MSNBC talking head hoped the Times Square car bomber was not a jihadist:
I'm just glad he wasn't an Oklahoma Tea Partier. Or state legislator. ;)
Contessa Brewer = hottie.
Why is she an idiot for wishing it wasn't a jihadist?
Quote from: we vs us on May 04, 2010, 09:40:11 PM
Contessa Brewer = hottie.
Why is she an idiot for wishing it wasn't a jihadist?
Because Gweed wants it to be so he can blame the POTUS for it.
Oh wait, he blames him for everything else....never mind.
Bloomberg sounded like an idiot as well.....
Quote from: we vs us on May 04, 2010, 09:40:11 PM
Contessa Brewer = hottie.
Why is she an idiot for wishing it wasn't a jihadist?
Because she, along with Bloomberg, and Rep. Nadler desperately wanted this attack to have come from an American so they can finally point to a teabagger (or some other right wing nutjob) as being violent because as of today that meme is as phony as your inquiry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/03/democrat_rep_nadler_speculates_right-wing_behind_ny_car_bomb_attempt.html
Believe it or not, we are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Those three bozos do not want to accept that fact.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 09:14:44 AM
Because she, along with Bloomberg, and Rep. Nadler desperately wanted this attack to have come from an American
Well, the suspect *is* an American.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 05, 2010, 09:36:08 AM
Well, the suspect *is* an American.
You are correct, but I gather you know what I meant.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on May 05, 2010, 09:36:08 AM
Well, the suspect *is* an American.
Legally, yes. Pakistani-born. His purpose in gaining American citizenship in the first place, no idea.
Somehow I don't think he would have fit into the Tea Party movement.
I think it's a shame we are too afraid to go ahead and strip citizenship and deport potential asshat terrorists who wind up on "no-fly" lists because we don't want to hurt their tender wittle feewings.
This is what I am talking about:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6Unz6USU
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 09:49:13 AM
This is what I am talking about:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6Unz6USU
His little UFO rant, especially at the end reminded me of a recent thought I had about the irony of the cynics of the Viet Nam era who were saying "don't trust the government" now either directly running or having very good influence on the people who are running the country these days.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 05, 2010, 09:46:01 AM
Legally, yes. Pakistani-born. His purpose in gaining American citizenship in the first place, no idea.
Somehow I don't think he would have fit into the Tea Party movement.
I think it's a shame we are too afraid to go ahead and strip citizenship and deport potential asshat terrorists who wind up on "no-fly" lists because we don't want to hurt their tender wittle feewings.
Well, if we'd used the no-fly list, we'd have ended up deporting Senator Kennedy among others.
It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, despite what Rush/Glenn likes to say. It's more about protecting Constitutional rights, etc. But you know that. It's not a new argument. It seems like maybe you think some of those rights and protections are extraneous or perhaps not needed in certain cases. That's actually the argument that Rush/Glenn don't want to get into, which is how much of our rights they actually value, and for whom.
Quote from: we vs us on May 05, 2010, 09:58:28 AM
Well, if we'd used the no-fly list, we'd have ended up deporting Senator Kennedy among others.
It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, despite what Rush/Glenn likes to say. It's more about protecting Constitutional rights, etc. But you know that. It's not a new argument. It seems like maybe you think some of those rights and protections are extraneous or perhaps not needed in certain cases. That's actually the argument that Rush/Glenn don't want to get into, which is how much of our rights they actually value, and for whom.
You must listen to Rush and Glenn a whole lot more than I do, I have no clue what you are talking about.
Quote from: we vs us on May 05, 2010, 09:58:28 AM
Well, if we'd used the no-fly list, we'd have ended up deporting Senator Kennedy among others.
It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, despite what Rush/Glenn likes to say. It's more about protecting Constitutional rights, etc. But you know that. It's not a new argument. It seems like maybe you think some of those rights and protections are extraneous or perhaps not needed in certain cases. That's actually the argument that Rush/Glenn don't want to get into, which is how much of our rights they actually value, and for whom.
This man and perhaps as many as 200 other like him could not be reached for comment re: their constitutional rights:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/05/The_Falling_Man.jpg/200px-The_Falling_Man.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 11:33:07 AM
This man and perhaps as many as 200 other like him could not be reached for comment re: their constitutional rights:
That's pretty low, even for you, guido. If you can't make a case for doing something (or not doing something) without invoking the memory of dead people, it's a sign you need to come up with better arguments.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 11:33:07 AM
This man and perhaps as many as 200 other like him could not be reached for comment re: their constitutional rights:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/05/The_Falling_Man.jpg/200px-The_Falling_Man.jpg)
This photo is your own personal Godwin, I swear. As soon as you post this (predictably) in a national security thread, it's like you immediately lose the argument.
Quote from: nathanm on May 05, 2010, 01:06:06 PM
That's pretty low, even for you, guido. If you can't make a case for doing something (or not doing something) without invoking the memory of dead people, it's a sign you need to come up with better arguments.
Not true. I think people forget too easily what is at stake when they worry about "profiling" and have more concern for the rights of non-citizens than the rights of citizens. It's a shocking reminder that some people apparently don't like.
Complacency throughout history has given us such fine leaders as Adolph Hitler and rise to such fine political organizations as the Nazi party.
Quote from: nathanm on May 05, 2010, 01:06:06 PM
That's pretty low, even for you, guido. If you can't make a case for doing something (or not doing something) without invoking the memory of dead people innocent Americans murdered by Islamic terrorists...
Fixed that for you. I can understand though how you could make that mistake.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 05, 2010, 01:16:56 PM
Not true. I think people forget too easily what is at stake when they worry about "profiling" and have more concern for the rights of non-citizens than the rights of citizens. It's a shocking reminder that some people apparently don't like.
Complacency throughout history has given us such fine leaders as Adolph Hitler and rise to such fine political organizations as the Nazi party.
As I have said on occasion, I truly believe there are people in this country who are willing to sacrifice their neighbors' or even their families' lives by ignoring/forgetting/coddling these terrorist monsters. I mean, how many more near misses such as this car bombing or crotch bombing and direct hits such as the Fort Hood massacre must we endure while continuing to hear the ramblings of the protection of a terrorist (or even possible) terrorist's rights?
Posting that pic doesn't do anything for anyone. It's a cheap way to lessen both your argument and the tragedy of that day. Because we don't agree with you we should be cudgeled with your personal gif file of 9/11 porn? It's a disgusting use of that day, and disgusting that you should think that we've somehow "forgotten" 9/11 when we disagree about its meanings.
Quote from: we vs us on May 05, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
Posting that pic doesn't do anything for anyone. It's a cheap way to lessen both your argument and the tragedy of that day. Because we don't agree with you we should be cudgeled with your personal gif file of 9/11 porn? It's a disgusting use of that day, and disgusting that you should think that we've somehow "forgotten" 9/11 when we disagree about its meanings.
9/11 porn? Those were Americans that died that day and you call photos of them losing their lives, porn? At least I now I know what kind of a person you really are; a detestable anti-American jerk. And another thing, 9/11 was not a "tragedy". Katrina was a "tragedy". Folks like you cannot distinguish a tragedy from what war and mass murder is have no business criticizing another person's argument.
Quote from: we vs us on May 05, 2010, 01:59:47 PM
Posting that pic doesn't do anything for anyone. It's a cheap way to lessen both your argument and the tragedy of that day. Because we don't agree with you we should be cudgeled with your personal gif file of 9/11 porn? It's a disgusting use of that day, and disgusting that you should think that we've somehow "forgotten" 9/11 when we disagree about its meanings.
Rhetorical question. How do you feel about crime scene and victim photos being used in murder and rape trials for evidence and during the sentencing phase?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 05, 2010, 02:14:26 PM
Rhetorical question. How do you feel about crime scene and victim photos being used in murder and rape trials for evidence and during the sentencing phase?
I'm cool with it. It serves dual purposes, one of which I don't like but the other of which I regard as essential to the process. The part I don't like is it becomes incendiary and an appeal to the emotions when I'd prefer the legal process to be about reason and ration. The part that is essential is that it's strong evidence of the act. So yeah, show the pics. I think it can be unsavory at times, but the good outweighs the bad.
It doesn't have much to do with the 9/11 pics, though. Those pics aren't evidentiary. I know what happened and who did it, just like you do. Guido's misread is that he needs to remind me of his opinion of what happened, but thinks that my disagreement means that I forgot. I didn't forget. I remember the day perfectly, and I've been paying attention avidly since then. I just think his opinion is wrong.
EDIT: And yeah, Guido; used in the context above, that pic is most definitely 9/11 porn.
Quote from: we vs us on May 05, 2010, 03:15:24 PM
I'm cool with it. It serves dual purposes, one of which I don't like but the other of which I regard as essential to the process. The part I don't like is it becomes incendiary and an appeal to the emotions when I'd prefer the legal process to be about reason and ration. The part that is essential is that it's strong evidence of the act. So yeah, show the pics. I think it can be unsavory at times, but the good outweighs the bad.
It doesn't have much to do with the 9/11 pics, though. Those pics aren't evidentiary. I know what happened and who did it, just like you do. Guido's misread is that he needs to remind me of his opinion of what happened, but thinks that my disagreement means that I forgot. I didn't forget. I remember the day perfectly, and I've been paying attention avidly since then. I just think his opinion is wrong.
EDIT: And yeah, Guido; used in the context above, that pic is most definitely 9/11 porn.
It reminds me a little of the way Mayor Guiliani used 9/11 at every step on his Presidential campaign.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 09:14:44 AM
Because she, along with Bloomberg, and Rep. Nadler desperately wanted this attack to have come from an American so they can finally point to a teabagger (or some other right wing nutjob) as being violent because as of today that meme is as phony as your inquiry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/03/democrat_rep_nadler_speculates_right-wing_behind_ny_car_bomb_attempt.html
Believe it or not, we are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Those three bozos do not want to accept that fact.
My, how conveniently you forget about Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and the like....
It always surprises me when people who
live in Oklahoma still seem to think the war against terror only involves radical islamists.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 05:30:57 PM
My, how conveniently you forget about Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and the like....
It always surprises me when people who live in Oklahoma still seem to think the war against terror only involves radical islamists.
I also conveniently forgot about the first WTC bombing, the bombing of the Khobar towers (19 dead), the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (More than 250 dead/thousands injured), bombing of U.S.S. Cole (17 dead), and heck, let's throw in the Beirut barracks bombing (nearly 300 dead). I also conveniently forgot about the eco-terrorist organization ELF and the Weather Underground. I left all of those off, as well as OKC, because my point was that an MSNBC host was disappointed that the NYC car bomber was not a right wing nut but rather another Islamic terrorist.
Here is a campaign ad pertaining to profiling:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/05/does_this_look_like_a_terrorist_gop_candidate_advocates_racial_profiling_in_controversial_ads_.html
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 05:54:10 PM
I also conveniently forgot about the first WTC bombing, the bombing of the Khobar towers (19 dead), the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (More than 250 dead/thousands injured), bombing of U.S.S. Cole (17 dead), and heck, let's throw in the Beirut barracks bombing (nearly 300 dead). I also conveniently forgot about the eco-terrorist organization ELF and the Weather Underground. I left all of those off, as well as OKC, because my point was that an MSNBC host was disappointed that the NYC car bomber was not a right wing nut but rather another Islamic terrorist.
Here is a campaign ad pertaining to profiling:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/05/does_this_look_like_a_terrorist_gop_candidate_advocates_racial_profiling_in_controversial_ads_.html
You specifically said "we are at war with Islamic terrorists."
My point was that anyone (especially from Oklahoma!) should know that these days, a terrorist attack could just as easily be domestic or foreign grown, Islamic or Christian identified. This one in particular is an example of a domestic terrorist with Islamic ties. He was a legal citizen of the US, was he not?
Which begs to ask the question: What does a
domestic terrorist look like?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 06:11:47 PM
You specifically said "we are at war with Islamic terrorists."
My point was that anyone (especially from Oklahoma!) should know that these days, a terrorist attack could just as easily be domestic or foreign grown, Islamic or Christian identified. This one in particular is an example of a domestic terrorist with Islamic ties. He was a legal citizen of the US, was he not?
Which begs to ask the question: What does a domestic terrorist look like?
First, I thought Shahzad was born in Pakistan and became a naturalized citizen. Second, I think you are turning the subject away from Contessa Brewer, Mike Malloy, Bloomberg and Nadler either accusing or hoping the Times Square attack was from a right winger to something entirely different (unless you were hoping it was a right winger too). More to your point, whether the terrorist is domestic or foreign grown is of little significance given that the bottom line is that four mass casualty terrorist acts occurring in less than ten months (I am throwing in the thwarted NY subway bombing) were all perpetrated by Islamic extremists.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 06:48:54 PM
First, I thought Shahzad was born in Pakistan and became a naturalized citizen. Second, I think you are turning the subject away from Contessa Brewer, Mike Malloy, Bloomberg and Nadler either accusing or hoping the Times Square attack was from a right winger to something entirely different (unless you were hoping it was a right winger too). More to your point, whether the terrorist is domestic or foreign grown is of little significance given that the bottom line is that four mass casualty terrorist acts occurring in less than ten months (I am throwing in the thwarted NY subway bombing) were all perpetrated by Islamic extremists.
Yep, he was a legal naturalized US citizen, who was born in Pakistan. There's lots of those here in the US- and many aren't actually terrorists believe it or not.
"Mass casualty terrorist acts"
....Who died, exactly?
Oh and then there's these, also within the last several months:
The Austin IRS attack.
The Holocaust Memorial shooting.
The Wichita Kansas Anti-abortion shooting.
People died in each one of those domestic terror attacks. So if you're keeping score over the last several months, (or more accurately, since the beginning of the Obama administration) the 'right-wing nut jobs' are actually winning.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 07:14:40 PM
Yep, he was a legal naturalized US citizen, who was born in Pakistan. There's lots of those here in the US- and many aren't actually terrorists believe it or not.
"Mass casualty terrorist acts"
....Who died, exactly?
Oh and then there's these, also within the last several months:
The Austin IRS attack.
The Holocaust Memorial shooting.
The Wichita Kansas Anti-abortion shooting.
People died in each one of those domestic terror attacks. So if you're keeping score over the last several months, (or more accurately, since the beginning of the Obama administration) the 'right-wing nut jobs' are actually winning.
And then there's the Arkansas recruiter shooting (1 dead):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/
Oh, and who exactly died? How about 14 at Fort Hood. Thanks for the softball.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 07:22:31 PM
And then there's the Arkansas recruiter shooting (1 dead):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/arkansas.recruiter.shooting/
Oh, and who exactly died? How about 14 at Fort Hood. Thanks for the softball.
My apologies- I didn't realize Ft. Hood was one of your 4.
That was a horrible massacre, and was carried out by a U.S. born citizen from Virginia who was a practicing Muslim.
I'm not making light of any terrorist attack- my point being rather that there is not any one religious, racial or national group you can point a finger at.
Again, what does a domestic terrorist look like?
It's funny to watch the libby's in this thread bring their butter knives to a gun fight.....
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 07:34:26 PM
My apologies- I didn't realize Ft. Hood was one of your 4.
That was a horrible massacre, and was carried out by a U.S. born citizen from Virginia who was a practicing Muslim.
I'm not making light of any terrorist attack- my point being rather that there is not any one religious, racial or national group you can point a finger at.
Again, what does a domestic terrorist look like?
I have no idea what a "domestic terrorist" looks like. Unfortunately, we do know what nearly all Islamic terrorists look like (thus far). Still, the point in this thread (before it got taken over by ideology-yes I'm guilty too) was the media's and certain politician's hopes that is was an American nutjob. However, what I have seen are folks on both sides comparing the acts of the 9/11 terrorists, which resulted in thousands dead and injured, billions in property damage, at least one war, and the war on terror, to certain acts by very fringe elements of both the right and left. Just curious, after the OKC bombing, was a war on terror declared by Clinton?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 07:14:40 PM
So if you're keeping score over the last several months, (or more accurately, since the beginning of the Obama administration) the 'right-wing nut jobs' are actually winning.
That type of stereotyping deserves a reprimand. It sounds like you are saying that foreign terrorists are inept compared to our homegrown terrorists. Do you think foreign terrorists are stupid?
Shame on you.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 08:50:01 PM
I have no idea what a "domestic terrorist" looks like. Unfortunately, we do know what nearly all Islamic terrorists look like (thus far). Still, the point in this thread (before it got taken over by ideology-yes I'm guilty too) was the media's and certain politician's hopes that is was an American nutjob. However, what I have seen are folks on both sides comparing the acts of the 9/11 terrorists, which resulted in thousands dead and injured, billions in property damage, at least one war, and the war on terror, to certain acts by very fringe elements of both the right and left. Just curious, after the OKC bombing, was a war on terror declared by Clinton?
I don't think there can be any 'comparison' to 9/11, and I hope it stays that way.
But I guess my point was that this attempted act of terror, along with many other successful acts, were carried out by
American nutjobs!
Who should Clinton have declared war on? The same could have been asked for Bush. Usually when declaring war it is advantageous to know exactly who it is you are fighting and why.
Quote from: guido911 on May 05, 2010, 08:50:01 PM
I have no idea what a "domestic terrorist" looks like. Unfortunately, we do know what nearly all Islamic terrorists look like (thus far).
Yep, because there is no way an Islamic extremist can be blue eyed, blonde haired and light skin. Oh wait....
(http://www.mcall.com/media/photo/2010-03/121117660-10023128.jpg)
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 09:25:00 PM
Usually when declaring war it is advantageous to know exactly who it is you are fighting and why.
I believe we know pretty much who. We probably disagree with them on why. The problem is where. Unlike the British during our Revolutionary War, the modern terrorists, many of which have a particular claimed religious affiliation, don't wear red coats and march in columns. The fact that there are other groups that use violence doesn't diminish the fact that those with a claimed religious affiliation use violence. Ignoring them would be similar to ignoring either Germany or Japan during WWII. (Referring to the use of violence, not claimed religious affiliation.)
Quote from: custosnox on May 05, 2010, 09:33:17 PM
Yep, because there is no way an Islamic extremist can be blue eyed, blonde haired and light skin. Oh wait....
(http://www.mcall.com/media/photo/2010-03/121117660-10023128.jpg)
Dyed hair, bleached skin, cosmetic surgery, colored contact lenses.
Statistics and probability don't guarantee anything but they give you a better chance of being correct.
If you cannot believe that, you had better find a big uncivilized space and become a hunter gatherer. Oops, even they relied on something other than pure chance to survive.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 05, 2010, 09:39:53 PM
The fact that there are other groups that use violence doesn't diminish the fact that those with a claimed religious affiliation use violence.
The fact that there are Christians who use violence doesn't diminish the fact that there are muslims who use violence? Ok... I agree.
Also, I don't think we should be ignoring anyone who attacks and kills US citizens for the sake of religious convictions, regardless of the religion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 05, 2010, 08:54:57 PM
That type of stereotyping deserves a reprimand. It sounds like you are saying that foreign terrorists are inept compared to our homegrown terrorists. Do you think foreign terrorists are stupid?
Shame on you.
You just made my day...
Quote from: azbadpuppy on May 05, 2010, 07:14:40 PM
The Austin IRS attack.
The Holocaust Memorial shooting.
The Wichita Kansas Anti-abortion shooting.
People died in each one of those domestic terror attacks. So if you're keeping score over the last several months, (or more accurately, since the beginning of the Obama administration) the 'right-wing nut jobs' are actually winning.
So then are school shootings terrorist attacks? It's usually disaffected losers singling out soc's, so that's sending a message of terror to the snobs, yes?
I agree terrorism doesn't necessarily have to come from non-citizens, but I think the left has really stretched to call these incidents you mentioned "terrorist" attacks. We can split hairs all we like but too much of this has been to try and squarely paste the perpetrators of these unrelated crimes as Tea Partiers or ultra right wing conservatives.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 06, 2010, 08:58:10 AM
So then are school shootings terrorist attacks? It's usually disaffected losers singling out soc's, so that's sending a message of terror to the snobs, yes?
I agree terrorism doesn't necessarily have to come from non-citizens, but I think the left has really stretched to call these incidents you mentioned "terrorist" attacks. We can split hairs all we like but too much of this has been to try and squarely paste the perpetrators of these unrelated crimes as Tea Partiers or ultra right wing conservatives.
Uhhh... Really. You are questioning flying a plane into a government building as a terrorist attack? Just as long as it isn't a financial building in NYC?