When Robert Gibbs, former White House Press Secretary and a senior adviser to the Obama campaign, was asked why the administration killed the 16-year old son of suspected al-Qaeda member and US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki via a drone strike last year, he said it was the boy’s fault for having a father like Awlaki.
Anwar al-Awlaki was killed last year in a drone strike in Yemen ordered by the Obama administration. The killing made headlines particularly because Awlaki was an American citizen, but his constitutional rights to due process were thrown out the window in favor of simply assassinating him.
Awlaki’s 16-year old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was also a US citizen and was killed in a separate drone strike in Yemen weeks after his father’s death. Abdulrahman had not been accused of being a member of al-Qaeda or of any act against the United States that could conceivably motivate a US strike.
When pressed by reporters and independent journalists, Gibbs responded to questions about the Obama administration’s killing of the American boy by dismissing his life as virtually worthless and blaming his father, Anwar, for his son’s death by presidential decree.
“I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children,” Gibbs said. “I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.”
Gibbs dodged any further questioning on the issue, but in his answer defended the killing of a 16-year old American boy “not by arguing that the kid was a threat,” writes The Atlantic‘s Conor Friedersdorf, “or that killing him was an accident, but by saying that his late father irresponsibly joined al Qaeda terrorists.”
“Killing an American citizen without due process on that logic ought to be grounds for impeachment,” Friedersdorf adds.
So, in Gibb's mind-set the U.S. government is allowed to kill a young man of American citizenship because of his father's actions? Excuse me!
It is not just his logic. Have you seen anyone criticizing this in the media the same way they criticize Malala's attempted murder? The logic used for the two atrocities is identical.
Malala survived. This kid can't say the same. Goes to show you who's worse.
No, the logic is different. Malala was shot because of political acts she herself undertook. I do not condone that; I condemn it. But young Awlaki was killed for no reason other than who his father was and to point out to potential "terrorists" that their entire family could be wiped out if they crossed the US government.
Answer and actually the blatant idiocy of it shows only that Mr. Robert Gibbs is a stupid pig and he should be isolated somewhere in mental institution for extremely dangerous people. If he has a child he is definitely endangering it by his own elitist recklessness and stupidity. No child can change actions of his/her father or mother and should not be held accountable for them. Not even Mr. Gibbs's kids. This is barbarism – pure and simple.
Nits make lice. Eh, Gibbs. How very Nazi of you.
What a supreme asshole!
Gibbs must be related to the airborne turkey who wrote-off blasting toddlers with his chain gun by saying, "That's what they get for bringing their childen to a war zone."?
I'd guess he could 'blame' the parents of crippled and dead American soldiers for the same 'failing'.
Just think: using the same logic, Gerald Ford could have prevented the Obama presidency.
Or even better, Junior's. If he had, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.
The son was killed while having lunch with his teenage cousin at a restaurant. No word on how irresponsible the teenage cousin's father was.
Or of any other "casualties" anywhere else. But seeing as anyone killed in the vicinity is automatically branded a terrorist by default then they're SOL. What a miserable SOB this rat bastard is.
We, the rest of the world, don't give a fuck if he's an American citizen or not. Big deal being American anyway! The US has no right killing ANYBODY American or not. In any case it should have detained Awlaki and taken him to a court of law (a decent one and not a kangaroo court anyway). Besides, what does his son have to do with his father's doing? Anyway, these criminals in Washington and other western countries are creating a new set of rules whereby the children are guilty for their parents' offenses. This will come back to haunt them.
This logic is similar to the one used by the Swati Taliban against Malala. Why isn't there a similar outcry in the press and on TV?
Who's his daddy?
Using this twisted logic, can a person argue that the first daughters are now acceptable targets "for having a father like Barrack"? The hypocrisy of our government is sickening. Where is my barf bag?
The same racist logic is used to support the entire Afghan war.
Thanks for condemning yourself and the regime, Gibbs. It will expedite your trial at Nuremberg.
The drone 'hit' was not for Anwar al-Awlaki..it was for the super computer techs and hackers he had with him.
This strike, and this disinformation is a distraction ploy..and it's working stupendously.
~Blessed Be to all~
I'm not sure what was more disgusting, if the fact that he defended the act of terror or the fact that the blame the kid for having what's his name as a far. That was the height of arrogance and psychopathy. I suppose that by his standards, if someone whacked Obama's daughters, they would only have themselves to blame for having him as a father.