Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you can't MAKE a terrorist, just point a finger and NAME someone a terrorist?
Let's see, should it be guilt by provocation, or guilt by labeling?
Hey, whatever bakes your cookies!
Janet Napolitano's strongest wore, extremist, is one that she used to describe returning vets with early in her tenure. She didn't just call them that or point out that they were liable to cause trouble so the rest of us, even old ones, took her words to mean that we were likely terrorists, whoops extremists.
Now she isn't even an elected official so her calling us terrorists is at least as bad as Cheney calling al Qaeda members, terrorists. She didn't do much of a job of creating any terrorists with her proclamation, and in fact, she had to back down and apologize for her attempt to name terrorists.
Cheney damn near killed everything our nation stood for!
According to your words one would think that our nation stood for freeing and working with terrorists. That is what Maddow sounds like to me. I really do wonder what people like you will say when that court releases KSM because of some tiny affront of his rights by those nasty people who arrested him. I will bet that he wasn't read his Miranda rights at the time and, in fact, has never been read them. I guess you and Maddow don't consider taking the sides of individual terrorists as anything at all nonsensical. We sure do disagree about that one.
Yep, he knows they thrive on attention and he is more than willing, I think even happy, to keep giving it to them.
Has he apologized for releasing those two in 2007 yet?
I hadn't heard that Cheney released those two. I think that what people have been trying to do is to show that many of those who are released and rehabilitated return to their old ways as soon as they can. I think this is an attempt to prove that releasing them is nothing but recruitment for the ranks of terrorists.
Why must we release KSM because his "rights" may have been violated? Is there any chance that the rights of the violated people of 9/11 will ever be brought up?
That is the approach that the Obama administration seems to want to use, isn't it?
I prefer to think of it as 'starving the beast' rather than 'feeding' it.
I posted a link to a piece that detailed the steps that the Obama adminstration has taken this year to address the threat posed by Al Qaeda. It is already more than his predecessor did in two terms. The information is readily available if anyone cares to look for it.
Janet Napolitano's strongest wore, extremist, is one that she used to describe returning vets with early in her tenure. She didn't just call them that or point out that they were liable to cause trouble so the rest of us, even old ones, took her words to mean that we were likely terrorists, whoops extremists.
Now she isn't even an elected official so her calling us terrorists is at least as bad as Cheney calling al Qaeda members, terrorists. She didn't do much of a job of creating any terrorists with her proclamation, and in fact, she had to back down and apologize for her attempt to name terrorists.
According to your words one would think that our nation stood for freeing and working with terrorists. That is what Maddow sounds like to me. I really do wonder what people like you will say when that court releases KSM because of some tiny affront of his rights by those nasty people who arrested him. I will bet that he wasn't read his Miranda rights at the time and, in fact, has never been read them. I guess you and Maddow don't consider taking the sides of individual terrorists as anything at all nonsensical. We sure do disagree about that one.
Only the depraved and idiotic, "take sides".
After I explained to the judge, that the Safety Officer, while walking along with me in vehicular traffic, and constantly returning and steadying the opened boxes of hazardous materials to the flat dolly that were continuously falling into the roadway from pavement vibration, remarked that he might recommend that NIH purchase a dolly with sides, the judge said, "Sides?" "Did you say sides?" I said, "Yes, sides, s-i-d-e-s, sides!"
NIH had taken all sides from the dolly (the Dodge Caravan) - the same as when the Government took all sides of the Blackwater - Bagdad shooting case.
Sometimes, taking a side is OK, but taking "sides" can result in disaster.
I believe Cheney took all of the sides from the so-called terrorists.
I thought I'd just work this anecdote into this discussion "sideways" for an orthogonal view and consideration. Because, sometimes it's not easy to see the depth of a situation without the aid of an orthogonal view. This lack, can adversely affect a person's "situational awareness".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
