Pelican Parts Technical BBS

Pelican Parts Technical BBS (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic - Politics and Religion (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/)
-   -   The Danish agent, the Croatian blonde and the CIA plot to get al-Awlaki (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-politics-religion/713290-danish-agent-croatian-blonde-cia-plot-get-al-awlaki.html)

kach22i 10-25-2012 01:49 PM

The Danish agent, the Croatian blonde and the CIA plot to get al-Awlaki
 
The Danish agent, the Croatian blonde and the CIA plot to get al-Awlaki
The Danish agent, the Croatian blonde and the CIA plot to get al-Awlaki - CNN.com
Quote:

(CNN) -- The story would not be out of place on the TV thriller "Homeland": the Danish petty criminal turned double agent who receives $250,000 in cash for helping the CIA try to ensnare one of al Qaeda's most wanted -- by finding him a wife.

The wanted man was American-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who had become one of the most effective propagandists for the group. The bride-to-be was a pretty blonde from Croatia. The agent was Morten Storm, who had long moved in radical Islamist circles and had apparently won the trust of al-Awlaki during a stay in Yemen in 2006.

.............He wanted a white Muslim convert who could be his "companion in hiding" in remote tribal areas...........................

Storm said that two months after returning from Yemen, he stumbled across a Facebook group supportive of al-Awlaki, whose charismatic online sermons had earned him rock-star status in jihadist circles. Storm added a comment requesting support, and several days later, a Croatian woman replied, asking him what he needed.

Aminah, a pretty 33-year-old with long blond hair who worked with young disabled people in Zagreb, had recently converted to Islam and become a fan of al-Awlaki. After a series of exchanges with Storm through Facebook, she said she would be keen to marry the cleric, according to Storm.....................

...........Al-Awlaki was eventually tracked down and killed in a drone strike at the end of September of last year. Storm insists it was his work that finally tracked down al-Awlaki -- using a messenger carrying a USB memory stick that included a tracking device.
He got himself a wife though Facebook, and met his end.

Somehow I find this hilarious.:D

fintstone 10-25-2012 02:03 PM

Especially since he got no trial and no due process...it shows that they really didn't have to execute him, but could have captured him and tried him per his Constitutional rights.

Taz's Master 10-25-2012 02:06 PM

Sure al-Awlaki is a terrorist. He preaches terror, gets people to perform terrorism. So effective, he needs to be executed without due process. So, what would you call a guy who has discussions with that cleric, and then goes and shoots a bunch of US soldiers?

kach22i 10-25-2012 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7052517)
Especially since he got no trial and no due process...it shows that they really didn't have to execute him, but could have captured him and tried him per his Constitutional rights.

You want a president tough on terrorism?

You've got one, deal with it.

FOX NEWS: NEW EVIDENCE SHOWS ANWAR AL-AWLAKI KEY PLAYER IN 9-11…….. |
http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content...onspirator.jpg
Quote:

“It was my feeling that they had to have a network,” Criminal PENTTBOM (FBI’s codename for the 9/11 case) investigator Jimmy Bush told Fox News in his first television interview.
“There was a mosque and the imam of that mosque was Anwar al-Awlaki, which raised my suspicions.”

Anteroom inside the Al- Ribat mosque in La Mesa, Calif. where Awlaki is believed to have met with two of the 9/11 hijackers.

Former FBI Agent Bob Bukowski said the evidence strongly suggested Awlaki and his mosques on the East and West coasts were at the center of a network of helpers that enabled the hijackers to find apartments and obtain fake ids.
“The investigation at the time obviously was very suspicious,” Bukowski said. “Knowing and proving are always two different things.”
http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2012_03_01_archive.html
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Qjc-nqoe87...00/6375130.jpg

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/10/another-imam-bites-dust.html
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hlxnr2KpQc...-al-Awlaki.jpg

RWebb 10-25-2012 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7052517)
Especially since he got no trial and no due process...it shows that they really didn't have to execute him, but could have captured him and tried him per his Constitutional rights.

you're ok with the risk?


also, he may have been tried in absentia, in secret -- another kettle of fish

fintstone 10-25-2012 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz's Master (Post 7052522)
Sure al-Awlaki is a terrorist. He preaches terror, gets people to perform terrorism. So effective, he needs to be executed without due process. So, what would you call a guy who has discussions with that cleric, and then goes and shoots a bunch of US soldiers?

He never killed anyone as far as we know and didn't even carry a weapon (although like most, he posed holding a few). He was a radical preacher...just like many in this country. Some could say that you calling for an American citizen's execution without trial is attempting to get people to perform terrorism as well.

The Administration has gone to a great deal of effort to portray him as somehow being involved with several acts of terror to try to justify his execution...but if they really had any proof, they would not have been scared of trying him.

What would I call him? I might call him a traitor, but even American traitors get a trial and due process according to our Constitution. I would follow the Constitution. You can't choose to only follow it when it is easy or suits your political ideals.

fintstone 10-25-2012 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 7052660)
you're ok with the risk?


also, he may have been tried in absentia, in secret -- another kettle of fish

Yes...and he had the right to representation and to face his accusers.

Taz's Master 10-25-2012 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7052794)
He never killed anyone as far as we know and didn't even carry a weapon (although like most, he posed holding a few). He was a radical preacher...just like many in this country. Some could say that you calling for an American citizen's execution without trial is attempting to get people to perform terrorism as well.

The Administration has gone to a great deal of effort to portray him as somehow being involved with several acts of terror to try to justify his execution...but if they really had any proof, they would not have been scared of trying him.

What would I call him? I might call him a traitor, but even American traitors get a trial and due process according to our Constitution. I would follow the Constitution. You can't choose to only follow it when it is easy or suits your political ideals.

I want to know what we should call the shooter, not the cleric. If the cleric's such a terrorist, what do we call a radical Islamist who confers with that cleric and then murders US soldiers.

Taz's Master 10-25-2012 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 7052660)
you're ok with the risk?


also, he may have been tried in absentia, in secret -- another kettle of fish

You're ok with the risk? You think it is ok for an administration, engaged in a seemingly limitless war to execute citizens with no oversight, because they suspect someone is a terrorist?

Somehow when: “Knowing and proving are always two different things.” was President Bush's reasoning, it was so easy to see how wrong that thinking was, but now that's justification for executive branch policy. He was probably tried in abstentia, in secret, trust us... Even if those killed are true threats to US society, without oversight that program is corrupt.

varmint 10-25-2012 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kach22i (Post 7052490)
The Danish agent, the Croatian blonde and the CIA plot to get al-Awlaki
The Danish agent, the Croatian blonde and the CIA plot to get al-Awlaki - CNN.com


He got himself a wife though Facebook, and met his end.

Somehow I find this hilarious.:D




a, i want pictures of the chick.

b, it's been brought ups dozen times now,and i guess you just don't care that obama has assumed the power to by decree assasinate american citizens.


i divide the world into americans and everyone else. i don't care if the president kills the crap out of foreigners. but americans have rights.

kach22i 10-25-2012 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz's Master (Post 7052979)
I want to know what we should call the shooter, not the cleric. If the cleric's such a terrorist, what do we call a radical Islamist who confers with that cleric and then murders US soldiers.

Because of your question I looked up a few things, covering when Awlaki fled the USA., and his connection to the Fort Hood shootings.

I (we) don't have all the intelligence the CIA, Homeland Security and the President have at their disposal. It's a matter of trust I suppose, do you trust them to make the right call?

I didn't trust Bush/Cheney, they gave me no reason to.

I trust Obama's judgement more, and he has proven himself many times over to earn that trust.

Keep in mind that the Awlaki had been imprisoned in Yemen before and became even more radicalized.

The country of Yemen even gave their approval for the hit, it's their country don't you think?

After Anwar Al-Awlaki Hit, U.S. Full Of New Praise For Yemen's Embattled Government
After Anwar Al-Awlaki Hit, U.S. Full Of New Praise For Yemen's Embattled Government
Quote:

"This success is a tribute to our intelligence community and to the efforts of Yemen and its security forces who have worked closely with the United States over the course of several years," President Obama said in remarks about the assassination of the terrorist leader. "[Awlaki] has met his demise because the government and the people of Yemen have joined the international community in a common effort against al-Qaida."
More:
Anwar al-Aulaqi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:

On April 6, The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the killing of al-Aulaqi.[33] The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing.[33] Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[33] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.[33] The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list.[33] In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.[33] People on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford.[203] Nevertheless, the authorization was controversial.[204]

JE928sx4 10-25-2012 06:45 PM

Finny. Defender of terrorists. What 4 years will do to get someone ass backwards from what he once was.

Quote:

<div class="pre-quote">
Quote de <strong>Taz's Master</strong>
</div>

<div class="post-quote">
<div style="font-style:italic">Sure al-Awlaki is a terrorist. He preaches terror, gets people to perform terrorism. So effective, he needs to be executed without due process. So, what would you call a guy who has discussions with that cleric, and then goes and shoots a bunch of US soldiers?</div>
</div>He never killed anyone as far as we know and didn't even carry a weapon (although like most, he posed holding a few). He was a radical preacher...just like many in this country. Some could say that you calling for an American citizen's execution without trial is attempting to get people to perform terrorism as well. <br>
<br>
The Administration has gone to a great deal of effort to portray him as somehow being involved with several acts of terror to try to justify his execution...but if they really had any proof, they would not have been scared of trying him. <br>
<br>
What would I call him? I might call him a traitor, but even American traitors get a trial and due process according to our Constitution. I would follow the Constitution. You can't choose to only follow it when it is easy or suits your political ideals.

Noporscheform 10-25-2012 06:47 PM

No government should be judge, jury and executioner in a private, undisclosed
Manner. This a founding principle of our country. Even if we may cheer the destruction of al Qaeda as a result of the use of drones. Is it really what the rest of the world expects of American policy.

There are discussions that our effort to use fewer boots on the ground, via these methods, is actually creating the new radicals joining the terrorist groups. It is counter productive in terms of our long term goals.

If we as a country feel a responsibility to press the war an terror, we should only do so using the principles that we claim represent America. The reduced risk we may feel, is really just murder when looked at from The other side. It is wrong.

fintstone 10-25-2012 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kach22i (Post 7053111)
...I trust Obama's judgement more, and he has proven himself many times over to earn that trust.

Keep in mind that the Awlaki had been imprisoned in Yemen before and became even more radicalized...

Of course that is wrong. I hate to break it to you but some goofy schmuck just like you submits this crap to Wikipedia...and they cut and paste the same BS that the Administration distributes through his media apologists.

RWebb 10-25-2012 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taz's Master (Post 7053049)
You're ok with the risk? You think it is ok for an administration, engaged in a seemingly limitless war to execute citizens with no oversight, because they suspect someone is a terrorist?

Somehow when: “Knowing and proving are always two different things.” was President Bush's reasoning, it was so easy to see how wrong that thinking was, but now that's justification for executive branch policy. He was probably tried in abstentia, in secret, trust us... Even if those killed are true threats to US society, without oversight that program is corrupt.

the risk referred to is that inherent in going inside a hostile country and arresting someone

I never said the drone strike was "ok" -- I find secret courts to be problematic at best, nor is it clear that he was tried in a secret court (if so, it's a secret).

One thing is clear to me: After the 9/11 attacks, we are down inside the rabbit hole in a number of ways - TSA < NSA, DHS, and drone strikes on US citizens is just part of it.

I think it is inevitable that overreach will occur, then things will be found out, and scaled back.

fintstone 10-25-2012 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 7053206)
the risk referred to is that inherent in going inside a hostile country and arresting someone...

...I think it is inevitable that overreach will occur, then things will be found out, and scaled back.

But they murdered him in Yemen...out in the open with no defense. He could have easily been captured and tried.

Tobra 10-25-2012 08:53 PM

I too would like to see pics of said blondie.

Quote:

I trust Obama's judgement more, and he has proven himself many times over to earn that trust.
George, I think maybe you ought to wear a helmet when you go out in public. With that soft head, you are in constant danger.

If this guy is a horrible terrorist recruiter, and your trusted humble leader had him killed without trial, how do you justify Mr Obama saying the Ft Hood massacre was anything but a terrorist attack?

How many American citizens do you think Mr Bush had murdered?

Never mind, I know what you are going to say.

JE928sx4 10-25-2012 08:59 PM

Exactly Tobra. This thread is WORTHLESS without pics.

70SATMan 10-25-2012 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7053314)
But they murdered him in Yemen...out in the open with no defense. He could have easily been captured and tried.

I thought enemy combatants were fair game? Are US citizens to be immune from the label of "enemy combatants". Is this "War on Terror" to be taken seriously or not? Are we now going to have to prove by public trial who is an enemy combatant before we can take military action?

Seems the labels and the arguments of acceptance are being applied or not along partisan lines.

Soldier
Freedom Fighter
Insurgent
Terrorist
Civilian
Combatant

RWebb 10-25-2012 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7053314)
But they murdered him in Yemen...out in the open with no defense. He could have easily been captured and tried.

you think Yemen is not a hostile country???

and, it ain't that easy to go grab somebody compared to firing a missile, right?


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2016 Pelican Parts - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.