n Libya, one of Gaddafi's sons was killed in a NATO airstrike against the command and control element of the Libyan Army headquarters. He was indeed, running part of the operations, and thus, one could say he had put himself in harm's way and became a legitimate target. When Saddam's Regime was under attack from the US during the War in Iraq both of his sons were killed, and also considered legitimate targets by US Forces.
Recently, when Osama bin Laden's secret compound in Pakistan was attacked by US Special Forces, Osama's son was killed during the raid, along with Osama himself. If his son shot an automatic weapon at the US Special Force Team then he would have made himself a legitimate target along with his father.
Let me pose a question in light of all these recent historical events; Are the sons of the enemy legitimate targets to get to the enemy leaders, declared jihadists and/or hostile dictators? Okay so let's talk.
On May 7, 2011 there was an interesting article in the New York Times titled; "Drone Strike in Yemen Was Aimed at Awlaki" by Mark Mazzetti which explained of the near-miss attempt to get Anwar al-Awlaki, and Anwar al-Awlaki's comment was he fears for the life of his son. Interesting, and perhaps he might have considered that before he and his coharts declared war or Jihad on the United States of America. Now then, are his fears justified? Yes, to a large extent they are, and it is not the United States' public policy to target the offspring of our enemies, as it is against what we stand for.
However, a son brought up by a father to hate the US and declare his life that of a jihadist, then in many regards that son is indeed a legitimate target. Anwar al-Awlaki has a choice to save himself, his family, and the ignorant recruited jihadists he's mindfully manipulated to join his dead-end cause. He can as a wise man, which he claims to be, call-off the jihad against the USA, and go into hiding.
In doing so, the US will focus on other declared enemies. Or he can continue to do what he is doing until there are no more anti-US jihadists on the planet and no more Al Qaeda.
Is the thought of losing a son also a deterrent to those who'd declare war on America? Should the US purposely go after the sons of such men? Can we legitimately use the "bad seed" theory in doing so? If we don't are we setting ourselves up to future evil doers in future generations? Indeed, these are all serious considerations, and I ask that you please consider all this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 23,100 articles was a lot of work - because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off..
Many dead in 'air strike on north Yemen refugee camp' by Al Jazeera English
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6250779
Recently, when Osama bin Laden's secret compound in Pakistan was attacked by US Special Forces, Osama's son was killed during the raid, along with Osama himself. If his son shot an automatic weapon at the US Special Force Team then he would have made himself a legitimate target along with his father.
Let me pose a question in light of all these recent historical events; Are the sons of the enemy legitimate targets to get to the enemy leaders, declared jihadists and/or hostile dictators? Okay so let's talk.
On May 7, 2011 there was an interesting article in the New York Times titled; "Drone Strike in Yemen Was Aimed at Awlaki" by Mark Mazzetti which explained of the near-miss attempt to get Anwar al-Awlaki, and Anwar al-Awlaki's comment was he fears for the life of his son. Interesting, and perhaps he might have considered that before he and his coharts declared war or Jihad on the United States of America. Now then, are his fears justified? Yes, to a large extent they are, and it is not the United States' public policy to target the offspring of our enemies, as it is against what we stand for.
However, a son brought up by a father to hate the US and declare his life that of a jihadist, then in many regards that son is indeed a legitimate target. Anwar al-Awlaki has a choice to save himself, his family, and the ignorant recruited jihadists he's mindfully manipulated to join his dead-end cause. He can as a wise man, which he claims to be, call-off the jihad against the USA, and go into hiding.
In doing so, the US will focus on other declared enemies. Or he can continue to do what he is doing until there are no more anti-US jihadists on the planet and no more Al Qaeda.
Is the thought of losing a son also a deterrent to those who'd declare war on America? Should the US purposely go after the sons of such men? Can we legitimately use the "bad seed" theory in doing so? If we don't are we setting ourselves up to future evil doers in future generations? Indeed, these are all serious considerations, and I ask that you please consider all this.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow believes writing 23,100 articles was a lot of work - because all the letters on his keyboard are now worn off..
Many dead in 'air strike on north Yemen refugee camp' by Al Jazeera English
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6250779
