Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Oh cool, the US assassinated a citizen without a trial or anything

Sep 30, 2011#1

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/africa/yemen-radical-cleric/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This totally won't set a dangerous precedent or anything

Sep 30, 2011#2

Covar

All Assassinations should be done after a trial. Or something!

Sep 30, 2011#3

makare

Oh Charlie you so funny.

Sep 30, 2011#4

Tress

Yeah, and he was such an innocent nice guy too!

A more serious response: While I understand your concerns about setting precedent, I think in this case the US will be able to draw a line between a terrorist traitor and someone who disagrees with the administration. In a perfect world he would have been captured and brought to trial, but I don't think that was a valid option. So, the US did the next best thing.

Sep 30, 2011#5

Ravenpoe

While he was a us citizen, and I fully understand the danger and outrage that such an act can cause in government relations among it's people, he was not a civilian. That is the important distinction.

While I don't like any killing, in the name of war or otherwise, I understand the reality if the world we live in. He was an enemy combatant.

Sep 30, 2011#6

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm not championing a member of Al-Queda as a freedom fighter. I just don't like the idea that the government can straight up kill a citizen of the US without proving their guilt in a court of law.

For that matter, I don't think they SHOULD kill a citizen no matter how much they prove the guilt, but this is demonstrably worse.

Sep 30, 2011#7

Chibibar

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I'm not championing a member of Al-Queda as a freedom fighter. I just don't like the idea that the government can straight up kill a citizen of the US without proving their guilt in a court of law.

For that matter, I don't think they SHOULD kill a citizen no matter how much they prove the guilt, but this is demonstrably worse.

I see where you are getting at.

I wonder how does the status of enemy combatant applies.

If we were in a civil war (today), everyone fighting in it is a citizen, wouldn't each fight have to stand trial? would the military have to hold court for each "enemy" citizen?
(I am being very serious cause it does set precedent.)

Sep 30, 2011#8

GasBandit

This discussion sounds extremely familiar. Haven't we been to this party before?

Sep 30, 2011#9

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I'm not championing a member of Al-Queda as a freedom fighter. I just don't like the idea that the government can straight up kill a citizen of the US without proving their guilt in a court of law.

What about situations where US citizens go overseas and join opposing armies, leading them to attack US soldiers? While it is rare, it has happened. In that scenario is it okay for the military to kill a US citizen? And if that is okay, what is the main difference between that and Anwar al-Awlaki?

Sep 30, 2011#10

sixpackshaker

Maybe we were hitting the enemy combatants in the jeep with him.

Sep 30, 2011#11

Charlie Don't Surf

CNN said:
The United States had been working with Yemen for "quite some time" in targeting al-Awlaki, he said.

sorry, sixpackshaker

Sep 30, 2011#12

sixpackshaker

I've been following the story for a long time. Ever since he started popping up on the net recruiting people to kill Americans. Then he moved up to helping the people he recruited to kill Americans plan their attacks. Then the POTUS put the capture/kill order out on him.

But those were enemy combatants in the truck with him.

Sorry, Charlie a terrorist is dead.

Sep 30, 2011#13

GasBandit

While I believe killing him was the right thing to do, I would also like it if there was some transparent, obvious legal process for declaring a US citizen KOS that can be disputed by representation. Like, a special Trial-in-absentia or such.

Sep 30, 2011#14

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
While I believe killing him was the right thing to do, I would also like it if there was some transparent, obvious legal process for declaring a US citizen KOS that can be disputed by representation. Like, a special Trial-in-absentia or such.

This seems far too reasonable. Where is the real Gasbandit?

And for the record, Charlie, I'd like to see the abolishment of the death penalty too, but that's an entirely different discussion.

Sep 30, 2011#15

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
This seems far too reasonable. Where is the real Gasbandit?

Hey, you know me, in my ideal world the government works to limit itself.

Sep 30, 2011#16

Dave

I agree with Charlie. The guy was a citizen and was not a direct combatant in any actions against us, although he has been accused of inciting.

Now, he HAD been found guilty in absentia by Yemen, but that doesn't explain why the US killed him and not the Yemeni.

Sep 30, 2011#17

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
While I believe killing him was the right thing to do, I would also like it if there was some transparent, obvious legal process for declaring a US citizen KOS that can be disputed by representation. Like, a special Trial-in-absentia or such.

Well, the citizen in question would probably lose every time. Think about it, what kind of lawyer would be willing to defend a reprehensible scumbag who wants to kill innocent people that won't be able to pay him?

Sep 30, 2011#18

Charlie Don't Surf

I don't want to see what President Rick Perry nor any future president does with this power.

Sep 30, 2011#19

Fun Size

You won't. You'll be dead for your actions in this thread.

Actions that I find reprehensible by the way, just in case anyone is monitoring this.

Sep 30, 2011#20

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I don't want to see what President Rick Perry nor any future president does with this power.

Assuming this is a "power" that will be used frequently by presidents in the future is a lot like saying that letting gay people get married will lead to marrying children and dogs. It's all the same slippery-slope fallacy.

Sep 30, 2011#21

GasBandit

blotsfan said:
Well, the citizen in question would probably lose every time. Think about it, what kind of lawyer would be willing to defend a reprehensible scumbag who wants to kill innocent people that won't be able to pay him?

That we believe him impossible to defend does not mean we should forgo the trial.

Sep 30, 2011#22

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
That we believe him impossible to defend does not mean we should forgo the trial.

Also we have to differentiate between oversea and U.S. soils. If this guy was on U.S. soil and assassinated, that is a whole different ball game.

Sep 30, 2011#23

GasBandit

Chibibar said:
Also we have to differentiate between oversea and U.S. soils. If this guy was on U.S. soil and assassinated, that is a whole different ball game.

No, I don't believe that means we can forgo a trial, it means we have to have longer notice before the start of the trial. The decision to mark a US citizen for death, be it at home or abroad, should not be a decision made in back rooms, but in an open courtroom.

Sep 30, 2011#24

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
No, I don't believe that means we can forgo a trial, it means we have to have longer notice before the start of the trial. The decision to mark a US citizen for death, be it at home or abroad, should not be a decision made in back rooms, but in an open courtroom.

I agree with you there.

blotsfan said:
Well, the citizen in question would probably lose every time. Think about it, what kind of lawyer would be willing to defend a reprehensible scumbag who wants to kill innocent people that won't be able to pay him?

Well there are lawyers out there who will work pro bono. It probably be good experience for new lawyers to "get experience"

Sep 30, 2011#25

Shegokigo

One of my favorite kills of the week. Funny that it was publicized (lolpolitics) when the 20 others or so a day go unknown to the public. None the less, a great job even though it was released for political reasons.

Sep 30, 2011#26

Dave

I wonder who the other two in the car were and our justifications as to their death. Because they were brown?

Sep 30, 2011#27

Shegokigo

Because they were supporting parties with strong ties to the individual sentenced to death. Collaborate with a target, become a target.

Sep 30, 2011#28

Dave

Shegokigo said:
Because they were supporting parties with strong ties to the individual sentenced to death. Collaborate with a target, become a target.

I'm not sure i can get behind this. I understand it from a military point of view (sometimes it's impossible to ensure a target is alone) and agree that it probably had a lot to do with timing and when we could strike, but when you are ending someone's life without a trial you'd better be damned sure what you are doing. Just being with a person does not make you a bad person. And even if you are, is it enough that you should die because of it?

Sep 30, 2011#29

Shegokigo

Dave said:
Just being with a person does not make you a bad person. And even if you are, is it enough that you should die because of it?

Bad person is subjective. If you're deemed a target for a specific reason, so are those around you. These were fellow passengers in a small vehicle. We didn't nuke a bus or a bar while he was in it. There were enough valid connections to proceed.

Sep 30, 2011#30

sixpackshaker

Actually we got 2 Americans with one Hellfire. Samir Khan was also in the vehicle. Maybe he should pick his traveling companion more wisely.

Sep 30, 2011#31

MindDetective

Is there any historical precedence for this?

Sep 30, 2011#32

Chibibar

sixpackshaker said:
Actually we got 2 Americans with one Hellfire. Samir Khan was also in the vehicle. Maybe he should pick his traveling companion more wisely.

Bad day to carpool.

In all seriousness, it is kinda scary that guilt by association. I mean what if (picking on Dave here) that Dave becomes enemy of the states, does this mean that everyone on this forum is also target dead by associating with him? what if we actually have a gathering at Dave's place to check out his TV and spending a weekend?

Sep 30, 2011#33

Shegokigo

These were not people ignorant of who he was. I'm very sure if anyone here found out that Dave was a wanted person by a government entity, everyone with half a brain would distance themselves very quickly. Everyone here is acting like these people were with him, not knowing who he was or what he was doing. They weren't passengers, they were accomplices.

Sep 30, 2011#34

AshburnerX

MindDetective said:
Is there any historical precedence for this?

Of a government assassinating a citizen of it's own nation? I'd almost say that current world politics is an aberration in that this hasn't happened in a developed nation for a long time. Stuff like this used to be the norm: You'd speak out against the King and he'd send his soldiers out to murder you and your family in your sleep, then burn the house to the ground. Anyone who survived would have their titles and deeds stripped and essentially made an unperson. This was an expected reaction.

Sep 30, 2011#35

strawman

What are the laws that surround this issue?

Are we at war?
Have we declared him a traiter?
If we determine that he is aiding and abetting the enemy and causing the deaths of other US citizens, do we have the power to kill him?
How far away does a person have to be from a committed crime in oder to be implicated?
If he's holding a gun to the head of a citizen, we can kill him. If he's holding the phone to give the kill order to have a school bombed we can kill him. Both in order to prevent the immediate loss of human life. How far away from an incipient attack does he have to be before killing him becomes something that is "wrong"? How about actively training those who will carry out future attacks? Is that so far away from the "attack" that we aren't able to stop it?

What powers does the president have to revoke the citizenship of a person, or to target them, given the relatively recent patriot/terrorist acts that have been passed and updated over the last few decades?

This will be an interesting test case. Now that the kill has occurred, one or more lawsuits will surely be filed, and after a few years we will doubtless have our answer.

There are only a few things that can make you lose your citizenship if you are a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen.

You can lose your citizenship for treason. In all U.S. history fewer than 40 people have been charged with treason.

You can lose US citizenship for serving in a foreign army, but only if they’re “engaged in hostilities” against the USA. This is unusual, too.

You could lose your citizenship if you apply for citizenship to another country, on purpose and by your own free will, and with the idea that you're giving up your US citizenship.

If you really want to, you can give up your US citizenship. To do this you have to go to another country, go to the US embassy there, sign an “oath of renunciation,” and not come back to the USA. The people in the embassy will try to make you think twice, but if you go through with it you can't undo it.

I'd say that a legal case would primarily revolve around whether he committed treason, or if it can be shown that al qaida is a foreign army and that he served in them. But perhaps the patriot act give them more leeway in killing US citizens.

Sep 30, 2011#36

AshburnerX

stienman said:
What powers does the president have to revoke the citizenship of a person, or to target them, given the relatively recent patriot/terrorist acts that have been passed and updated over the last few decades?

There is no method in which US citizenship can be revoked if it was obtained by jus solia. However, there are several methods to take it from people who've moved here and become citizens.

Involuntarily Losing Your US Citizenship (Denaturalization)

Both the State Department and the USCIS have specfic laws and regulations they must follow in determining whether someone’s US citizenship should be taken away.

1. Convicted For An Act Of Treason Against The United States

Treason is a serious crime, and the Constitution defines the requirements for convicting someone of treason. Treason is waging a violent war against the United States in cooperation with a foreign country or any organized group. It includes assisting or aiding any foreign country or organization in taking over or destroying this country including abolishing the Constitution. Treason also consists of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the US government or of betraying our government into the hands of a foreign power. If you are caught and convicted of treason, you can pretty much count on losing your US citizenship as well as serving lots of jail time.

2. Holding A Policy Level Position In A Foreign Country

If you become an elected official or hold a policy-level position (like an ambassador, cabinet minister, or any high level administrative position where you make government policy) in your native country or a foreign country, you run the risk of losing your US citizenship. On the other hand, if you hold a non-policy level job like working in your native country’s embassy or working for your native country’s government in an advisory or purely administrative capacity, you run little risk of jeopardizing your US citizenship. For further information, see the State Department’s circular: ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND SEEKING PUBLIC OFFICE IN A FOREIGN STATE.

3. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces If That Country Is Engaged In Hostilities Or At War With The United States

If your native country is engaged in hostile actions or is at war with America you need to be extremely careful. The US government will attempt to take away your US citizenship if they find out you are either aiding or serving in your native country’s armed forces in any capacity. Alternatively, the US government could try to nail you with a treason conviction and then strip you of your US citizenship.

4. Serving In Your Native Country’s Armed Forces As An Officer Or A Non-Commissioned Officer

If your native country is not at war with or engaged in hostilities towards the US, then serving in your native country’s armed forces is OK as long as you are not an officer or non-commissioned officer (usually the rank of sergeant or above). Serving as a civilian worker in your native country’s armed forces, or serving as an enlisted man or women are generally acceptable. For further information, see the State Department’s circular: ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND FOREIGN MILITARY SERVICE.

The State Department has set several administrative guidelines for dual citizens to follow in order to avoid losing their US citizenship ( ADVICE ABOUT POSSIBLE LOSS OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL NATIONALITY ). The four reasons for losing US citizenship cited above were taken from these guidelines. We strongly suggest that you carefully review these guidelines if you are planning on maintaining dual citizenship. As you review the guidelines keep in mind that the State Department is primarily referring to native-born US citizens who become dual citizens by being naturalized in another foreign country. The guidelines are also applicable to naturalized US citizens who maintain their original citizenship.

5. Lying To The USCIS During The Naturalization Process

If you deliberately withheld information from or misrepresented information given to the USCIS or INS when filing your N-400, the USCIS may cancel your Certificate of Naturalization and revoke your US citizenship. This includes withholding information and misrepresenting yourself during your naturalization interview or oath ceremony. If your Certificate of Naturalization is cancelled and your US citizenship revoked, you may also find yourself facing criminal prosecution as well as deportation proceedings.

For example, if you lived outside the country for four months and deliberately omitted this absence from your N-400 and the USCIS finds out about it after you’re naturalized, they could move to have your Certificate of Naturalization cancelled. All they would need to show is that your absence would have disqualifed you from or materially affected your naturalization due to the “physical presence in the United States” requirement for naturalization applicants.

You may also lose your US citizenship if you withheld information or misled the USCIS or INS when becoming a permanent resident. If within five years of becoming a permanent resident, the USCIS finds out that you withheld information from them or misled them in order to obtain your green card, the USCIS may also strip you of your US citizenship. Of course, after five years from becoming a permanent resident, the only way the USCIS would be able to take away your US citizenship would be if you withheld or misrepresented yourself during the naturalization process.

The above examples illustrates why you need to be both truthful and accurate when filing for naturalization and permanent residency. You don’t want to give the USCIS any ammunition they could use against you later if they or someone else (like a politician or government bureaucrat) is looking for any means to get rid of you.

6. Refusal To Testify Before Congress About Your Subversive Activities

We included this legal provision for completeness. If you refuse to testify before Congress within ten years of being naturalized regarding your involvement in any subversive activities, the Attorney General can move to have your US citizenship revoked [ 8 USC 1451(a) ]. Subversive activities are not well defined but include activities such as spying, belonging to a terrorist or other organization wanting to overthrow the US, or other activities aimed at undermining our government [50 USC 783 & 843, 18 USC Ch. 115]. Of course, if you do testify before Congress about your subversive activities, you may still lose your citizenship if your testimony is later used to convict you of treason.

The only way for someone born in the US to lose their citizenship is via an official act of renouncing it.

Sep 30, 2011#37

fade

GasBandit said:
Hey, you know me, in my ideal world the government works to limit itself.

The place where we differ seems to be that in your ideal world, the people are either dead or a lot less stupid than they are in reality.

Sep 30, 2011#38

Shegokigo

Commit treason? Burn for it. Collaborate with a traitor? Burn for it. Assist knowingly in the spread of treason? Burn for it. Pretty straight forward. Don't bother playing the "What's considered treason?" game either. The difference between speaking out against what you consider injustices and joining up with known terrorists is easy to figure out.

Sep 30, 2011#39

PatrThom

There is the possibility that an Undesireable may move to keep himself surrounded with people selected just to prevent this sort of thing (audience with The Pope, traveling with an elementary school soccer team's bus, whatever). I would propose that any such deaths should be credited to the machinations of the Undesireable rather than the fault of the entity who pulls that final trigger.

--Patrick

Sep 30, 2011#40

Cog

Shoot the hostage!

Sep 30, 2011#41

GasBandit

fade said:
The place where we differ seems to be that in your ideal world, the people are either dead or a lot less stupid than they are in reality.

Not protecting people from the (possibly fatal) consequences of their own stupidity is a cornerstone of my perfect world, so... yes, I guess you're right. They ARE either dead or a lot less stupid.
Added at: 16:56

Shegokigo said:
Commit treason? Burn for it. Collaborate with a traitor? Burn for it. Assist knowingly in the spread of treason? Burn for it. Pretty straight forward.

I think I dislike you slightly less intensely.

Sep 30, 2011#42

SpecialKO

Shegokigo said:
The difference between speaking out against what you consider injustices and joining up with known terrorists is easy to figure out.

Funny thing about treason is that you have to be convicted of it. The whole point of our laws about treason is so that the US government cannot unilaterally declare someone a traitor.

And since we've danced around it in this thread but haven't really talked about it yet, there's a huge damn difference between someone dying on a battlefield or resisting arrest, and being killed by Predator strike in a car in a country with whom we are not at war.

Sep 30, 2011#43

Chibibar

SpecialKO said:
Funny thing about treason is that you have to be convicted of it. The whole point of our laws about treason is so that the US government cannot unilaterally declare someone a traitor.

And since we've danced around it in this thread but haven't really talked about it yet, there's a huge damn difference between someone dying on a battlefield or resisting arrest, and being killed by Predator strike in a car in a country with whom we are not at war.

I agree. I think the government declare "war against terror" to be broad. They are taking out known al qaida members so the question is that, can the government do that? what if the Yeman's government said it was ok?

It is a slippery slope the world is getting into.

Sep 30, 2011#44

sixpackshaker

But AQAP has attacked us on several occasions. If Yemen can not keep them out, we go in.

Sep 30, 2011#45

Biannoshufu

i think the only way this makes logical sense for me is that this guy was connected to the Texas Fort Hood shooting, and that administration officials say he went beyond exercising Free Speech rights and went into active planning, though of course they seem to be reticent about actually showing the proof of their statements right now.

Sep 30, 2011#46

Mathias

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I'm not championing a member of Al-Queda as a freedom fighter. I just don't like the idea that the government can straight up kill a citizen of the US without proving their guilt in a court of law.

For that matter, I don't think they SHOULD kill a citizen no matter how much they prove the guilt, but this is demonstrably worse.

What planet do you live on? Shit like this has gone on for ... like forever.

Sep 30, 2011#47

SpecialKO

Mathias said:
What planet do you live on? Shit like this has gone on for ... like forever.

And the reason to accept it is...?

Biannoshufu said:
of course they seem to be reticent about actually showing the proof of their statements right now.

This is the whole problem. After "...but, the WMDs!!" I'd have thought that we'd all grown out of taking statements claiming, but not establishing, proof at face value.

If the proof was so air-tight, trial-by-abstentia seems a perfectly good way to proceed.

Sep 30, 2011#48

GasBandit

Just goes to further illustrate that, abarring some very special exceptions, the most deciding factor in who is outraged by what is not the what is to be outraged at, but who's in charge when the what is perpetrated.

Sep 30, 2011#49

fade

If you're talking about this thread, and if I know anything about this forum, it sure seems like there are no party lines here.

Sep 30, 2011#50

strawman

fade said:
If you're talking about this thread, and if I know anything about this forum, it sure seems like there are no party lines here.

There's always a line to get into this party.

:notes:

Sep 30, 2011#51

Jay

Charlie Don't Surf said:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/africa/yemen-radical-cleric/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This totally won't set a dangerous precedent or anything

As if you really give a shit.

Oct 1, 2011#52

Mathias

SpecialKO said:
And the reason to accept it is...?

This is the whole problem. After "...but, the WMDs!!" I'd have thought that we'd all grown out of taking statements claiming, but not establishing, proof at face value.

If the proof was so air-tight, trial-by-abstentia seems a perfectly good way to proceed.

Charlie doesn't really car about al-Awlaki, or people being murdered overseas. He's generally offended to be offended. Sorry, no, I don't agree with the way shit went down. My response was more a response to Charlies' impression that this is the first time something like this has happened.

Oct 1, 2011#53

SpecialKO

You guys find Charlie so objectionable that you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt in a thread where he hasn't done anything yet?

Really?

I'm thinking you guys need to man up and get some therapy. :awesome:

Oct 1, 2011#54

Shegokigo

So if a guy came into your store, and stole the same item, 30x in a row. On his 31st visit, would you just give him the benefit of the doubt and leave him be? He purposelly creates these threads to garner up troll food. He does it well, and I've gone from disliking it, to enjoying the show.

Oct 1, 2011#55

Biannoshufu

SpecialKO said:
You guys find Charlie so objectionable that you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt in a thread where he hasn't done anything yet?

Really?

I'm thinking you guys need to man up and get some therapy.

Oct 1, 2011#56

Charlie Don't Surf

If my government is gonna kill someone, I'd at least hope they bother to prove their reasons beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is something I feel strongly about. I worry what President Rick Perry would deem a terrorist organization. I wouldn't post a thread if I didn't care about this, and it didn't make me feel less safe.

Oct 1, 2011#57

Hailey Knight

Charlie, I think I can sum up how you feel with a Loreena McKinnett song:

The thundering waves are calling me home to you
The pounding sea is calling me home to you.

On a dark new year's night
On the west coast of Clare
I heard your voice singing
Your eyes danced the song
Your hands played the tune
T'was a vision before me.

We left the music behind and the dance carried on
As we stole away to the seashore
We smelt the brine, felt the wind in our hair
And with sadness you paused.

Suddenly I knew that you'd have to go
My work was not yours, your eyes told me so
Yet it was there I felt the crossroads of time
And I wondered why.

As we cast our gaze on the tumbling sea
A vision came o'er me
Of thundering hooves and beating wings
In clouds above.

As you turned to go I heard you call my name.
You were like a bird in a cage, spreading its
Wings to fly
'The old ways are lost' you sang as you flew
And I wondered why.

Oct 1, 2011#58

SpecialKO

Shegokigo said:
So if a guy came into your store, and stole the same item, 30x in a row. On his 31st visit, would you just give him the benefit of the doubt and leave him be? He purposelly creates these threads to garner up troll food. He does it well, and I've gone from disliking it, to enjoying the show.

That doesn't even make any sense. A web-forum isn't a store. If it was, we'd all have been banned for not buying anything.

Oct 1, 2011#59

Hailey Knight

SpecialKO said:
That doesn't even make any sense. A web-forum isn't a store. If it was, we'd all have been banned for not buying anything.

So you're saying we should ban Charlie?

Oct 1, 2011#60

Shegokigo

SpecialKO said:
That doesn't even make any sense. A web-forum isn't a store. If it was, we'd all have been banned for not buying anything.

If you really can't get what I mean by that because of the location I chose, I can't help you. My point was clear. Cry troll enough times, and people won't believe anything that comes out of your text. He's earned the reputation, which he loves having, so why are you white knighting someone who's openly admitted to why he posts the way he does?

Oct 1, 2011#61

Charlie Don't Surf

I post things in an antagonistic way on purpose to get a response/make people think/"troll", bla bla bla. That doesn't mean I don't believe them.

Oct 1, 2011#62

Shegokigo

I actually believe that. I know you do. Hence why I enjoy the show. You'll always post in a thread/create a thread that will stir up a shit-storm because you know for a fact your views will be the minority vs mass majority. Granted, they're your real views, but the result is still the same. For that, I say kudos and never stop!

Added at: 18:19
It's very much the same as how I used to post years ago about violence, gore, etc. I revel in it, I love it, it's not a "show" or "persona", it's honest and what I feel deep inside. Difference between us was that I posted it for the intent of relieving my pent up emotions/opinions that aren't allowed anywherelse vs getting a rise/gettingpeopletothink/troll. Didn't stop people from constantly calling me a "fake" a "troll" or an attention whore. *shrug* be yourself. I am, and I love it.

Oct 1, 2011#63

Hailey Knight

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I post things in an antagonistic way on purpose to get a response/make people think/"troll", bla bla bla.

And then cry when people just get pissed at you because you were antagonizing them. It's not a way to incite debate--it's childish. You are a whiny child waving your arms around and screaming, being abrasive to get attention. For a grown adult, that's pathetic.

Oct 1, 2011#64

Biannoshufu

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I post things in an antagonistic way on purpose to get a response..."troll", That doesn't mean I don't believe them.

Thanks for admitting you've no particular usefulness except as a web forum's equivalent of a colon cleanser.

Oct 1, 2011#65

Charlie Don't Surf

Here's a piece about it:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/al-awlakis-innocence-beside-point

Oct 1, 2011#66

Krisken

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Here's a piece about it:

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/al-awlakis-innocence-beside-point

I'm guessing this isn't about colon cleansing.

Oct 1, 2011#67

Hailey Knight

Why are people acting like Charlie's arguing here? Didn't anyone see the topic title? He thinks this is cool.

Lrn2read, newbs.

Oct 1, 2011#68

fade

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I post things in an antagonistic way on purpose to get a response/make people think/"troll", bla bla bla. That doesn't mean I don't believe them.

But as I said before, that doesn't make people think. It makes them ally against you, even if they would agree with you under other circumstances. There is quite the body of literature out there about precisely this thing, and even quite a few old adages.

Oct 1, 2011#69

Hailey Knight

fade said:
But as I said before, that doesn't make people think. It makes them ally against you, even if they would agree with you under other circumstances. There is quite the body of literature out there about precisely this thing, and even quite a few old adages.

Trouble is, Charlie doesn't understand how people work emotionally, mentally, anything; he just knows them as words and names. I'm starting to wonder if he does have some severe form of Aspberger's, and not the entertaining kind like on Community.

Oct 1, 2011#70

SpecialKO

Shegokigo said:
If you really can't get what I mean by that because of the location I chose, I can't help you. My point was clear.

Then don't make analogies that don't work. Just be clear. Heck, going by your example, this is his store. In Dave's shopping mall. So unless Dave intends to ban him from posting or starting threads, I fail to see why you guys are somehow validated by coming into his thread and feeding his suspected trolldom when you could just as easily ignore the whole thing (besides you, Shegs, as you've stated many times that your counter-trolling is for fun, so all's fair, I guess).

Oct 2, 2011#71

Shegokigo

Well the weird thing is, that people still post in his threads out of either disbelief (that he actually believes the things he posts) or they actually think they can convince him that he's wrong (according to their/popular opinion).

It's that famous "Hang on honey, I can't go to bed, someone is wrong on the internet".

Oct 2, 2011#72

Krisken

Signal, meet noise.

Oct 2, 2011#73

SpecialKO

Shegokigo said:
Well the weird thing is, that people still post in his threads out of either disbelief (that he actually believes the things he posts) or they actually think they can convince him that he's wrong (according to their/popular opinion).

I would totally understand, like some of the Wikileaks threads we've had, if people were actually hanging on because they feel strongly about the actual topic. But it's become (again) about Charlie.

GB gets his own thread to keep his crap in, can't Charlie get his own troll-knighting thread? It's not like everyone will ignore it...

Oct 2, 2011#74

Biannoshufu

SpecialKO said:
can't Charlie get his own troll-knighting thread?

Oct 2, 2011#75

Hailey Knight

SpecialKO said:
GB gets his own thread to keep his crap in, can't Charlie get his own troll-knighting thread? It's not like everyone will ignore it...

I think that's a great idea, except that unlike Gasbandit, I doubt Charlie would cooperate, because he's stated his purpose on the site now is to rankle people and be annoying. He's not about having discussion or discourse like Gas clearly wanted; he's about being contrary and antagonistic, and getting people uppity. He doesn't care that they only turn against him and his cause, even if they were people who would've been on his side had he bothered approaching the discussion like an adult. He just wants the attention and the noise.

As Shego said, I'm surprised people post. They'd do better just to ignore him. Although I'm satisfied with the making fun of him; at least he benefits the forum in some way then.

Oct 2, 2011#76

strawman

Wow, you guys are beating on him worse than the last time I posted a thread complaining about Obama.

If you want to discuss the topic, discuss the topic.

If you want to discuss the person posting the topic, discuss the person posting the topic.

I choose to discuss the discussion about the person posting the topic.

/yo dawg, I put a discussion in your discussion so you could discuss while you discuss

Oct 2, 2011#77

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
Wow, you guys are beating on him worse than the last time I posted a thread complaining about Obama.

Let's get steinman now.

RAAAARRRGG!

Oct 2, 2011#78

Shegokigo

Quotemander Prime said:
Let's get steinman now.

RAAAARRRGG!

*lazy shop is lazy.

Oct 2, 2011#79

strawman

I R ATTENTION WHORE.

Oct 2, 2011#80

sixpackshaker

http://news.yahoo.com/underwear-bomb-maker-believed-dead-yemen-strike-171458043.html

Poor innocent bystander killed in attack on al-Awlaki... well as innocent as any terrorist bomb maker could be.

Oct 2, 2011#81

Tress

sixpackshaker said:
http://news.yahoo.com/underwear-bomb-maker-believed-dead-yemen-strike-171458043.html

Poor innocent bystander killed in attack on al-Awlaki... well as innocent as any terrorist bomb maker could be.

You haven't proven that in court, you murdering savage! Now there will be a precedent for killing terrorists who bomb innocent civilians, and I don't want think about what President Gingrich will do with these powers.

Oct 2, 2011#82

Cog

Isn't a reason against gun control that the people can defend itself against the goverment? How is that something plausible but not the other?

Oct 2, 2011#83

Hailey Knight

Huh?

Oct 2, 2011#84

Officer_Charon

Actually, Cog's being serious.
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson.

This site seems to have a decent amount to say on the subject, from an admittedly biased source, but the quotes are solid, as being referenced from the Founding Fathers on the subject. Some of them are contextual, others are specific as to the ownership of weapons.

Oct 2, 2011#85

Hailey Knight

I meant that his sentence doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what he's trying to say.

Oct 2, 2011#86

Officer_Charon

Sorry for sounding patronizing, then...

Oct 2, 2011#87

Jay

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I post things in an antagonistic way on purpose to get a response/make people think/"troll", bla bla bla. That doesn't mean I don't believe them.

Oct 3, 2011#88

Espy

Trolling or not Charlie is posting some interesting threads. At least they would be if they didn't turn into discussion on whether or not he "believes" in the topic.

Oct 3, 2011#89

Chibibar

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I post things in an antagonistic way on purpose to get a response/make people think/"troll", bla bla bla. That doesn't mean I don't believe them.

I think it is all about the presentation. I post couple of "controversial" thread also, but it didn't get into a heated argument on my views. So maybe you are doing something differently.

Oct 3, 2011#90

GasBandit

fade said:
If you're talking about this thread, and if I know anything about this forum, it sure seems like there are no party lines here.

No, I was referring to mainstream political reaction to this occurrence.

Also, I consider this a legitimate thread.

Oct 6, 2011#91

Chibibar

looks like there is a secret panel than CAN get you killed

http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html

Oct 6, 2011#92

GasBandit

Death panels are real!

Oct 6, 2011#93

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
Death panels are real!

It is kinda scary tho. I mean if the article is 100% legit, then a president and a secret panel CAN condemn a U.S. citizen to death.

Oct 6, 2011#94

Necronic

I mean, the dude was an absolute scumbag, 1st rate. But....this hole thing runs back into that complex argument of "police action" vs "military action". And its tricky. On the one hand the dude just looks like someone making radical speeches. On the other he looks like someone who is masterminding terrorist attacks.

I just wish it was feasible for us to capture people like this. I mean, this dude would have been worth 100 times more alive than dead. We need netguns.

Oct 7, 2011#95

PatrThom

Necronic said:
We need netguns.

Internet-controlled shotguns linked to web cams

--Patrick

Oct 7, 2011#96

Mathias

Necronic said:
I mean, the dude was an absolute scumbag, 1st rate. But....this hole thing runs back into that complex argument of "police action" vs "military action". And its tricky. On the one hand the dude just looks like someone making radical speeches. On the other he looks like someone who is masterminding terrorist attacks.

I just wish it was feasible for us to capture people like this. I mean, this dude would have been worth 100 times more alive than dead. We need netguns.

We need the motherfucking Batman to swoop in and "extradite" people on our behalf.

Forums