Obama Goes Easy on Shoe Bomber

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

---

exactamundo!

Its a new brand of extremism.

reply to post by FlyersFan

---

I guess you didn't understand that I could care less about Richard Reid or his conviction. He's nothing, he's not a "player" in anything. I could make Richard Reid my b**ch just by looking at him if I shared a prison cell with him(metaphorically speaking of course).

It's the small minded people that can only see things on a micro level that let the big players side because they don't have the mental ability to see things on a macro level.

My god, you fear a complete idiot that could of killed just a couple of hundred of people? Should we round up all idiots? Who determines who the idiots are? One million people have died in Iraq over a lie and you are concerned about this moron because you are "fearful" for you life. It's people like you who support the wide scale state sponsored terrorism that are the problem, not idiots like Richard(I like putting bombs in my shoe) Reid.

BTW, thank you for the very immature response to my Disneyland metaphor. You clearly don't get it which is understandable.

reply to post by FlyersFan

---

Didn't know that one man(literally just some random one guy) could declare war on a nation. I'm way more frightened by people like you than people like R. Reid.

Flyersfan, you are just plain silly. I can't read your posts anymore.

Again ... off topic. This thread is about a CONVICTED TERRORIST who is in the system here and this is about Obama and his justice dept going soft on the terrorist who is in prison.


You are the only one spewing partisan bunk.
(and throwing off topic personal insults which is against the rules here)
And you are assuming and telling lies.
Grow up and stop spamming the boards with poor deflection attempts.

The topic is - Obama goes easy on Shoe Bomber.


He tried to blow up a plane full of people.
He was convicted and is proud of his conviction.
He has never renounced Jihad against the West.
He COULD be a threat if given the opportunity.
Therefore it is best to keep him from contact with other jihadists.
Common sense.


That you are apathetic towards him is very clear. But your apathy towards a man convicted of attempting to mass murder hundreds of people, and the apathy of the Obama administration is beyond inexcusable.


My god, you don't see that jihadists love useful idiots?


It's people like you who support freedoms for jihadists that put us all in danger.

It's people like you who label Richard Reid an 'idiot' but deflect from using the proper term - TERRORIST CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED MURDER OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE - that are the problem.

Unfortunately the moron in the Oval Office thinks like you.
It'll eventually lead to the death of thousands of innocent people.

He had connections and was taking orders. It all came out in the trial.
Even if he had been alone in his jihad (which he's not), that doesn't make him any less dangerous. He tried to kill hundreds of people. He'd do it again if given the chance. He's proud of it.

Allowing him to correspond with other jihadists and allowing him to comingle with them is NOT a good idea. It's freak'n stupid.


And you are thick in the head. Whatever. Bu-bye.

Yet another poor deflection attempt.

FACT - Obama is going easy on convicted terrorists.
FACT - Exposing that is not 'spewing or regurgitating'.
FACT - Your pathetic attempts at deflection are transparent.

Are you ever going to actually get on topic and stop trolling the thread?
Probably not.
Obviously the truth of the subject is too much for you to handle.
Otherwise you wouldn't be spewing so many off topic personal insults and deflections.

It does not happen all the time. The United States frequently chooses an ideological enemy which ultimately justifies involvement in several violent conflicts before the raison d'être loses luster. That does not mean that it's logical, rational, or sensible (except in the context of pursuing an unspoken agenda, of course). Referring specifically to Radical Islam: so what? They are at war with everyone. So was Charles Manson. The premise of your argument does not logically lead to the conclusion that we must make exceptions in our legal system and invade other countries. You just talk as if it does.



But you're arguing in the affirmative. If I have my doubts, you have the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if my doubts are subjective or objective -- I am raising question to your casual claims. Deal with it.

As an aside, since when does 'taking orders' make you 'well connected'?



Seriously: I went on to say that all of his communications would be monitored, thus eliminating the argument that a credible threat exists and suggesting he'd really just be doing us a favor if he was so ignorant. You then go on to argue this? Why didn't you quote me in full? What was your motivation here? Straw man, or something even more manipulative?



You invite the philosophical exploration by making sweeping statements, so don't scold people for going off topic unless you want to crown yourself king hypocrite. First of all, you've failed to argue convincingly that our legal system is unequipped to handle the crime of terrorism. Secondly, you make sweeping claims with no evidence. Bad form.

Seems every time someone politely questions you, you a.) ignore the meat of their inquiry, and b.) resort to belittling remarks and sweeping generalizations. Clearly this tactic is effective as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are remarkably successful, but it is still devoid of academic merit and will ultimately be reflected in history as polemic with a deficit of value. You choose what kind of a role you want to play, my friend, but you'll continue to hear remarks like mine until you are deaf to all dissent. The only people who respect this sort of conduct already agree with you so strongly that they're just itching to see their opponents scolded and belittled. Preaching to the choir. Did you know that self righteousness causes an addictive rush of dopamine?

[edit on 2-8-2009 by JohnnyElohim]

Please see revised (and more productive) reply below.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by JohnnyElohim]

That's not a fact. That's the opinion you are presenting and need to support. To that end you've repeatedly ignored a whole spectrum of arguments which essentially maintain that staying within the bounds of our legal system and constitution is hardly "going easy", and that no convincing evidence has been presented suggesting that a credible threat results from doing such. You are quite the propagandist, though.

I've revised this reply to be more constructive. What follows is the revision.

Here's how you would state the fact of the matter:

"Obama has selected people to work within the administration whose opinions and policies make me uncomfortable, such that I think they amount to going easy on convicted terrorists."

That is a fact. "Obama is going easy on convicted terrorists," is the conclusion you want your audience to concur with, but it is hardly an undisputed fact. Surely you can appreciate the difference.

It certainly does happen all the time.
We go to war with people of different ideologies - ALL the time.
Nazis. The communist Chinese by proxy in Vietnam.
And now the world is at war with those who practice radical Islam.


It means he's not 'stand alone' which was what the previous poster said.


Don't get paranoid. Simply that the basic part of what you were saying got quoted and we are not supposed to over quote.


Did I say that it was unequipped? No. What I said was that Obama and his justice department were SOFT ON TERRORISTS. I further stated that by allowing the unrepentant jihadists access to each other via correspondence and via the prison system would not be good. Prisoners plot. It's what they do. That's common sense. Also, the guy was convicted of trying to mass murder hundreds of people, he should be PUNISHED .. not given freedoms that innocent people enjoy. He's in jail for punishment, not for his own enjoyment.


Wrong. I presented the evidence that Obama has appointed people soft on terrorists in his justice dept and I presented the evidence that the justice dept bowed to The Shoe Bombers hunger strike.


'Politely' questions me on the topic ??? where?

FACTS -

The topic is simple - Obama goes easy on shoe bomber.

The truth about the shoe bomber - he's been convicted of trying to mass murder hundreds of people. He's unrepentant. He said he'd do it again if he could. He's proud of this.

Trolls step in and blather on and on about off topic partisan bunk.

Those are the facts of this thread.

If you wish to discuss 'Obama goes easy on the shoe bomber' ... great.
If you just wish to spout off topic partisan bunk and personal insults ... then that's just trolling and against T&C.



1 - The title of the article was 'Obama goes easy on shoe bomber'. I quoted the title exactly as it was which is following the T&C of this board.

2 - I agree with the title of the article.

3 - 'make me uncomfortable'??? That's lame.

4 - He picked people in the justice department who are notoriously easy on terrorists. Not just radical islamic terrorists, but on others as well (I made note of that earlier). Obama could have picked people who are tough on convicted terrorists .. but he didn't.

5 - Obama's justice dept bowed to the Shoe Bombers hunger strike. (they should have let him martyr himself.)

6 - The rational conclusion is - Obama knew that the people he picked in the justice dept were soft on terrorists and therefore - Obama is easy on the shoe bomber.

ANYONE care to show me how Obama is tough on the Shoe Bomber?


[edit on 8/2/2009 by FlyersFan]

Thanks for your reply.


What you haven't shown is how these examples are analogous. The Nazis are not analogous. The communist Chinese are not analogous. Further, it is not America-hating to suggest that we haven't always done the right thing, nor have we always done what we've done for the right reasons.


I had made a remark saying he was not well-connected. You cited the fact that he had taken orders. I was pointing out the difference.


Ah, but underquoting has the obvious danger of omitting critical context, as in this case.


You implied 'normal' prison is not enough for Richard Reid. I disagreed. I've also made a point you've yet to rebut as to why him being allowed the same communication privileges other prisoners receive is not a threat.



It's the 'soft' part that's yet to be made apparent.


My initial opposition was quite polite.


From one limited standpoint, certainly. But I'm not being partisan, and I have merely argued that normal prison is enough for Richard Reid. That I'm not satisfied with the evidence. That I disagree with you. Now I'm a troll? You've conveniently discarded the strongest aspects of my argument and resorted to general character attacks. We can't tell upon whom, of course: you are painting all of your opponents with the same broad brush.



But I have been this entire time. You just don't like what I'm saying about it.



I repeat: your definitions of "tough" and "soft" are hardly the gold standard.



Why? Isn't the point to bring these people to justice? The same justice we bring everyone else to? Why a different kind of justice here?



I think Obama picked people who value the rule of law and the preservation of certain principles above the instant gratification of cruel treatment.



One needn't prove the negative opinion to question the positive.

Having said all of that in reply to you, I'd just like to offer where I'm coming from.

I feel very strongly that the best thing we can do to diffuse the threat of any force which traffics upon our evil deeds and pays no mind to our good deeds is to apply our principles even to our enemies. I believe that showing humility and mercy is always a worthy endeavor regardless of who you are showing it to. I understand that doing this exposes you to risk. Doing most good things exposes you to risk: there is a price to be paid for having principles.

The nation we live in has done both great good and great evil. The key to improving our lot and everyone else's is always questioning our treatment of others. It's always trying to be the better party. Here's the deal: it is always easier to change your own actions and behavior than it is to force someone else to change theirs. Some argue that in this time of weakness inward facing criticism is somehow a danger, somehow something to be avoided. Well I put to you: what exactly do you think made us strong to begin with? Patting ourselves on the back for a job well done?

When Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement was making it's mark on history, I have no doubt that there were plenty of arguments to be made that more egregious racism was occurring elsewhere in the world. That our resources were in fact better spent defending the status quo. That in some sense, we should instead be policing those whose crimes are most egregious, not criticizing our own seemingly minor faults. Which side of the argument won? Which world would you rather live in?

Today it's become chic to suggest that if one is a scoundrel, we treat them like a dog. But our only real claim to 'moral superiority' (if such a thing could be said to exist) is our uncompromising adherence to certain principles: that even enemies in war are deserving of humane treatment once the threat has been removed. That using an evil weapon (like torture) is always wrong even if your enemies don't hesitate to to use it themselves. Even if it gives them an advantage.

It's hard to have empathy for your enemy. Some fear that to even attempt to understand your enemy is to become a little like him. But I think that's the irony. I think this is the rub: every moment you turn your back on those principles, you become a little more like they are. Every moment you embody them, they may become a little more like you. So it's very simple. Do the right thing whether faced with the virtuous or the vile.

Well,

then I hope he will halt the extradition of Gary McKinnon !