You start off accusing me of knocking down a straw man, which I wasn't doing, then you proceed to pose straw man after straw man of your own. "Divine faith" in government? Not an accurate description of what I said. I suggest you re-read it if you're having comprehension problems. Also, I didn't accuse you of believing in particular conspiracy theories and was quite clear on that.
Sorry, you're not arguing honestly. In another thread you made the blanket, unqualified statement that no evidence exists of this man's guilt. Not that you haven't seen it, but that it doesn't exist. And you of course know very well if said evidence exists, there are good reasons why it can't be released. You're trying to take advantage of that fact to argue from ignorance, period. I get why you're suspicious, but your purported certainty of Awlaki's innocence is flatly dishonest. You're the one at the extreme here - claiming certainty - not me.
From what I do know of the man's behavior, which includes not only his advocacy of terrorism but also his hiding out in a portion of Yemen controlled by militants, it isn't a stretch for me to accept the administration's claim to have evidence. It's not exactly what I'd call an extraordinary claim. You know another man was killed along with him who was also engaged in militant rhetoric, right? Well the administration has flat out said that unlike Awlaki, they have no evidence of his direct participation in terrorism, and so far as they know, he was an innocent who was at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why bother admitting that? If they're lying about Awlaki, they could just as easily lie about him. They didn't have to admit to killing an innocent.
I'm not wedded to the conclusion that they have evidence. I could easily be persuaded otherwise. Past dishonestly on the part of the "government" doesn't cut it, however. Most of what you cite came from the previous administration, but even if it comes from the same administration, assessing "government" credibility is not the same as assessing the credibility of a person. A government is not honest or dishonest. It consists of different people, in different circumstances, over time. No, I'm not convinced that our government lies as a rule, i.e. most of the time and you have not established that. I'm convinced that what they claim should be viewed with caution.
I'm not sure what really would be the point of releasing the evidence anyway, even if doing so wouldn't jeopardize ongoing investigations. I doubt you and others like you would accept the authenticity of it anyway. After all, any evidence can be manipulated and/or faked. It would most likely consist of statements made by informants and recorded in written form. Those people could be fictitious. Your own premise is that the government lies by default. You'd have no reason to accept any of it.
What are these ridiculous rantings about who I'm voting for or not? You seem to have some kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" idea all worked out whereby if I vote for Obama, then I accept everything he says uncritically, and if I don't, then I'm being selective and inconsistent. Is that about right? Wow, I'm wrong no matter what I do, what a surprise. Man you're desperate to personalize this, and you sure seem to have a need to "win" at all costs. I'll tell you what, in the concocted scenario in your head where I can't win, you win. Feel better now?
You take the last word on this. It's getting old.
- wolf
Last edited: