Are Americans "Fair Game"
 

Are all americans fair game?

Awlaki has come out and called for the killing of americans in a new video out today.

Im not sure how many of you know this, but it was only a few years ago that awlaki was considered a moderate in islamic circles. His lectures were well researched, and his orative skills were great, and he spoke excellent english, and his lectures were NOT about terrorism. For this reason he commanded a great following amonst western muslims all over the world.

what happened in the last 5-6 years im not so sure. by the looks of it the US has marginlised him and it seems that he's gone off the other extreme by becoming radical while on the run.

Im not so sure what he means by americans, because he essentially is 'american' himself. ButI hope muslims are much smarter than to listen to this ramble.

do you think americans are fair game? civilians? armed soldiers?...mothers, children?.. where does it end?

I think that using this rhetoric fires up the masses in certain areas of the world. For this constituency the cry of "kill all Americans!" probably has the same conviction that "the only good Commie is a dead Commie" rally that we oh so quickly parroted not too long ago.

The scary part is that there seems to be a lot of out of control extremists that relish the thought of carrying out the rhetoric. Do I think that all Americans are fair game? Absolutely not. I don't subscribe to the view that just because Americans are the most visible and most powerful representation of the so-called 'Western' culture, they are all fair targets.

I think that a political movement that espouses such violence, such as extreme Islam, is completely without honour.

And sad.

"party of devils" "axis of evil"
"either them or us" "you're either with us or against us"

I wonder how much this is a deliberate criticism of the war on terror.

If deliberately using overwhelming military force makes the people who don't think about it "fair game", then yes, we are. If we're not thinking about it because we're stupid, then yes, we are. If I care about you as much as you care about me, we're even. I'm not sure what compelled you to ask the question. It's not so much newsworthy as not.
"Americans" (read u-s-of-a'ers) will be fair game until we can convince the world that we don't think we're special & that's a long time a'comin'. Awlaki would be better-served by feeling less threatened. friend me.

No one should ever be fair game. Killing is the failure to maintain the understanding that the life of another person is sacrosanct. You are responsible for your life and your life alone and the second that you take the life of another person is the moment you've crossed a terrible, terrible line. I don't know why the thought that murder and killing is under some circumstances okay has been permitted by an intelligent species to continue, but it has to stop and it has to stop soon. We're living in a time when there are nations and organizations and individuals impossible to please with the ability to kill thousands to millions with little more than the push of a button. This is insanity.

To Awlaki I would propose a very simple moral lesson: killing a killer is not justice and killing a killer will not necessarily end the killing, in fact it may simply continue the terrible cycle you wish to halt. My country (not meaning the general population, because most of us are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and who knows where else, but rather the chickenhawks and their military/corporate sponsors) has done terrible things and will continue to do terrible things unless we can come together and make them stop not by continuing the cycle of bloodshed but by using our minds. To respond to a brute with violence is to become a brute yourself. I propose you and I demonstrate we are not just more brutes, but that we are people of peace, people of progress, and people deserving of the world we seek to build.

I'm confused as to what 'fair game' means, in the OP.

I need some sleep however. Perhaps in the morning I won't be so confused.

I think he's essentially giving people permission to kill Americans. He's saying we're fair game to murder.

Anwar al Awlaki is of the breed that tends to spew this crap in a frantic, inward turning feculant death spiral. He spins ever tighter and ever nastier circles, foaming and pouring filth and hate over whatever doesn't subscribe to his particular micro-viewpoint of his mind control, his spirit control and his absolute control over every other aspect of others' lives.

I'm pretty sure he will eventually be calling to destroy members of his own extreme mindset. Woe betide any of them if they ever display any independence of thought or originality, or if they ever seem to consider allowing any possibility of variety in human experience.

He is yet another face on the human Hydra of extremist paranoia. Extremists of every stripe exist. We tend to notice the religious one because they create such horror in the name of all that should be the best of humanity. Cut one of them away, or (oh rare and wonderful possibility) get one of them to stop being an exciter of death and destruction, and two more spring up in their place. Extremists such as Anwar al Awlaki have such a fearful refusal to allow others to exist who are not their mirror - there can really be no dealing with them. You can only hope to hold them far enough away that they do not pollute and destroy the good in your own world.

It is an irony that the man raised in the free spirit and open dialogue of the US of A can't stand the possibilities that exist in such an advanced human enterprise as that country. He wants that spirit eradicated and the dialogue erased from history. Americans are to be destroyed.

What a tool, this Anwar al Awlaki. He was given the opportunity to think the way he chose because he was nurtured in America. He is so distressed that the people who were nurtured around him, his former neighbors and schoolmates, that these people are allowed to think what they wish and live as they choose, that he wants them all killed. He is calling for his own death, really. I'm willing to bet he can tap dance with the best of them and make it seem like he is a polished and pure fellow, but he is also an American.

It makes sense, following his own logic, that he should find some incredibly public forum where he can off himself in a particularly showy, painful and degrading way. Allow him to demonstrate his firm belief, his dedication, and his personal integrity.

He is an incredibly narrow-minded bigot and racist of the worst stripe. He is actually asking for the death of all Caucasians. However it is so easy to dump on Americans these days that they stand in for anyone of Caucasian descent. Being an equal opportunity hater Anwar al Awlaki is allowing the hundreds of millions of non-Caucasian Americans to suffer the same fate as his bugaboo "Crusaders".

I doubt that he would hesitate to scrag me if I waved my Maple Leaf flag at him, declaring that the only America I live in is North America, which is a pretty big continent thank you very much.

The only way for this to end is for the human race to last long enough for this particular steaming pile of horseshit to dry up and blow away. Which will be at least another few thousand years. Of course by then we will have developed such sophisticated bigotry and racist hatred, not to mention the refinements of regionalism inherent in such things as independent nations within comets, asteroids, man-made worlds and other planets and moons . . .

To answer the OP - no. Americans are not fair game. They are easy to blame, easy to point at, and easy to act as the lightning rod when the storms of anger, despair and hatred roil our world. They are fellow humans, and deserve as much respect and consideration as any other reasonable humans.

I just wish these extremist johnnies would go stuff themselves in a valley somewhere and tear away at each other until they were done. It is so painful to share our ever-smaller world with such small-spirited, truly horrible people.

Why should an entire people be blamed for the military choices of their government, if this is indeed brought on by the GWOT?

Seriously, though--what makes an American different from a Canadian, beyond geography? Ultimately, we're all just people. Why am I "fair game" simply because of where I was born? It's not like I chose to be born American.

(And yes, Canadians, I know there are differences between us beyond geography, but they are small enough that you are useful in illustrating my point.)

As i understand it, thats exactly what he's saying.

There isnt any difference between a civilian and soldier,a nd the wanton killing of anyone based on nationality is ok.

He's also given the green light for anyone to kill americans and not ask for a 'religious decree'. probably because he knows that no mufti in their right mind would give one.

Im thinking that maybe the title was inflamatory, but id also like to highlight that he was US born. He lived the majority of his life in the US, and he's well spoken. Considering his previous moderate view, do you think he should have been nurtured by the US instead of cornered and chased away back to Yemen. Awlakis tribe is a powerful one, and his father and family pose great influence over the government even though he has been charged in absetia.

Do you think the US strategy for people like him should change?

i certainly dont think that americans , north americans, or anyone else ofr that matter is fair game. In a state of war, and on the battlefield it's a different story. If you go into a country bearing arms, you have to expect to be fair game. But awlaki alluring to all americans (including civilians), or as kramus put it, all caucasians being fair game is simply not on.

i know more caucasions against the GWOT than for it. And im sure that awlaki knows this. I just think that if the US had changed their aim a little, we wouldnt have another nutter spewing hate. is the US to blame for this?

So, basically, this thread is asking if it's okay for terrorists to kill Americans.

Let's rephrase the title as, "Are Jews 'Fair Game?', ask Nazis."

Or maybe it should be, "Are Bears 'Fair Game?', asks IMI Tavor."

C'mon, man. I don't know what to tell you, Dlish. They're bad guys.

You can't argue with crazy.

well if you read my last post you'd see that i mentioned that the OP may have been inflammatory and im trying to look at other angles.

I guess what im trying to figure out is if we can avoid nutcases from becoming marginalised and if theres another way we can approach them rather than chase them away into the mountains and then send your humvees and drones to take them out.

is there a way to talk to these guys, rehabilitation perhaps? money? assistance? i dont know... i just think its a waste. had he stayed on his moderate ways, we could have been useful for the US and western muslims in general.

I've read every post in this thread. As far as I see it, my original point still stands. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm a big dummy.

...

You wanna talk about what the US needs to do to reduce the global jihad movement? Okay. I can do that.

They have all sorts of great books on this topic. One of them is Good read.

As I see it? The US just can't stop sticking its fingers in other people's pies. And when we do? We do it poorly.

We should stop that. And we should also engage in a proper propaganda war. We're losing that one bad.

The GJM is often staffed by lone wolf types that receive recruitment, brainwashing and training via WebTubes.

The problem, of course, is that we always add more fuel to the fire than we spend on extinguishing the blaze.

...

The US (all Westerners) and white people are The Enemy to All That is Good for Islam to these guys.

The only difference between these guys and GWoT-loving towelhead-eradicatin' Real Americans is the team.

That's humanity for you. Not everybody can play nice because not everybody wants to.

It's in our nature to destroy ourselves. We fight for resources. When that is met? We fight for ideas.

/every history book ever

Yep, we get what you mean...

I'm not one to believe that anyone is 'fair game,' not extremist Muslims, axe murderers or even the Real Housewives, so plainly that extends toward Americans, too.

That said, I understand where the hatred comes from and why and it's not particularly surprising (to me) to hear that someone who was brought up here, really with a foot in two worlds, would turn against it. When you observe the superficial materialism in America and contrast it with the things our country has done to secure it for us while we sail on blindly singing "God Bless America' and thinking how fucking wonderful we are...why wouldn't someone learn to hate it? I have. The anger itself is not irrational.

And that said, the fact that the man has allowed his anger to turn to madness and hatred, well, what makes him so special? It happens all the time to all sorts of people.

What is alarming is the fact that there are so many people in the world feeling the same way, at the same time and the fact that they can communicate with each other so easily, which is validating and insulating. I don't know that there is a lot that America can do about it. No, we are not wholly responsible for the actions of our government, but we bear some culpability as a society. We chose to be uninvolved or not to see or to decide that what we've done was worth it.

Sorry to be so morose this morning, but I'm pretty sure it's the truth.

The much more interesting question, for me, is how he went from "moderate" to "nut case". For the record, I think there's no chance that Alwaki sudden developed a mental illness or that one suddenly revealed itself.

The human condition is that we hate "other". It might as well be tattooed on all of us at birth. We all feel good about hating the Nazis, but they were people too. But they were "bad", so it's all ok. The same with the Belgians in the Congo, the US Army in the Plains, the Soviets in Ukraine, the Vikings raids, the Rape of Manchuria, the reconquest of Spain.... The Nazis just had better PR and a more obvious case of "evil things".

So somehow Americans, in Alwaki's mind, have gone from "tolerable" to "bad". What caused that move?

This isn't madness. This isn't some mental deficiency. This isn't even that he got whacked in the head by a board, Three Stooges-style, and woke up hating Americans. Things have happened. There's a reason for this.

In other words, what have we done to deserve it? And I'll bet that he has some pretty good fucking reasons.

There's no such thing as "good guys and bad guys". I think that it's very interesting how many folks have assumed that Alwaki's gone crazy.

Hah! An insurance industry guy would be the one to say that there are no good guys and bad guys.

I think anger is natural, even hatred to a certain extent. But when you decide to start killing to assuage your feelings, then you have crossed a line to something that is not rational. Much like people who kill their spouses because they were unfaithful. Or people who go into their workplace with a gun due to real or perceived injustice. Maybe it isn't madness, but it's not rational.

Of course, this man may have any number of motivations. Power, attention, validation. Obviously he isn't picking up a gun to shoot people himself. But I think it's pretty safe to assume that his perspective has narrowed sufficiently so as to make him unstable, at the least.

Just another case of star-bellies vs. regular sneetches.

It's the law of the jungle.

i dont think he's gone mentally crazy. maybe nutter crazy, but im sure he's got a sane mind. im sure of it.

But you back a dog into a corner and you dont expect it to bite? of course its going to turn on you. Thats not to justify Awlakis call to murder anyone. I just think the leash could have been pulled in a different direction instead of having him go underground under the protection of his strong tribe who have plenty of sway with the yemeni government.

From what i can remember, he came to the attention of authorities when the muslim soldier dude.. (Nedal something, i cant recall his name now) went on a shooting rampage.

I'll say that even i have listened to a few of his sermons over the years. he had a great series on the lives of the biblical prophets about 10 years ago now which were rich in islamic, christian and jewish history. its a shame that his rhetoric has changed since then.

If we're talking rationality here, then thats really a subjective term. What is rational to me may not be rational to Mixedmedia. What concerns me is that as a cleric, he's moved away from his own rationality of using islamic jursipudence to calling for the death of ordinary americans.

I can think of any number of leaders in the last 50 years that have said very similar things. Was Churchill mad? How about Reagan? Margaret Thatcher? Douglas MacArthur? George Patton? That's what leaders do, MM; they send their troops into battle. How is that any different than what Alwaki's said? The ONLY difference I can detect is the "how to take the fight to the enemy", but there's no diffence of degrees.

I can't decide if the rush to "he's crazy" smells like racism or not. It's entirely possible that it is a kneejerk "oh the brown guy hates us so he must be crazy" is more about his skin color (or, more pointedly his religion) than anything else. Then again, maybe it's just easier to believe than anyone who hates us, regardless of religion or skin color, must be crazy, because we're all such nice folks, after all. WE haven't done anything wrong.

Oh, except we're dropping bombs on babies (but we've done that for years), taking over the holy places and showing up where we're not welcome and playing that damn hip-hop music and being bad guests.

Let's not act like this is a completely unjustifiable response to very specific provactions. My question remains what were those provocations and what can we do to learn from our mistakes.

No. Censoring free speech (or abridging any freedom) is a very dangerous slippery slope. Unless he specifically orders the killing of a person or people instead of just saying "it's okay", then he's guilty of an actual crime, but as it stands, Anwar al Awlaki is only at about a Glenn Beck level of line skirting between voicing an offensive opinion and inciting violence.

If the United States is to take anything away from this, though, it should be that quite often our horrible behavior can take an otherwise moderate seeming person and make them an extremist. We're obviously not totally to blame, as he is the one choosing his words, but invading sovereign nations, killing innocent people, kidnapping, torture, indefinite detention, cover-ups, and a complete lack of any accountability (those responsible for the war will never be held accountable) all contribute to a powerful and justifiable resentment. If Anwar al Awlaki's outburst is all the blowback we get for our crimes, we should count ourselves very, very lucky.

Unfortunately, though, all Anwar al Awlaki is really doing is making things worse. He's playing into the bogeyman Muslim construct being pushed on conservative talk radio, Fox News, and surprisingly often in TV and movies. In other words, in a way, he's assisting in an invaluable way the very people he wishes to stop. He should stop acting from emotion and actually think about the best way to solve these problems.

I really don't see the value in defining is he crazy, is he not crazy. To say, 'such and such a people, civilians, are fair game for murder' will never be the words of a rational person and I don't care who's saying it.

I'm not sure if you were directing all of your comments at me, Jazz, but I've always stated pretty plainly how I feel about the actions of my government and I think most of the anger from around the globe that is directed at us is completely and verifiably justified. Nor do I think we are not personally responsible being that we have a government supposedly 'of the people.' But if you're implying that my comments are slanted because he is a Muslim, then I beg to differ and I can prove it by condemning any white bastard you'd like to trot out here who would say the same.

So, yes, my idea of rationality does not include the possibility of randomly killing people and that may differ from those of others including some Muslim extremists, Winston Churchill and lots of other powerful white people responsible for the deaths of millions of people throughout history. But there is a point where one's ability to perceive reality becomes so narrow that they are able to justify all manner of inappropriate actions and it becomes a clinical condition. It doesn't mean they are running around naked, howling at the moon.

OK, then Franklin Roosevelt was crazy by your definition. He indiscriminantly bombed civilians in Germany and Japan. Truman has to be one of the craziest sonsofbitches that ever lived, by your definition.

Might as well add in LBJ and Nixon too, while we're at it. They did the same thing in Vietnam and Cambodia.

Abraham Lincoln fed his armies off civilians.

I think that you're taking the lazy way out here. Calling him crazy, mad or any other synonym you want to trot out simply negates what you've already admitted is a justifable anger. You don't like his conclusions, so they have to be crazy. After all, no rational person would ever target civilians during war. Except that they always have been targeted, especially in wars before the internal combustion engine.

Wars are won by forcing the enemy into an untenable position. Guess who usually ends up on the losing end of that? Alwaki's simply declared war on us. I'm much more interested in how he arrived at his conclusions than dismissing him as a lunatic, since he's obviously not. But I guess I'm a lunatic since I've got an opinion you don't agree with.

um, ok, Jazz. I think (again) you grossly mis-characterize what I've written and seem hostile, but so what. I simply don't have an inclination to argue with you.

Why don't we do this:

MM, how would you define crazy, specifically thy way you've used it in this thread?

Jazz, how do you define crazy, specifically in the way you think MM is using in this thread?

Speaking the same language may clear up what I think is just a miscommunication.

Sorry if I seem hostile; that's not the intent.

But you've effectively marginalized his opinion by calling him crazy/irrational/mad. I'm just trying to point out that there are other highly respected folks that have done exactly the same thing without the same stigma. In retrospect they're heros, but maybe that's the case of victors writing history.

Have I ever called them heroes?

You want me to say that the firebombing of Edo was perpetrated by mad people? Ok, it was. This is nothing new to me, nothing new for me to say, either. I don't appreciate being boxed into a corner that I'm pretty sure you know I don't belong in. What this man is expressing is nothing new and no less irrational than any other call for slaughter. But it is still irrational and still wrong.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

I realize that the word 'mad' is rhetorical and not a medical diagnosis. That doesn't negate the fact that there are medical diagnoses for people who rationalize extreme action. And I don't doubt for a second that most people in positions of great (or perceived great) power suffer from them to some extent. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Then I have to completely disagree that all calls for slaughter are irrational and wrong. Because they're not. Wishing harm on your enemy isn't moral, so it can't be right or wrong. It's the nature of conflict. We're bound by our evolutionary nature, and conflict's a very important part of that. War is an extension of who's going to get the biggest and best piece of the brontasaurus burger and who's going to get to knock Wilma over the head and take her back to the cave. War can be justified on a moral basis, but that's almost always retrospective.

I'll agree that the call for slaughter outside of a state of warfare is morally wrong, but that's beside the point in this case. Alwari issued a call for jihad, which is by definition war. He's seen the soft American underbelly and identified it for everyone else; we have no taste for conflict outside of our safe, 44-minute, 22 episode a year lives.

I'm not boxing you into a corner - you've done that to yourself by painting an absolute line and saying "anyone who says this is crazy". I find that impossible to accept.

I'm fair game. I'm also crazy. Tell me that the only argument here is whether or not an individual has the right to call his followers out against a group as he defines it, please.

This bite above I bit.
It's relevant because the current revisionists on different fronts are laboring overtime...to...'make something fit.'
Big Historical Happenings, forced & fabricated for entertainment, at an ever increasing pace.

It's been my limited experience that when someone mentions the "nature" of something, they're presenting a postulate as a demonstrated conclusion. The most flagrant use of this is in "human nature", where all sorts of things are suggested to just sort of be a part of the human condition. I once was told that zoophilia is human nature. Only if humans are animals, I think I responded.

In this case, I feel like we're speaking in generalities so generally general that we're losing track of the subject. First, we're obviously talking about violent conflict. Second, violent conflict can be determined to be immoral or moral; it's not somehow all inherently amoral. In the very specific case we're talking about, Anwar al Awlaki, a cleric with some influence especially among moderate Muslims, has called for the murders of people regardless of whether they're innocent or not. Which is obviously crazy (ducks as The_Shoe is thrown).

We're not at the end of the conflict as the victors, but rather are in the conflict and are able to remove ourselves and apply our own brand of morality to see if this is moral or immoral. Most people don't consider the targeting of innocent civilians in violent conflict to be moral. I know, I know, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, Lincoln (a stretch), etc., but generally the murder of people who have not wronged you is judged to be immoral.

Moreover, though, this cleric is calling for actions which will almost certainly escalate the conflict which has inspired him to go rogue and call for killing civilians. That sounds neither sound nor rational no reasonable to me. One might even suggest that this man is a danger to himself and others.

I have to say, in the end I'm with MM on this one.

Then who is in a corner, Jazz?

---------- Post added at 07:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

sorry, this reply is directed only at Jazz and his seeming resignation to history as an appropriate template for the present.

Being fair game by virtue of being American is stupid. I suppose on this logic, stringing up black people and feeding them their genitalia is fine, by virtue of their dark skin.

This begs the question though, if so called extremists were given economic incentives (i.e. a job, money, TVs and Starbucks [kidding!]) would they be so inclined to fight wars if they know the 'good life' [TM] was just around the corner? Put another way, if extremists could live a cushy life like so many developed countries, would they still be extremists? Would the extremists still have so much support?

Oh wow. This just gave me an idea. Off to start a new thread.

Jazz, I also want to you to respond to this:

"other highly respected folks that have done exactly the same thing without the same stigma."

I ask you, who exactly is highly respecting these stigma free perpetrators?

Moldy ancient sixth grade social studies textbooks from 1967?

Language used to describe enemies (whether they are the Huns, the Mongols, the Nazis, etc.) has never been very nuanced. This is purposefully done. Shades of grey just confuse the issue and make it harder to achieve victory.

Thank you dlish, I hope you are correct in hoping that muslims are much smarter than to lower themselves to his hatred. How respected is this cleric? It sounds as though he is well regarded.

It needs to end. It really needs to end.

thats exactly my point Kirstang. If we gave potentially good clerics government support instead of driving them under, we wouldnt be in this situation right now.

craven - he was respected. he had a large following amonst western muslims because of his good command of english. Arab clerics couldnt understand his popularity because Awlaki never got any formal islamic education. i guess thats where arab clerics need to get with the programme.

over the last 7-8 years he's lost a lot of his popularity, with his run-ins with the law. Although with his tribal power, i'd imagine he'd still be quite respected in some parts of yemen.

In todays news, his father is challenging the CIA hit list and awlakis constitution right to due process.

Awlaqi's father mounts legal challenge to CIA 'kill list'

So the father is calling for his son's right to due process? Am I missing something or is that terribly ironic? Don't get me wrong, I would challenge the hit list, too, but then again I'm not espousing the killing of other people either. Perhaps the father opposes his son's statements, but it isn't mentioned in the article?

Be still my heart.