Comments on: TERRORISTS: Article, headline showed bias

By: theglovesRoff

theglovesRoff — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 03:50:48 +0000

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

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

By: beerBoy

beerBoy — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:27:53 +0000

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

By: xx98411

xx98411 — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:32:35 +0000

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.

By: frosty

frosty — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:01:34 +0000

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?

By: beerBoy

beerBoy — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:58:46 +0000

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

By: xx98411

xx98411 — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 14:58:35 +0000

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.

By: beerBoy

beerBoy — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 12:47:39 +0000

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.

By: frosty

frosty — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:38:13 +0000

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?

By: KARDNOS

KARDNOS — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 16:47:07 +0000

Then there is Whinemaking…..

By: beerBoy

beerBoy — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:53:10 +0000

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?

http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/10/04/who-do-they-think-we-are-oxymorons-a-look-at-humanitarian-war/