Awlaki might be dead… but the response from some is questionable


From the heart, I am a Christian woman – in fact I am a practising Catholic. It is important to emphasise my beliefs because I follow the teachig of the Catholic church when it comes to the issue of salvation. For that reason, I accept that there are exceptional circumstances where someone who is Muslim, and who has never had the opportunity to hear the Christian message will still get some form of reward from God in Heaven. You have the right to disagree with my statement, but I do in fact qualify this to those men and women who do everything to be obedient to God (per that whispering voice that they do not understand, yet that voice urges them to be good) and who practise their faith through prayer but not through the Islamist version of jihad. If you know anything about the Agca Kahn and the form of Islam of his followers, you might understand what I am getting at here. If not please look up Ismailism and you might be surprised. There are indeed forms of Islam where adherents do not accept that violence against “crusaders” is necessary. (I continue to need to research the subject more fully). I am making this qualification before launching into my real rant. Please note that in Ismailist Islam the Agca Kahn is an imam. His authority derives from his ancestry – he claims to be descended from Fatima.

My real subject here is the reaction to the killing of the imam (he is not a cleric) and former American citizen (by birth only) Anwar al-Awlaki. This is not about the rantings of Ron Paul and Denis Kuchinic who are going out of their tree over this death, which has been enough for these particular idiots to want to demand impeachment. (Sorry guys you need something better than the killing of a man who has masterminded a number of evil actions against the USA). This is also not about the death at the same time of Samir Kahn, who was the editor of the online Al Qaeda journal “Inspire”.

This is about the radical British “imam” Anjem Choudary who has made an extremely serious threat on the life of Østupid. You can find the exact nature of the threat at MyPetJawa. I suggest that you have a look at what Rusty has discovered. This is now an extremely serious threat, because Anjem Choudary is now inciting radical Muslims to assassinate Østupid, because of the deaths of Osama Bin Laden (justified) and Anwar al-Awlaki (also justified in my view).

Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki worked together in different branches of Al Qaeda. Both were the mastermind of the attack on the Twin Towers. Awlaki was the imam at the Virginia mosque when the perpetrators of the events of September 11 were preparing for their attack. Awlaki masterminded the attack on Ft. Hood, and he inspired a number of other individuals to go ahead and attempt their personal “jihad”. As such Awlaki was indeed an enemy of the people.

I am extremely sick and tired of these professional victims who think that adherents of Islam are untouchable. If they commit the crime of killing others then the gloves remain off, and they must either be killed like it happened in the Wild West, or they must face a trial by judge and jury. In my view it is perfectly acceptable to go in for the kill against those who plot mass murder. Sometimes it is the only way to get justice. Please note I would say the same thing when it comes to pedophiles who kidnap children (boys and girls) who use them, and then kill them for their own pleasure, especially when it is so personal for me. (I am convinced that a pedophile kidnapped the boy who had been my neighbour, who raped him, and then killed him. Yes, I think that Gerard was not killed immediately, and I heard something that suggests that he was detained in a secret room in a house during those two weeks that he was missing before his body was found).

Anjem Choudary belongs in jail, either in the UK or in the USA. He should not be allowed to get away with this kind of incitement. This is extremely serious. No matter what you think of Østupid, the last thing we want to see happen is someone attempting to assassinate him.

Advertisements

7 responses to “Awlaki might be dead… but the response from some is questionable

  1. I know you are trying to be serious here, but this is at least partly serious. The best recent blog-o-sphere comment on the recent “assassination” is:

    If it is OK to kill Anwar al-Awlaki,
    why didn’t we kill Jane Fonda?

    Enemies of the state and treasonous activities come in many forms. We need some extended national discussion on due process. Commander Zero seems to have it pretty much backwards. Civil trials for enemy combatants and assassination for Americans. This can’t be the way we need it to be.

    Like

  2. PS – I am not sure I am against the demise of Anwar al-Awlaki, but I do know that I am 100% against Commander Zero making such decisions without adult supervision.

    Like

  3. Carlyle, there is a lot of difference between Jane Fonda and Anwar al-Awlaki.

    Let me be clear, I do not watch any Jane Fonda movie as a continuing protest over her activities. This is how I deal with her treason.

    The difference is that Jane Fonda was a useful idiot. She was one of the first of the fart sniffers who thought it was cool to go amongst the enemy and to speak against America, and those allies who supported them in Vietnam, including Australia and New Zealand. YES, Australians went to Vietnam and Australians were injured and died there.

    Anwar al-Awlaki was a very different kettle of fish because he was in fact scheming to kill Americans and their allies in large numbers. I feel certain that he was one of the masterminds of the events on September 11, and he was definitely involved with the Ft. Hood murderer as well as being behind the attempt to blow up the flight over Detroit (where my relatives live), and he was behind the person who attempted to cause bomb havoc in Times Square. Jane Fonda did not do any of those things, and therefore to use her as a comparison in my view is a false comparison.

    My comment is confined not to whether or not it was reasonable to to the Wild West way of dealing with a troublemaker – Wanted Dead or Alive – but that Anjem Choudary is trying to stir up someone to assassinate Østupid.

    Whilst Østupid claims to have made that decision about Anwar al-Awlaki, just as he made the same claim about Osama Bin Laden, I have my doubts that he did in fact make the decision. He is incapable of making adult decisions.

    Bringing Anwar al-Awlaki to justice via a trial is just like the attempt to bring the alleged mastermind of 9/11 to trial in New York. It was never going to happen, and without a doubt it was doomed to failure. What if he was brought to trial and the jury said he was not guilty?

    I am not a believer in rough justice, but I acknowledge that there are times when there is no other way. This, in my view was one of those times. On that note, I actually object to the use of drones in such missions, and have objected for several years that the CIA was using those drones to kill what was supposedly terrorists in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region.

    Like

  4. I don’t have the time to formulate my own comment but received this in an e-mail from Off the Grid News:
    Are You Next on the Government’s Hit List

    Just for the record, I want to make it clear that I don’t like scumbag terrorists… no matter who they are, which side of the political spectrum they claim to be from, or what voices they hear in their head that tell them to blow buildings and people up. As far as I’m concerned, people who do what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City or the Beltway Snipers did in Washington D.C. and surrounding areas deserve nothing more than trial, conviction, and execution.

You target innocents in your bloody jihad, then we’re coming after you… sweet and simple.
No one is asserting that anything less is desirable or wanted.

    However, note the proper order of things…

Trial… conviction… execution.

Constitutional protections are in place not because we try to protect guilty men from the consequences of their actions, but because we must protect the innocent from an over-zealous government. The Founders were quite aware of government abuses in English history when they dedicated fifteen of the twenty-six rights mentioned in the first eight amendments to criminal court procedures.

English kings and secret tribunals had imprisoned, tortured, and killed people for myriad reasons–real and imagined. Everything from disagreeing with the monarchy to choosing a non-state sanctioned religion was cause for retribution. Trumped up charges often precipitated a stay in the Tower of London and then you were at the mercy of the king and his court.



    The Founders understood that government existed only at the consent of the governed. That we have allowed our federal government to expand to the monstrosity it has indicates we have no idea the magnitude of the gift we were given when this Republic was formed. We have allowed our federal government to assume powers never delegated to it by the Constitution.

And we only have ourselves to blame for what is happening now.


    
Everyone is aware that the American-born Muslim cleric, Anwar Al-Awlaki, was executed by drone attack about a week ago. The man once invited by the staff of the Secretary of the Army to a luncheon at the Pentagon (as a way to ease tensions in the Muslim community after 9/11) and to conduct prayer services in 2002 for Islamic staffers on Capital Hill was also suspected in plotting terrorist attacks against the United States. He was suspected of being the inspiration behind many attempts at terrorism, from the Fort Hood shooter to the Underwear Bomber. 

Do I believe that Awlaki was a terrorist who plotted against the United States? 

Without a doubt.

Do I believe that he should have been executed for his crimes against this country?

Without a doubt… if the evidence led to that conclusion.

But we’ll never know what evidence was there, will we?

    Awlaki was denied his constitutional protections when a secret U.S. panel of government officials, a subset of the White House’s National Security Counsel, decided his fate. 

We didn’t try him openly in absentia, we didn’t extradite him back to the United States, we didn’t do any of that pesky legal constitutional stuff.

We simply executed him. Many people are fine with that. They have blood in their eyes and anger in their hearts over the deaths of innocents that we’ve suffered through since terrorists began targeting us. I confess to no less anger or bloodlust.

However…

… if a secret panel of White House officials can declare one citizen a terrorist and worthy of assassination, what is to stop them from declaring YOU a threat to the country?

Don’t scoff.

    If you’re a patriotic American, you’re already on Homeland Security’s threat-assessment list. If you’re returning military, you’re on their list. If you’re anti-tax or anti-abortion, you’re really on their list. If you’re pro-Second Amendment or belong to the NRA, you’re under a microscope.

And if you sport a Ron Paul bumper sticker, all bets are off.


    
You see, we foolishly believe that all these measures are being taken against “them,” those people who are out of the mainstream of society, who sport some kooky, kinky ideas, and who are generally boneheads and uncivilized anyway……….

(snip)
    
As we have allowed each atrocity to pass without protest or holding government officials accountable, we have emboldened our government to disregard the Constitution altogether. And we fail to learn from so recent a history as Nazi Germany when we allow this.

(snip)
       

    Our government has secret tribunals of amorphous people who decide who lives and who dies. They’ve executed an American citizen without benefit of the constitutional protections of trial by jury, and people are fine with that. We have lost the essence of who we were and who we are supposed to be. 

There is nothing left but the winnowing fire of oppressive government to look forward to, in one form or fashion, until we devolve into total dictatorship.

    Like

  5. This is a subject that is “hot” because I think a lot of people actually misunderstand the situation with regard to Anwar Al-awlaki. He might have been born in the USA but were his parents American citizens at the time? Please think about the implications of that question because this might be one reason why citizenship should not be granted to anchor babies or even people whose parents just happen to be on American soil when they are born.

    Being born in the USA did not make Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen, especially when he was an Islamist. He did not recognize his American citizenship. He was a citizen of the Ummah. You need to understand what that means to someone who is an Islamist.

    I am going to use the Libyans as an example here because many of those who went home to fight against Gaddafi remained Libyan first, and then they are American or British or Australian, or whatever other country they had been living. That country is majority Muslim and these particular people were not ranting about Islam, but this is despite the fact that there were Islamists amongst them, and they showed themselves to be devoted to God through their prayer etc. Their aims however, was not for any global caliphate, but to get rid of Gadhafi.

    Anwar al-Awlaki on the other hand is someone who is Muslim first, and he believed in the global caliphate, just as Osama Bin Laden believed in the global caliphate. It meant that for them the word “jihad” means war of a military type.

    Contrast this to the followers of the present Agca Khan and the difference is actually quite stark, because in that case the Agca Khan has been teaching a different form of Islam, known as Ismailism. In that form “jihad” has come to mean a personal struggle. It does not involve a global caliphate (probably because the Agca Khan is the caliph!!) as one of its goals. Do not get me wrong, someone else might come along and shift this group in the same bloody direction so nothing is certain.

    Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood have been soaking up individuals who are at odds with the philosophy of the Agca Khan and his millions of followers.

    Anwar Al-Awlaki and his group of Al Qaeda had as their goal the overthrow of the House of Saud. Personally, I prefer to have the current people in charge in Saudi Arabia than to see that country fall into the hands of those who want to do the overthrowing. There are people who will turn around and say that Saudi Arabia is not Muslim because according to them Islam does not have royalty, but that is mushroom fodder. The caliph in Islam had the same role as the Saudi royals. We call them royals but they are just chieftains and when you think about it, that is exactly what kings and queens in ancient history have always been, just chieftains of their tribes.

    Whilst I understand the other issues that are being brought up by people writing these things in anger against the death of Awlaki I think that they are wrong to put emphasis on the alleged American citizenship and they are indeed wrong on the issue. As a person who had declared war and committed acts of terrorism against the USA Anwar al-Awlaki was no longer a citizen of the USA (have a good look at the rules on treason in the comments at American Thinker).

    The action of taking out a person in that manner is not one that I personally endorse because I do not like those drone attacks. Quite often the wrong people end up being killed. In this case the Yemeni government gave the authority to target this man and whoever was with him at the time.

    The angst should be against the death of Samir Khan who had not in fact committed any acts of terrorism, but of course was the editor of the online “Inspire” magazine and was a member of Al Qaeda.

    Like

  6. Here is an interesting article (New York Times, no less) that explores the legal reasoning in the secret memo:

    Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=2&hp

    Like

  7. Cabby I would agree with the main thrust of that article. I do in fact believe that it was not feasible to take him alive. However, I continue to emphasise that the man had already renounced his American citizenship when he engaged in masterminding such things as the attempt to bomb an aircraft over Detroit, as well the UPS aircraft. These were hostile “warlike” actions.

    Since Anwar Al-Awlaki was in fact a member of the Ummah first, then he cannot be said to be a true American citizen.

    According to your own laws the man was not considered a citizen because of his treasonous acts, and thus he was fair game.

    On the other hand, Samir Kahn was not true fair game because he had not engaged in hostile actions.

    Like