but if so, he's not really attempting to correct the public perception of them.