Anwar al-Awlaki born in 1971 in New Mexico was an American citizen by birth. He was killed by a Hellfire missle in Yeman where he was busy making war against the United States.

Awlaki justified killing American civilians. He said:

“the American people live [in] a democratic system and that is why they are held responsible for their policies. The American people are the ones who have voted twice for Bush the criminal adnelected Obama, who is not different than Bush as his first remarks stated that he would not abandon Israel, despite the fact that there were other anti-war candidates in the US elections but they won very few votes. the American people take part in all it’s government’s crimes. If they oppose that, let them change their government. They pay the taxes which are spent on the army and they send their sons to the military, and that is why they bear responsibility.”

The same could be said for every culture and country that ever existed. But is it correct to hold every person responsible for the sins of the few? Is it correct to hold women and children who oppose war responsible to stop it?

There are civilian casualties in every war. But America is trying to eliminate the death of every non-essential person who is killed in the War on Terror.

President Obama has a different approach to winning the War Against America. Appeasement. His premise is: people hate America because America pushes around people. His solution seems to be to do nothing that will cause enemies to hate us and therefore they will stop killing Americans.

But it’s not working.

Should America stop trying to limit civilian casualties? Why? If the enemy want’s to hold every civilian responsible and Awlaki uses that claim to justify killing civilian targets, why should America try to avoid killing non-combatants?

America holds itself to a higher standard then do the enemies of America.

 

 

Hits: 10