@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.

You used the accusation that they advocate killing children to excuse us killing their children during our assassinations by drone.
EDIT: You strongly implied it's OK and smart to kill children as collateral damage because it "lowers the overall body count" and because we don't target the children specifically, but they do (but we don't not target them).
You don't have to say the exact words you put in quotes to mean it. I did not quote you saying those specific words, did I?

We aren't at war, war is between nations. This is an international police action at best.
And again, you aren't being honest to play a semantics game and conflate active attacks on a battlefield with supportive speeches. We aren't at war, and there's no American citizen filled battle group, and never has been one fighting Americans. (not since the civil war, that is)
EDIT: To be labeled and killed as an "enemy combatant", we should have to be able to prove they are actually engaged in combat, IMO.

You are being deliberately obtuse. It's NOT war, war as a legal concept only occurs between nations, not groups of individuals. That is not opinion, it's international law. It is war like, but that's a completely different legal situation, one that until recently would not allow us to kill Americans.

You obviously know that jihadists like Anwar operate outside of the regions in the world that recognise any law but their own. You have what are essentially stateless powers launching acts of war on the civilised nations of the world. I understand that you refuse to acknowledge that justifies treating them as combatants in a war. I just don't think you have valid grounds to be smug about that obviously being the more moral course. Jihadists like those Anwar was counselling and guiding kill Muslim children like his grand daughter every day. The bonus is they do it on purpose and proudly claim it afterwards as a warning to others who won't convert to their true religion. There is a pretty strong argument to be made that the death of leaders like him lowers the overall body count.

But it's real easy to observe that war is bad and just stop thinking about it.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

radical islamic terrorism is the usage of a rigid fundamentalist interpretation as a justification predicated on abysmal politics.

ill-thought and short sighted politics is the tinder.
hyper-extremist fundamentalism is the match.

ISIS would never even have existed without al qeada,who themselves would not have existed without US interventionism into:iran,egypt and saudi arabia.

and this is going back almost 70 years.

so lets cut the shit with apologetics towards americas horrific blunders in regards to foreign policy.actions have consequences,there is a cause and effect,and when even in the 50's the CIA KNEW,and have stated as much,that there would be "blowback" from americas persistent interventionism in those regions.which stated goals (in more honest times) was to destabilize,dethrone (remove leaders not friendly to american business) and install leaders more pliant and easily manipulated (often times deposing democratically elected leaders to install despots.the shah and sadam come to mind).

see:chalmers johnson-blowback
see: Zbigniew Brzezinski-the grand chessboard.

or read this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881

so to act like islamic radicals just fell from the fucking sky,and popped out from thin air,due to something that has been boiling for almost 70 years is fucking ludicrous.

radicalization of certain groups in populations have long been understood,and well documented.

and religion,though the most popular,and easiest tool to motivate and justify heinous acts of violence for a political goal,is not the SOLE tool.

nationalism is another tool used to radicalize a population.
see:the nazi party.

but it always comes down to:tribalism of one kind or another.

@transmorpher

so when you use this "ISIS themselves, in their own magazine (Dabiq) go out of their way to explain that they are not motivated by the xenophobia or the US fighting wars in their countries. They make specifically state that their motivation is simply because you aren't muslim. You can go an read it for yourself. They are self confessed fanatics that need to kill you to go to heaven. "

to solidify your argument,all i see is someone ignoring the history and pertinent reasons why that group even exists.

you may recall that ISIS was once Al qeada,and they were SO radical,SO fanatical and SO violent in their execution of religious zeal..that even al qeada had to distance themselves.

because,again...
religion is used as the justification to enact terrorism due to bad politics.
but the GOAL is always political.

you may remember that in the early 90's the twin towers were attacked and it was the first time americans heard of al qeada,and osama bil laden.

who made a statement back in 1993 and then reiterated in 2001 after 9/11 that the stated goal (one of them at least) was for the removal of ALL american military presence in saudi arabia (there was more,but it mostly dealt with american military presence in the middle east).

but where did this osama dude come from?
why was he so pissed at america?
just what was this dudes deal?

turns out he was already on the road to radicalization during the 80's.coming from an extremely wealthy saudi arabian family but had become extremely religious,and he saw western interventionism as a plague,and western culture as a disease.

he left the comforts of his extremely wealthy family to fight against this western incursion into his religious homeland.he traveled to afghanistan to join the mujahideen to combat the russians,who were actually fighting the americans in a proxy war.and WE trained osama.WE armed him and trained him in the tactics of warfare to,behind the scenes,slowly drain russia of resources in our 50 year long cold war.

how's that for irony.

osama was not,as american media like to paint the picture "anti-democratic or anti-freedom".he saw the culture of consumerism,greed and sexual liberation as an affront to his religious understandings.

this attitude can be directly linked to sayyid qtib from egypt.who visited the united states as an exchange student in 1954.now he wasnt radicalized yet,but when he returned to egypt he didnt recognize his own country.

he saw coco cola signs everywhere,and women wearing shorts skirts,and jukeboxs playing that devils music "rock and roll".

he feared for his country,his neighbors,his community.
just like a southern baptist fears for your soul,sayyid feared for the soul of his country and that this new "westernization" was a direct threat to the tenants laid down by islam.

so he began to speak out.
he began to hold rallies challenging the leadership to turn away from this evil,and people started to take notice,and some people agreed.

change does not come easy for some people,and this is especially true for those who hold strong religious ideologies.
(insert religion here) tends to be extremely traditional.

so sayyid started to gain popularity for his challenge if this new "westernization",and this did not go un-noticed by the egyptian leadership,who at that time WANTED western companies to invest in egypt.(that whole political landscape is totally different now,but back then egypt was fairly liberal,and moderately secular).

so instead of allowing sayyid to speak his mind.
they threw him in prison.
for 4 years.
in solitary.

well,he wasn't radicalized when he went IN to prison,but when he came OUT he sure was.

and to shorten this story,sayyid was the first founder of the muslim brotherhood,whose later incarnation broke off to form?

can you guess?
i bet you can!
al qeade

@Fairbs ,@newtboy and @Asmo have all laid out points why radicalization happens,and the conditions that can enflame and amplify that radicalization.

so i wont repeat what they have already said.

but let us take dearborn michigan as an example.
the largest muslim community in america.
how many terrorists come from dearborn?
how many radicals reside there?
how many mosque preach intolerance and "death to america"?
how many imams quietly sanction fatwas from the local IHOP against american imperialistic pigs?

none.

becuase if you live in stable community,with a functioning government,and you are able to find work and support your family,and your kids can get an education.

the chances of you become radicalized is pretty much:zippo.

the specific religion has NOTHING to do with terrorism.
religion is simply the means in which the justifications to enact violent atrocities is born.

it's the politics stupid.

you could do a thought experiment and flip the religions around,but keep the same political parameters and do you know WHAT we find?

that the terrorists would be CHRISTIAN terrorists.

or do i really need to go all the way back to the fucking dark ages to make my point?

it's
the
politics
stupid.

I get that its a joke, but combating right wing ignorance with left wing ignorance doesn't help anyone, and is a big reason why we've ended up with trump, which means everyone loses.

@bobknight33
ya know bob,at some point you are going to look back at these comments,or someone is inevitably going to bring them to your attention in the future,and you are going to be forced to eat a slice of humble pie.

i am not disagreeing with you in regards to corporate media bias,and that some people consume only those outlets that appeal to their own prejudices and biases.

as this election has made abundantly clear:both those who identify as democrat and republican are guilty of confirmation bias,and had fallen into the trap of their own personal echo chambers.

so many supposed "news" outlets were aught red-handed pandering,obfuscating and sometimes promoting outright propaganda.

the latest outlet to get caught in this fuckery is the washington post,and i suspect there will be many many more.

my point is simply this.
propaganda works,and it is an effective tool to control attitudes and opinions,they do not even have to "win" the argument,they just have to make a person reconsider their position by postulating possibilities,make one go "well,maybe..that could happen"...and they win.

so you are right in regards to fake news that appeals to the more "liberal minded" but do not think for a second that there are also corporate "news" outlets that appeal to the more "conservative minded".

we all,each and every one of us,are susceptible to this tactic.we all can be manipulated by appeals to emotions,our sense of justice and fairness,and of course..our prejudices.

the only way to combat this tactic is by remaining vigilant and do our due diligence.this starts by listening to people we may disagree.by fact checking and discussing with one another to test the veracity of the claims by certain outlets.

speaking only for myself i dumped corporate media years ago.

it is still an imperfect system i use,and i have posted fallacious content (not intentionally) and been called out for it's bullshit.

i didn't like being called out,and felt shame for my laziness and the fact i posted because it adhered to my own preconceptions,but i was the better for it.

so be careful when you make declarations of certitude by using corporate media outlets as a source,because more often than not,that information has been manipulated to appeal to a certain mindset and attitude.

liberals have known for decades the FOX news is a corporate media propaganda machine,but they have also been just as much a victim of the very same tactics by such outlets as MSNBC and CNN.

american conservatives are not the problem,nor are american liberals.

it is the corporate media who is beholden to those who wield power and influence,and seek to manipulate the opinions of the american people in order to retain THEIR power and THEIR influence and therefore diminish the cohesive community of the american people.

ok..i really don;t know where i am going with this..i had a point somewhere.

basically stop using corporate media as your references bob,otherwise you are going to be pantsed in public,and that is an ickly feeling.

Answer-Yes, clearly self defense.

Nice snark, clearly directed at me, in your description @Buttle.

Mixon is not a disabled person or someone not used to violence, so it would clearly be harder to make a point that he feared for his life, but also clearly he should have feared for his safety, he was hit twice by a nutjob that was emboldened by idiots that think you can't hit a woman in the face...they have faces, don't they?

Had he gone to trial with the video, he probably wouldn't have been convicted of a thing, at worst it might be argued that it was mutual combat, even though it was clearly self defense, he even let her get away with the first physical attack and only (properly) retaliated after the second.
The incident was allegedly started by Molitor and her boyfriend who were loudly hurling racial slurs at Mixon, then attacked him physically when he tried to walk away....twice.

I think it's awful he took the plea, he should have stood up for himself, but I think the video proof wasn't made available to him so it was her word against his, and she claimed he was the sole aggressor. Sadly, because of people like the video poster who seem to believe that a woman attacker can't be defended against under any circumstances, he saw the writing on the wall that no matter how justified his actions were, he would likely be made to pay for them.

That woman shouldn't get a dime though, she clearly started the fight. Start a fight like a man with a man, you'll get punched like a man. That's called equality.

People are paying them to develop the game. As far as i know, very very people have spent up to 100K.

Even if someone has the best stuff. If they're terrible pilots, a good pilot with a cheap ship can easily beat someone in a expensive ship.

Yes people are pumping money into it, development is taking time, but the game is huge and a lot ifs being developed as far as ultra HD graphics, going from huge area flight and ground based combat.

"Oh but battlefield has flight and ground based combat!" yes all within a confines of a couple 10 KM. The bengal carrier is supposed to be in complexity of a couple BF maps crammed into one area.

But going back, once the game goes live fully, no one will have the ability to purchase in game ships with real money, though who knows, that might change.

But going back to "pwning newsbs" any one with a decent ship with excellent piloting skills can pwn someone with ha ultra expensive ship. This certainly isn't a , paying top dollar and being on top. If you're gonna pay top dollar, you're gonna be in the arena commanders playing vs bots and now vs other players in dog fight melees. Those people are going to be good because they're gonna be excellent pilots.

But, the game isn't all about dog fighting. You can be a miner, a merchant, a racer, an explorer, heck farming is going to be implemented as well.

But I mostly have a sense you don't actually understand the game in general. The game is leagues ahead of no mans sky just for the fact it'll be a persistent universe with players all over the place that you can interact with.

Well, at least you all down under can be assured and comforted that once the US is finished with Wounded Knee, ummm, I mean Standing Rock, Trump'll send over the combat-hardened police veterans to mop up your indigenous terrorists too!

No, and that is a method to combat Slow Loris. You can also raise the number of concurrent connections, decrease the timeout on connection response, setting up reverse proxies, and other methods in a similar fashion.

The problem is that you can also modify Slow Loris to work around those methods. The only certain way to block it is to use a webserver software that is not affected by Slow Loris, but then you can encounter other difficulties.

Like he said, for large companies that are prepared, Slow Loris is not nearly as effective. But for smaller web sites or for shoddily put together ones (a LOT of government sites), Slow Loris is a nasty DOS attack.

I highly recommend reading Jocko Willink's book to get an understanding of these conflicts.

This guy makes it sound like the war is a mess akin to the fast pace of Battlefield 3 multiplayer and it couldn't be further from the truth. The US armed forces go to some pretty extraordinary lengths before dropping a bomb - for starters they give prior notification to the residents before any area is considered combat zone.
Imagine fighting a war, where you are constantly being open about where you are going to strike, it seems insane. But they do this to minimize civilian casualties as a priority over destroying targets.

Wow! The Obama administration considers all military aged males in a strike zone as combatants, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

How convenient. We wouldn't want to admit we are killing civilians. That might upset people.

*ban
Combat Business Coaching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_x-kMOabAs

Crap....I was going to upvote the basic idea of producing cartoons of Muhammad, but then they started, and of course it was all brainless far right wing whining bullshit not even just associating all Muslims with terrorism but outright accusing them of actively supporting it...so forget it.
You don't combat ignorant hatred with ignorant hatred unless you plan to become the ignorant and intolerant group you despise.

Southpark did it the way I think it should be done. Muhammad was part of the Super Best Friends, religious Super Friends...and had the power of fire. All religions given equal deference and equal disrespect....and Seaman.