Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

TERRORISTS: Article, headline showed bias

Letter by Gary W. Hart, Tacoma on Oct. 3, 2011 at 1:55 pm with 56 Comments »
October 3, 2011 1:55 pm

I was truly surprised and disappointed at the headline used for the Oct. 1 lead article. Saying that “U.S. drone executes 2 American citizens” is totally disingenuous.

Anwar al-Awlaki was undoubtedly the most dangerous terrorist in the world. Evidence indicates that his actions had led to the murder of many innocent individuals as well as our U.S. troops.

It really doesn’t matter whether al-Awlaki was Arab-born or U.S.-born, or for that matter was an alien from Mars. The world is now a far safer place with him in the ground, and our actions should be applauded, not derided.

Certainly a more positive article on U.S. military actions was available than this biased anti-war Associated press article. It would be more appropriate on the editorial page.

, ,
Leave a comment Comments → 56
  1. xx98411 says:

    “Anwar al-Awlaki was undoubtedly the most dangerous terrorist in the world. Evidence indicates that his actions had led to the murder of many innocent individuals as well as our U.S. troops.”

    “…most dangerous terrorist…” – based on what, he ws slick on TV, what operations was he running?

    “Evidence…” please what evidence?

    Like I said I am cool with it, but please lets not go overboard on the demonization.

  2. I haven’t heard any of the bleeding hearts fretting about the many Americans that have been assassinated here at home such as in Waco Texas or Washington state because the government felt they might have some illegal weopons in their home. How about shooting a mother while she’s standing outside holding her baby? Doesn’t anyone remember that? But let’s all cry a river over self-admitted terrorists being taken out.

  3. beerBoy says:

    It really doesn’t matter whether al-Awlaki was Arab-born or U.S.-born, or for that matter was an alien from Mars.

    actually, it does. It goes toward due process guaranteed by the Constitution.

  4. xx98411 says:

    bb – you must be feeling like Kucinich or Ron Paul right about now… valid points but you’re gonna get drown out…

  5. blakeshouse says:

    As far as I am concerned when that piece of crap left this country to pursue terrorist actions against us he gave up his right to due process.
    Of course those in the socialist/neo marxist camp will cry a river over the death of this pile of feces. They have no problem trampling on the rights of citizens they dis agree with but heaven help the nation if they kill an interrnational terrorist with ties to the US……..

  6. Actually, BB does not have a valid point. Anwar was not a child of US citizens, nor was he a legal citizen of the US. He was a citizen of Yemen which does not allow dual citizenship. In addition, once one bears arms or conspires against the Unitied States, he or she becomes an enemy of the Unitied States as in any war of the Unitied States. My opinion, nice job, one less, NEXT!

  7. Publico says:

    Boy, non-thinking wingnuts abound. No surprises with the known screen names that show up.

  8. xx98411 says:

    This is what I am talkin’ bout… one was exaggerating crap and now outright lyin’

    185 Dude, all evidence points that Anwar al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico. His parents were from Yemen. By all accounts he is a US citizen.

    He did have dual citizenship – US and Yemen. Us is kinda flaky about it but usually doesn’t make it an issue.

    He was a valid target, no argument. I’m just curious how he became a valid target, under what circumstances, what changed to make him a red dot target?

  9. xx98411 says:

    so publico was it a good solid kill or are you also concern about the ramifications of killing an American citizen?

    enquiring minds want to know…

  10. old_benjamin says:

    “non-thinking wingnuts ”

    Good argument, Publico. I’m sure you convinced everyone of the rightness of your position.

  11. It was my understanding he gave up his citizenship to attain a goverment scholarship from Yemen, I’m not quite sure whom your accusing of lying, but throwing around such terms in a blog simply to bolster the impact of what your saying is pretty weak. Frankly, if it was directed at me, kiss my as_!

    Al-Awlaki was born in the United States, but when he was seven years old he and his family returned to Yemen in 1978. He then lived in Yemen for 11 years, and studied at Azal Modern School.

    Al-Awlaki returned to Colorado in 1991 to attend college. He earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University (1994), where he was President of the Muslim Student Association. He attended the university on a foreign student visa and a government scholarship from Yemen, apparently by claiming to be born in that country, according to a former U.S. security agent. He spent a summer of his college years training with the Afghan mujahideen. Al-Awlaki also earned an M.A. in Education Leadership from San Diego State University. He worked on a Doctorate degree in Human Resource Development at George Washington University Graduate School of Education & Human Development from January to December 2001.

  12. xx98411 says:


    One – the letter writer was exagerating with no basis of fact. That was my first issue.

    You then come along and make the statement that “…nor was he a legal citizen of the US.” And your rebuttal “It is my understanding he gave up….”

    Well did he or didn’t he? What do you know about his citizenship that the rest of the publiushed world seems not to know? What evidence do you have that al-Awalki is not a Us Citizen?

    The wikipedia article implies that Anwar al Awalki lied to the Yemeni goverment to obtain a scholarship not that it was a statement of fact that he was born in Yemen. A documentary I saw a year ago also highlighted that al Awlaki led to obtain the scholarship.

    That critical fact is the point of this whole discussion, did the United States of America just target and kill not one but two American citizens? What was the process used to determine that this was legal?

    based on your above presentation, lie was a little harse, I do sincerly apologize… misinformed is a better characterization.

  13. Accepted, if what I understood to be correct is wrong, I also apologize for spreading misinformation.

    Let me preface the following, in my opinion, once an individual takes up arms against my country, or has been identified as one that has planned against, helped, funded, or trained those that would, whether born here, let in, has papers or not, valid target for execution.

  14. Publico says:

    “xx98411 says:
    October 3, 2011 at 3:11 pm
    so publico was it a good solid kill or are you also concern about the ramifications of killing an American citizen?

    enquiring minds want to know…”
    Individuals far more expert than I have voiced concerns. I do not know the answer, but it does seem to be one of those potential “slippery slopes.”
    I am glad they got him. It’s the method that concerns some people including me. I hesitate to jump on a train that might be headed for a wreck.

  15. beerBoy says:

    So….when did we declare war on Yemen?

  16. xx98411 says:

    Ok, well not a whole lot ot chew on here but if you are “glad they got him” then OK.

    umm, I hope you will be just as glad when President… oh Palin decides to take out an American born terrrorist on foreign soil.

    (I know, I know I am so obvious but you guys are very reserved on this killing, just trying to stir the pot here, have some fun)

  17. xx98411 says:

    Yemen – We didn’t, dude what is your point already…

  18. taxedenoughintacoma says:

    I am surprised that any of you are surprised the TNT would print a biased headline. IT”S ALL THEY DO!!!!!!!!!

  19. So Blakehouse thinks Ron Paul is a socialist/neo marxist .


  20. theglovesRoff says:

    xx, I am a little disappointed that you have chosen the kumbaya response to this incident.

    The scumbag has connections to the Fort Hood massacre as well as connections to other terrorist plots (failed or otherwise).

    You take up residence in a foreign country and plot against the US, and if we take your azz out, good riddance and have fun with those virgins in hell…..

  21. xx98411 says:

    hey gloves… not sure what you mean by “kumbaya response” but here goes my view…

    Anwar and the web designer dude are terrorist douchebags… let that sit for a second… one more time… douchebags… they deserved to be killed as part of the war on terror. Ok, clear… douchebag (TNT won’t let me say what I really think) and I would have paid for a pay-per-view to see the look on his face wondering why their is a shooting star heading his way.

    That being said, I am reading the letters and they are all pissy about the headline which is in fact accurate. One may not like the headline, one may have issue with the word execute (I do) and the fact they were American citizens (I don’t). The headline is accurate.

    We just targeted and kill two American citizens, let’s just remember that with the actions of the last president, the current president and the next president. Good enough for one of them, good enough for all of them…

    beerBoy is throwing a mud ball but won’t follow up, Publico is sitting on the sidelines and karnos is changing the subject. I am just trying to kick some sand in their faces for them share how they feel about this President of the United State that during his run up and campaigning was adament that things would change… and yet, he is doubleling down….

    Shooting teenage pirates in the head, a three-fer
    Shooting a unarmed man, in his pajamas, in his bedroom, in the face
    and now, blowing up American citizens…

    They must be proud of the boy king

  22. LarryFine says:

    The interesting part about “US citizen” al-Awlaki is he lied, saying he was born in Yemen so he would get more free college money as a foreigner…


  23. theglovesRoff says:

    Okay, I think I get what your angle is xx. Trying to see if you can polish the kettle and remove the black for certain blogers here.


  24. xx98411 says:

    not just a regular olde douchebag, but a lying, money grubbing, prostitute solicting douchebag…

  25. xx98411 says:

    The American citizen stuff is an issue, a big issue. We are ok with it because of the targets and this President can still walk on some parts of the sea.

    I loath to say it but if Bush blah, blah, blah…

    I am basically pissing on the party… You can’t say the things you said about a previous administration, that was trying to protect America, to the extent and venom that was said. And then extend and litterally double down on the policies…. hypocrisy, two face hypocrisy…

    deem boys just will not engage, they know… they know and can’t defend.

  26. Publico says:

    Using Waco as a positive example of protest is an indication of a sick mind.

  27. Publico says:

    Bush could not have accomplished in a positive sense for me what President Obama has. Bush’s ideology would not let that happen and it spills over into other areas outside his ideology because he is fundamentally blinded. It’s called, sometimes, myopia, which relates to narrow vision, but in his case it really is about a narrow ability to think.
    Now we have Obama’s jobs legislation. It was a good start according to a couple accounts I read. The Republican House is going to gut it for the simple reason that they do not want President Obama to have any successes on which he can base his run for reelection.
    Killing a terrorist under questionable circumstances is a bit cowboyish. That seems to be the way we are going. I do not have to like it.
    I remember Vietnam too well.

  28. Publico, what did those people in Waco do to deserve being murdered by the government? Run that by me again. Secondly if it’s o.k for the government to shoot a mother who is standing outside of her home with a child in her arms, why isn’t it equally o.k. for that same government to kill an avowed terrorist? Please connect the dots for me.

  29. xx98411 says:

    “Killing a terrorist under questionable circumstances is a bit cowboyish. That seems to be the way we are going. I do not have to like it.”

    I loath the question but I gotta ask… in your mind publico, if President Bush had ordered the same operation, would you have the same feelings about it?

    Their are no questionable circumstance… al Awalki and the other dude with him were American citizens, our President targeted a specific person for death, the CIA executed the mission… these are the facts as we know them.

    I am just asking is your line for Obama the same line for past Presidents… will it be the same line for future Presidents – GOP or Dem…

  30. KARDNOS says:

    beerBoy is throwing a mud ball but won’t follow up, Publico is sitting on the sidelines and karnos is changing the subject.

    KARDNOS hasn’t commented…….xx is throwing a baseless assertion and false information

    They must be proud of the boy king

    No one brought up George Bush

  31. KARDNOS says:

    “if President Bush had ordered the same operation”

    ……Then someone (guess who) brought up George Bush……..

    Answer: Bush, according to history, would have ignored the hunt of one man and started a huge war that his friends could profit from

  32. KARDNOS says:

    To assert that George Bush would have done the same as Obama….when….

    George Bush ignored the hunt of Bin Laden in lieu of all out war in Iraq……


    Now mind you THIS comes from the person that claims I changed the topic….LOL

  33. KARDNOS says:

    Defending Waco? Interesting that we have people defending a leader known to practice pedophilia

  34. beerBoy says:

    Yemen – We didn’t, dude what is your point already…

    That was in response to those who claim (e.g. aislander) that the fact that the President declared him an enemy combatant made it a righteous kill during WAR. Perhaps it is “cross-contamination” from another thread but hardly a “mud ball” (btw – I didn’t respond in your convenient time frame because I don’t work a standard 9-5)

    My question is – are you striving to argue everyone on this issue – no matter which stance they take?

    To the Bush issue – Obama has gone Bush one better (more accurately, “one worse”) in his willingness to impose an imperial presidency and waive basic rights that were taken for granted by the Founders as they were established with the Magna Carta (e.g. habeas corpus)

  35. xx98411 says:

    karnos – is avoiding the subject… better…?

  36. xx98411 says:

    argue with everyone… naaw… just a special few…

    I actually agree with you and the Obama on Bush steroids thingy…. when Obama crossed the border of a sovereign national and shot an unarmed man in the face… forget gutsy… that was brass ones. I give da boyz props for that.

    My simplistic point is that if we are going to celebrate what was done under this administration then let’s not sugar coat nor demonize excessively and positively acknowledge the difficult decisions of previous administrations. And most of all STOP CALLING BUSH A WAR CRIMINAL. Jeeze that is a little excessive.

    Second – if we are going to start killing American citizens on a decision made over a cup of coffee then let’s be clear what that means short term and long term.

    Third – on a personal note, I am not going to let liberals get away with celebrating the Obama kills without acknowledging the hypocrisy. You can’t spend two years demonizing the previous administration to get elected, threaten legal action against a previous administration when you are in office all the while doubleling and in some case going all in on the exact same policies that you railed against before.

    Hypocrisy… plain and simple, and that tingle is me pissing on your leg…

  37. scooter6139 says:

    Look, this is simple for me. I believe this practice of executing terrorist, no matter their country of origin, started with the last administration’s War on Terror. (Please correct me if I am wrong here) I did not like the idea then and I don’t like it under the current administrations either. Al-Awlaki was a US citizen, therefore he deserves to be have the same laws applied to him that any of us posting here do. If he is found guilty, then we can execute him. We have laws for a reason and if we fail to uphold them then we are no better than those we are fighting.

    Even Texas gives a murderer a trail before it executes them.

    BTW – Isn’t calling for sedition a treasonous act? Should we then execute by drone attack Rick Perry? After all, we don’t need a trial or anything………..

  38. KARDNOS says:

    xx….you need to read the thread more carefully….you are missing many of the topics of which I’m commenting.

  39. The world is now a far safer place with him in the ground

    Really? Was he really that dangerous that the world is far safer now? Why don’t I feel any safer?

  40. LarryFine says:

    “…you are missing many of the topics of which I’m commenting.”

    That’s why it’s called wallpaper

  41. LarryFine says:

    beerBoy says:
    January 19, 2011 at 5:19 am
    … going to various threads and posting the same question – that has been addressed on the first thread you posted it – demonstrates that you somehow think that this is a rhetorical question that will disrupt the thread. Rather troll-like of you.

  42. you think you say a lot when you actually offer very little. You are… no were good at stirring the pot but that has grow old…

    You got anything or am I looking at “wallpaper”?

  43. Next time we’ll post a “Wanted Dead or Alive Bounty” and let the XE’s paid Security Consultants, Mercenaries, and Bounty Hunters do our dirty work.

    PS: In the Old west most WDA bounties were posted by private companies such as Stage limes, Railroads, Banks etc.

    Maybe Halliburton and Big Oil and post a few bounties in return for more tax breaks.

  44. beerBoy says:

    xx – who is “you”?

  45. xx98411 says:

    aint “you”

  46. theglovesRoff says:

    Ooo ooo, I know…..

  47. beerBoy says:

    Speaking of the war of words over the war on terror:

    Who do they think we are, Oxymorons?

    Every US intervention is sold as serving beneficent ends. The latest is allegedly for strictly “humanitarian” reasons. This essayist argues that there’s always another purpose—and the public is the last to learn the truth]

    One of the greatest gifts of the War on Terrorism, everyone’s favorite war against an abstract concept, is the treasure trove of revisionist semantics we’ve received from Washington. We’ve learned that Homeland Security is best maintained by securing other peoples’ homelands abroad. We’ve learned, from the ‘Shock and Awe’ approach used in Iraq, that the most effective way to neutralize a Terrorist State is to Terrorize it into submission. But perhaps the most impressive hoodwinking on the semiotic front has been the naming of the overseas military operations themselves.

    Let’s do a brief recap. First, we had Operation Enduring Freedom, which, given its soon-after-9/11 context, was presumably about the endurance of American freedom. Then came Operation Iraqi Freedom, which, as the name suggests, was more about Iraqi freedom (but American freedom too, since one surely breeds the other). Last year saw the launch of Operation New Dawn, which touts a new American freedom: the freedom to stop worrying about Iraq.

    Finally, we had Operation Odyssey Dawn, which, as I understand it, was—is—a ‘journey’ to bring a ‘new day’ of freedom to Libya. Why an ‘Odyssey’? Because it takes place on the Mediterranean coast, of course. Certainly not because it will take 10 years to complete, and will be riddled with infinite setbacks and holdups, such as shipwrecks, cannibals, and six-headed monsters. At least we hope not.

    What all these catchy titles have in common is that they imply that all the overseas military operations are driven, in some way or another, by altruistic motives. Indeed, Washington has pitched the intervention in Libya as the most expressly humanitarian post-9/11 effort to date. Some will argue that the action in Libya isn’t a part of the War on Terror at all, but is an altogether different, multilateral enforcement of a lifesaving No-Fly Zone (it’s a NATO affair called Operation Unified Protector now, of course). But is it really all that different?


  48. KARDNOS says:

    Then there is Whinemaking…..

  49. KARDNOS, pedophilia is a horrible thing. No one here is trying to justify such a thing. My point is that all of this hand-wringing about killing that low-life terrorist and all of the questioning about whether he should have been taken out because he was fortunate enough to have an American citizenship is silly. My point is that no one asked those questions about Ruby Ridge or Waco did they? Was Janet Reno right to send in federal agencies with automatic weopons and tanks to take down a child molestor?

  50. beerBoy says:

    frosty – do you have a point? I don’t get your logic.

    Are you trying to say that the President having the power to sentence a citizen to death without any real legal process is appropriate because of the SNAFUs of Ruby Ridge and Waco?

    Or are you trying to say that those of us who think that this removal of pre-Magna Carta restriction upon the ruling sovereign is somehow suspect because of the government’s actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco?

    Your line of logic just doesn’t make any sense. Please explain what connections you are trying to make.

  51. xx98411 says:

    From Reuters… I am looking for more…

    “:American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

    There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.”

    and like I said…

    “The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama’s toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki’s killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

    In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush’s expansive use of executive power in his “war on terrorism,” is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

    … accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.”

    I like to think we are going to stop calling Bush a war criminal, Nazi or whatever now and please put Dick Cheney on your Christmas card list.

  52. beerBoy says:

    xx – So, you are saying that the imperial presidency is a good thing because it makes Cheney look good?

  53. Beerboy, I thought the logic was quite clear. When the Attorney General of the United States orders an assault on a compound that is inhabited by men, women and children without considering the possibility that innocent people may die, that goes beyond dereliction of duty, it’s pre-planned murder. I don’t care what the title of the person is that orders an all-out assault using armored vehicles and automatic weopons while knowing that there are innocent people inside is genocide, pure and simple. But the killing of one stinking terrorist has all the liberals quetioning the proactive elimination of a real threat. The people in Waco and Ruby Ridge were no threat to this country and never planned on flying airplanes into buildings. Clear enough?

  54. xx98411 says:

    bb – never said any such thing… not even close… not even Boones Farm close… not even Boones Farm, Olde English with a snort of cocaine close…

    dude, you are at least consistent in your position. Bush=War Criminal. Fast forward to Obama=War Criminal… my argument is not with you. Fine, in your world they are both criminals deserving some form of punishment, cool.

    My argument is with those in the shadows that have called Bush every unflattering name in the book. Disrepectful beyond all common decency…

    Now, fast forward to the boy king… we have a President who is doubling down on the policies and clearly embracing them as his own.

    So you ‘riggin Obama walk on water cheerleaders make the call, our President is either a War Criminal or a ballsy Commander in Chief…

    and by any non-twisted logic, if Obama got a set of brass ones then Bush was no War Criminal and at a bare minimum leave the man and his memory alone. Enough with the Bush bashing over the wars, etc… This should put that BS to rest.

  55. beerBoy says:

    not even Boones Farm close… not even Boones Farm, Olde English with a snort of cocaine close…


  56. theglovesRoff says:

    xx, I love you man. Tell it like it is.

    ::::::::Liberal Crickets Sound::::::::::

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0