4 ms·
No, because that's an (obviously) very muddled and slippery line of reasoning you're trying to get me to agree to there.
by akhmatova 4y ago
No, because that's an (obviously) very muddled and slippery line of reasoning you're trying to get me to agree to there.
- yucky 4y agoAlright, let's try it this way. Since I'm not the person that claimed the children were part of a targeted assassination, let's focus on Anwar Al-Awlaki. 1 - Was he, or was he not, intentionally assassinated by the Obama Administration? 2 - Was he or was he not a US citizen? 3 - Is that, or is that not an extrajudicial assassination?
- akhmatova 4y agoLet's focus on Anwar Al-Awlaki. I wasn't talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki. I was talking about what happened to his children. So sorry, but I will not be able to join you on whatever semantic buggy ride it is you're trying to pull me onto.
- yucky 4y ago>I wasn't talking about Anwar Al-Awlaki No, you intentionally ignored the entire point of the OP. And you did that because it is a case where President Obama ordered the assassination of a US citizen, and that citizen stayed on his hit list for 18 months until he was killed, despite his family begging the US government the entire time to charge him with a crime so that he could have his day in court. https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aulaqi-v-Obama-et-al/ https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/935/Al-Aula...
- akhmatova 4y agoNo, you intentionally ignored the entire point of the OP. Right - because their intellectual dishonesty was so blatant that it not only distracts from, but actually cheapens the morally indignant point they were trying to make.