Hopefully the socialist apologist from the south side Chicago Ayers school, will come home before he embrasses the chit out of the country anymore than he has allready. All over Europe he is giving speeches apologizing for our arrogance. Europe from the west coast of France all the way to the pacific would be called Russia if it wasn't for millions of our soldiers, and O'Bama is appologizing. He can't have any Irish in him or he wouldn't being bowing or appologizing to anyone. In 1945, we should have made France and England states. Like Gingrich said tonight, the only thing we asked for in 1945 was space enough on there soil to bury our dead. O'Bama is a dreadful mistake.

AMEN !

I just saw the whole "bow" thing. Thats pretty lame. This country BOWS for no one.
They should be bowing to us since we built there country for them

Whats the harm in humility?

I was told, that you catch more flies with honey, than you do with salt.

Times have changed, we f----ed the global financial system. Oops our bad, please help.

Whats the harm in humility?

I was told, that you catch more flies with honey, than you do with salt.

wow, thats sad. Humility to a monarch that opresses his people. I guess the Queen of England did not warrant the humility. Her boys only died alongside ours in the wash of the Normandy shores and African desserts.

wow, thats sad. Humility to a monarch that opresses his people. I guess the Queen of England did not warrant the humility.

I dont get it. We have had a very chummy relationship with Saudi Arabia since our geologist discovered oil there eighty years ago. Billions, if not trillions, exhanged. Lots of Texas oilmen got rich off capital investments in Saudi Arabia and vice versa with regard to Financial services in this country. And now were supposed to treat their King (who is no ceremonial figure head like the Queen of England) like some third world chump. Its the epicenter of islam, which, by the way, places considerable emphasis on humility. Hubris is not heralded as a virtue.

Her boys only died alongside ours in the wash of the Normandy shores and African desserts.

Well thats is certainly true, they were killed by germans. So what would you have him do to Angela Merkel...put her in the headlock till she taps out.

third world chump?
NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER BOWED TO ROYALTY EVER!

Im not saying blow the guy off, but a bow is a symbol of servitude, not respect. Who gives a $hit what Mulsims place humitlty as? You libs will be the first one crying separation of church and state if the government does ANYTHING based on religion, this is different? WTF

Right. Because when an American is in the room, he should be the most respected person regardless of who's country it is.

This prideful arrogance promoted by Bush is why the world hates Americans. Time for you guys to get off your pedestal and learn some humility.

And this statement is false:
third world chump?
NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER BOWED TO ROYALTY EVER!
as US Presidents have bowed to the British Royalty before.

And this statement is false:

as US Presidents have bowed to the British Royalty before.

Prove it. And dont show me the picture fo Bush lowering his head while a medal is placed around his neck.
The pride and arrogance is not Bush, it has been in place for ALL Presidents. Its called holding a positon of authority.

Damn it,, Bush did bow to the Saudi King, I looked it up, trying to prove that JohnnyD was full of crap, but in this case he is correct.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/ZZ72682359.jpg

had you going there huh, thought I slipped and hit my head and became a liberal.... nope.

read on,

Bush didn't bow as in servitude, he is lowering his head to receive a medal from the Saudi King.
Here's the actual video, that is so often taken out of context to say Bush bowed to him. OUR PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BOW TO ANYONE.
http://imagesource.cnn.com/imagesource/player.swf?streamer=rtmp://isfms.cnn.com/vod&file=mp4:895/05281895&type=video&controlbar=none&autostart=true&width=480&height=324

The pride and arrogance is not Bush, it has been in place for ALL Presidents. Its called holding a positon of authority.
This is perhaps the dumbest thing ever said.

As for this thread. I've listed to most of Obama's recent speeches and don't have any issue with the message.

He's not running around begging for forgiveness. He is, quite artfully, stating that you disliked Bush, not America, and that you have responsibility of your own.

Much of what he's said has been said by US Presidents before, including Ronald Reagan.

Some of you are sounding more and more like the wingnut version of Moveon.org every day.

-spence

and your take on the president bowing is?

Whitehouse said he didn't bow. :doh:

Go figga.

and your take on the president bowing is?

Seems like a silly slip up, it didn't look at all like he was attempting to bow out of deference.

Besides, this is 2009, not the middle ages.

-spence

I gotta agree w/everyone here against showing any respect to foreigners. We're the US dammit and if you don't like it, tough luck - we don't need your stinkin oil or help with anything;)

http://www.colbertnation.com/home
watch 'threat down - Robert Gates' et al..

4min 38sec in.

Seems like a silly slip up,
-spence

At least your consistant Spence:laugha:

Whats the harm in humility?

I was told, that you catch more flies with honey, than you do with salt.

You don't show humility to someone who barely tolerates us. The king shouldn't bow to O'Bama or the reverse.

He's not running around begging for forgiveness. He is, quite artfully, stating that you disliked Bush, not America, and that you have responsibility of your own.-spence

I wonder how much repsect all the other world leaders have for O'Bama now that they listened to him in so many eloquent speeches throw his predecessor under the bus in all those speeches. You wouldn't hear Sarkozy do that, or Blair, or any of thier other contemporaries. After listening to O'Bama throw Bush under the bus I doubt any of the other heads of state respect him any more that they respected Bush. Bush might have been arrogant, but O'Bama is childish and naive. Look at North Korea, O'Bama is just hours away from giving a speech about weapons and N. Korea fires off the big missile. Look at those pirates holding the boat captain.

Look at those pirates holding the boat captain.
Have you lost your mind?

-spence

Bush might have been arrogant, but O'Bama is childish and naive.

These are two descriptions of Obama thrown around a lot by Conservatives, yet they fail to support it or support it with vague detail. Could you please support how he's "childish and naive"?

Keep in mind, according to Webster:

childish
1: of, relating to, or befitting a child or childhood
2: marked by or suggestive of immaturity and lack of poise

naive
1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless , ingenuous
2: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment


Let's leave vague complaints out. I'm curious for concrete examples of him being childish and naive.

Let's leave vague complaints out. I'm curious for concrete examples of him being childish and naive.[/QUOTE]

First...feeling the need to point out in a speech "I am not naive" as he did is a good sign that you are indeed aware that you a percieved as such and probably are...

This one from British author and broadcaster Gerald Warren who refers to our lightwalking president in typical British understatement as "President Pantywaist:"

President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you'd notice.

Barack is not the first New World ingenue to discover that European leaders will load him with praise, struggle sycophantically to be photographed with him and outdo him in Utopian rhetoric. But when it comes to the critical moment of opening their wallets - suddenly it is flag-day in Aberdeen. Okay, put the G20 down to inexperience, beginner's nerves, what you will.
On to Nato and the next big objective: to persuade the same European evasion experts that America, Britain and Canada should no longer bear the brunt of the Afghan struggle virtually unassisted. The Old World sucked through its teeth, said that was asking a lot - but, seeing it was Barack, to whom they could refuse nothing, they would graciously accede to his wishes.

So The One retired triumphant, having secured a massive contribution of 5,000 extra troops - all of them non-combatant, of course - which must really have put the wind up the Taliban, at the prospect of 5,000 more infidel cooks and bottle-washers swarming into the less hazardous regions of Afghanistan.

A guy like Obama could not survive the British press or "Question Time" in the Commons where any MP can ask the PM anything he wants. Our teleprompterless president would freeze like a side of beef in a Kansas City meat locker.

Krauthammer:
"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."


A more fatuous presidential call to arms is hard to conceive. What "strong international response" did Obama muster to North Korea's brazen defiance of a Chapter 7 -- "binding," as it were -- U.N. resolution prohibiting such a launch?


The obligatory emergency Security Council session produced nothing. No sanctions. No resolution. Not even a statement. China and Russia professed to find no violation whatsoever. They would not even permit a U.N. statement that dared express "concern," let alone condemnation.

So much for "violations must be punished." But Obama's naivete went beyond that. His reliance on the UN for any kind of a strong international response makes him out to be a fool as well.

After all, it was Obama, not some envious anti-American leader, who noted with satisfaction that a new financial order is being created today by 20 countries, rather than by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy." And then added: "But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in."



It is passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own country's decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama will have a lot more decline to celebrate

Sarkozy Engages Pirates - Obama Ducks Questions?
Tom Suhadolnik
While four pirates armed with AK47s bobbing in a lifeboat hold a US Navy destroyer at bay, a French commando team storms a sailboat held by pirates and rescues French citizens. The world truly has gone mad.


According to the BBC, President Sarkozy's office released a statement saying a French sailboat, seized Saturday off the coast of Somalia, was the target of a French commando raid Thursday. The French sail boat had four adults and one child on board. According to the release, two pirates and a hostage were killed in the operation and three others taken prisoner. This is the third time in recent memory French commandos have been used to free hostages held by pirates in the region.


Meanwhile in the USA, when asked about an American being held hostage by Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden, President Obama refused to answer any questions. Various reports say Obama has delegated the handling of this incident to high level administration officials and military commanders.


Unlike the pirates killed by French commandos, the pirates holding the American seem emboldened. There have been various reports today that allies of the pirates holding the American have requested and receiving backup from other pirates. Several large vessels seized with the last few weeks are heading to the site of a standoff.


The Times of India may have the most succinct description of the standoff between the US Navy and the pirates and its implications.


The Indian Ocean standoff between an $800 million United States Navy destroyer and four pirates bobbing in a lifeboat showed the limits of the world's most power military as it faces a booming pirate economy in a treacherous patch of international waters.

The Indian Ocean standoff between an $800 million United States Navy destroyer and four pirates bobbing in a lifeboat showed the limits of the world's most power military as it faces a booming pirate economy in a treacherous patch of international waters.

So how do you propose we end it? Storm the lifeboat? he'd be dead before the hatch opened.

The french just did it, and 1/4 of the hostages were killed.

Not storming the lifeboat does not show weakness or the limits of the navy.

So how do you propose we end it? Storm the lifeboat? he'd be dead before the hatch opened.

The french just did it, and 1/4 of the hostages were killed.

Not storming the lifeboat does not show weakness or the limits of the navy.

THE OBMA SOLUTION

Since the pirates are still holding the captain, I have sent FBI negotiators to facilitate his safe and speedy release. I assure his friends and family that I will not stop until this man-made disaster is resolved in a peaceful, tolerant and ecologically-sound manner.

Obviously, this incident has raised many concerns among Americans. There have been calls for justice and even violence against the misguided perpetrators. But such an emotional reaction has led to the disparagement of entire groups with which we are unfamiliar. We have seen this throughout history.

For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the Pirate Community. Whether it is their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to Pirates.

The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers. Instead of celebrating their entreprenuerial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.

Some of us wonder if our current Overseas Contingency Operation would even be needed had the last administration not been so quick to label Pirates as "thieves," "terrorists" and worse. Such swashbucklaphobia can lead to tragic results, as we have seen this week.

Obama announces he will ask Joe Biden to create a "cabinet-level Czar of Pirate Outreach and Buccaneer Interrelation."

childish
1: of, relating to, or befitting a child or childhood
2: marked by or suggestive of immaturity and lack of poise

naive
1: marked by unaffected simplicity : artless , ingenuous
2: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment


Let's leave vague complaints out. I'm curious for concrete examples of him being childish and naive.

Nothing vague at all in what I posted if you listened to any of his speeches. The new admininstration thinks that they can make a perfect world through words and legislation and it wont happen. Thank you for putting up the meanings of those two words I used. It should be more clear to you now.

Spence the Somalians have no respect for us or our might either. I didn't finish the post and hit enter. I was tired and realized what I had done and chose not to edit and go to bed.

I don't think we should storm the lifeboat. Waiting them out will be difficult as well, because the Somalians are used to living on nothing everyday and surviving. We should be closer than several hundred yards. If some of the Somali compatriots choose to join in and bring more hostages the whole situation will be more out of control than what it is.

Spence the Somalians have no respect for us or our might either. I didn't finish the post and hit enter. I was tired and realized what I had done and chose not to edit and go to bed.

So what's the point?

-spence

Nothing vague at all in what I posted if you listened to any of his speeches. The new admininstration thinks that they can make a perfect world through words and legislation and it wont happen. Thank you for putting up the meanings of those two words I used. It should be more clear to you now.

More clear? It's more clear that you just throw out terms like childish and naive and don't really have actual points to support the comments.

"Nothing vague at all in what I posted if you listened to any of his speeches."
This line is exactly my point. Conservatives throw out terms and labels but then beat around the bush when it comes to supporting them.

I don't think you can provide me a single credible reason as to how he's been "childish."

More clear? It's more clear that you just throw out terms like childish and naive and don't really have actual points to support the comments.

"Nothing vague at all in what I posted if you listened to any of his speeches."
This line is exactly my point. Conservatives throw out terms and labels but then beat around the bush when it comes to supporting them.

I don't think you can provide me a single credible reason as to how he's been "childish."

O'Bama is naive if he thinks he has gained any respect from the europeans leaders, not the protesters, because of his negative Bush rhetoric in the last two weeks. If you don't think so you show me how he has gained respect.

My postings aren't any more or less vague than yours or anyone elses. Everyone writes broad ambiguous statements here about every little thing. If I think he is naive/childish, you prove me otherwise. Childish is putting up the meanings of the two words I used to describe O'Bama and asking me to clarify what I said. I don't have anything to prove to you or anyone else. Anyone can sit here and be a Spence clone and critique everyones postings. Go for it JohhnyD. Prove to me O'Bama isn't childish and naive and I'll post a mea culpa.

I have a question.
Someone point out to me what any of this has done to negatively impact foreign policy. Do you really believe the rest of the world now thinks the USA is a big old pussy and we are fair game. Seriously, if you believe that suddenly we are less safe today than a week ago, I'd like to know why you feel that way.

"The new admininstration thinks that they can make a perfect world through words and legislation and it wont happen." So, again, he didn't suddenly disband the army, send everyone home and give them flowers. I prefer words over bombs and invasions under false pretenses.

"You don't show humility to someone who barely tolerates us. The king shouldn't bow to O'Bama or the reverse."
Nope, you hold his hand, kiss him on the cheek and buy a %$%$%$%$load of oil from him...

The Somalian pirate issue is not even remotely relevant, as they've been doing this for years, and it is only 'news' because it involved Americans for a change, and not some poor Filipino or Indonesian sailors.

So what's the point?

-spence

They remember how they kicked our ass in Mogadishu Spence. They don't fear or respect us. A navy destroyer is sitting a short distance away from that life boat and it is not the least bit intimidating. They would die for less given the chance.

I appologize for comparing JohhnyD to you.

They remember how they kicked our ass in Mogadishu Spence.

So, again, how does that relate back to Obama?
this is not a new relationship. I think we could nuke a town and they won't fear us; desperate people are often brave or foolhardy...

They remember how they kicked our ass in Mogadishu Spence. They don't fear or respect us. A navy destroyer is sitting a short distance away from that life boat and it is not the least bit intimidating. They would die for less given the chance.

I appologize for comparing JohhnyD to you.

I think you're just trying to reverse engineer the situation to make a point that's idiological and not realistic. These people in Somalia are so numb to violence and carnage that they don't seem to fear anything. The notion that their behavior is shaped by a perceived US weakness is silly, they have a profitable business going and to date haven't had anyone really squeeze them.

How is a destroyer supposed to intimidate them anyway? Without the hostage the destroyer wouldn't be there. There's little to nothing the destroyer can do while the hostage is on the boat, that's why the FBI in involved with the negoiation.

-spence

O'Bama is naive if he thinks he has gained any respect from the europeans leaders, not the protesters, because of his negative Bush rhetoric in the last two weeks. If you don't think so you show me how he has gained respect.

My postings aren't any more or less vague than yours or anyone elses. Everyone writes broad ambiguous statements here about every little thing. If I think he is naive/childish, you prove me otherwise. Childish is putting up the meanings of the two words I used to describe O'Bama and asking me to clarify what I said. I don't have anything to prove to you or anyone else. Anyone can sit here and be a Spence clone and critique everyones postings. Go for it JohhnyD. Prove to me O'Bama isn't childish and naive and I'll post a mea culpa.

I wasn't asking for clarification. I was asking for an example, which you couldn't provide.

The difference in most of my posts aren't some regurgitation of something I heard on the radio or FoxNews, like many people around here. When I post something, it's pretty clear when I'm stating fact (because I support it with examples) and when I'm stating an opinion.

Nothing childish putting up the definitions. Wanted to make sure any examples you provided included how Obama is "marked by or suggestive of immaturity", because I don't think there are any.

So, again, how does that relate back to Obama?
this is not a new relationship. I think we could nuke a town and they won't fear us; desperate people are often brave or foolhardy...

OBama is president, thats why. The buck stops here. He has been president since January and he is still blaming someone else for all his problems. I don't see that as being mature. At what point in the liberals sense of things does what he does actually reflect on OBama and his appointments. At what point does it stick to him, or are those suits made of teflon he wears? What he has said to the world so far hasn't changed anything has it? It falls back on OBama just the way it did on Bush, Clinton, Bush41, Reagan..... Or just because OBama is president the rules change back, and it doesn't have anything to do with how the entire world, or us, views our leaders. I'll see this forum in the fall after my Vineyard trip. Too much to do.

I wasn't asking for clarification. I was asking for an example, which you couldn't provide.

The difference in most of my posts aren't some regurgitation of something I heard on the radio or FoxNews, like many people around here. When I post something, it's pretty clear when I'm stating fact (because I support it with examples) and when I'm stating an opinion.

Nothing childish putting up the definitions. Wanted to make sure any examples you provided included how Obama is "marked by or suggestive of immaturity", because I don't think there are any.

I chose not to. What I said is readily apparent to just about anyone.

OBama is president, thats why. The buck stops here. He has been president since January and he is still blaming someone else for all his problems. I don't see that as being mature. At what point in the liberals sense of things does what he does actually reflect on OBama and his appointments. At what point does it stick to him, or are those suits made of teflon he wears? What he has said to the world so far hasn't changed anything has it? It falls back on OBama just the way it did on Bush, Clinton, Bush41, Reagan..... Or just because OBama is president the rules change back, and it doesn't have anything to do with how the entire world, or us, views our leaders. I'll see this forum in the fall after my Vineyard trip. Too much to do.

Obama focuses on anything but the economy and Conservatives drag him across the coals because he hasn't fixed the economy in 3 months of office.

It was Obama's call to send the Navy ships to the scene. How exactly was he suppose to prevent the situation from happening??

By your logic, because Bush was President at the time, 9/11 was Bush's fault.

c'mon JD...we all know that 9/11 was Clinton's fault...

Bama gave the finger several times during the campaign, that was very childish...
ordered pizza from 850 miles away...childish
whines evertime he's criticized...childish
apologizes for others to elevate himself...childish
sent the Oval Office bust of Churchill back to England...childish
hasn't gotten the kids their puppy yet...stupid


there's plenty to list...got my own things to do...I just think he's an a-hole...he continually proves it...

THE OBMA SOLUTION



Obviously, this incident has raised many concerns among Americans. There have been calls for justice and even violence against the misguided perpetrators.


Ya, they're just poor fishermen, just trying to feed their families. : rolleyes:

ordered pizza from 850 miles away...childish


This one makes me laugh... please explain?

This one makes me laugh... please explain?

Curious as to why you chose this over the "puppy" comment :rotflmao:

-spence

Curious as to why you chose this over the "puppy" comment :rotflmao:

-spence

Because the pizza comment is a big load of crap. Here's the real story:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/10/right-wing-slams-barack-obama-for-ordering-pizza-really/


* In fact, Chris Sommers flew commercial.
* Not only that, he flew coach.
* Not only that, he had already planned a business trip to DC, so the restaurant paid for his travel!

We'll call it Pizza-gate. Add this to Teleprompter-Gate, Lipstick-Gate, Birth Certificate-Gate and Secret Muslim-Gate

And Conservatives wonder why support for their party is dying.


Also, none of the "points" scott mentioned could be defined as childish. But the Conservatives just try to take any negative word they can think of and try to make it somehow applicable without any real evidence like scott and Swimmer have done above.

We'll call it Pizza-gate. Add this to Teleprompter-Gate, Lipstick-Gate, Birth Certificate-Gate and Secret Muslim-Gate

And Conservatives wonder why support for their party is dying.

Also, none of the "points" scott mentioned could be defined as childish. But the Conservatives just try to take any negative word they can think of and try to make it somehow applicable without any real evidence like scott and Swimmer have done above.
You forgot flag-pin gate, pledge gate, lack-of-military-experience gate, appology gate, Liberal-wus gate, Ayers-BFF gate etc...

The fundementals of the GOP are strong, the problem is that the liberal mainstream media is reporting things as if there's some confusion.

Michael Steel has been playing his cards perfectly and has a secret plan you'd understand if you had half a brain.

The GOP has a strong record of fiscal restraint (remeber the Contract with America?) that resonates with middle America. The current Republicans in Congress were just running up a tab to make Obama's spending look worse. The media hides this fact because it makes the GOP look too smarter.

This is a Christian Nation after all, and with the Rapture due along any day now, I think we're all going to see who's united and who's not. I'd wager the Starbucks are going to be pretty busy the day after judgement day.

-spence

Question--why should you always take two Republicans fishing with you?

If you take only one, he'll smoke all your pot, but if you take two, they won't smoke any.:humpty:

Question--why should you always take two Republicans fishing with you?

If you take only one, he'll smoke all your pot, but if you take two, they won't smoke any.:humpty:

BSSB is funny.

You forgot flag-pin gate, pledge gate, lack-of-military-experience gate, appology gate, Liberal-wus gate, Ayers-BFF gate etc...

The fundementals of the GOP are strong, the problem is that the liberal mainstream media is reporting things as if there's some confusion.

Michael Steel has been playing his cards perfectly and has a secret plan you'd understand if you had half a brain.

The GOP has a strong record of fiscal restraint (remeber the Contract with America?) that resonates with middle America. The current Republicans in Congress were just running up a tab to make Obama's spending look worse. The media hides this fact because it makes the GOP look too smarter.

This is a Christian Nation after all, and with the Rapture due along any day now, I think we're all going to see who's united and who's not. I'd wager the Starbucks are going to be pretty busy the day after judgement day.

-spence

I'm starting to worry about you Spence Alynski...you used to be somewhat coherent....now you are just babbling:jester:

the MIGHTY O hit the trifecta today...got the Ted Kennedy bred "WATER" Dog on the way(I "HOPE" it pees on his leg)...I think they named it Mary Jo...or Bo Bridges or something like that....found a temporary location to photo-op worship...... and he singlehandedly donned a wetsuit and fins and bubbled over to the pirates Zodiak where he killed three pirates...rescued the evil American tresspasser, took the fourth prisoner and immediately apologized profusely to anyone was offended by our presence in the region, blamed it all on American arrogance and vowed that things would be changing now that he rules America...he is some kinda man!
I can see why you love him so....

I will not stop until this man-made disaster is resolved

This statement says it all, this guy is a %$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y. It is an act of terrorism, the crew was terrified, the captain is terrified, the us public is
terrified, the world is terrified.

I'm starting to worry about you Spence Alynski...you used to be somewhat coherent....now you are just babbling:jester:
Actually I was making fun of you.

-spence

This statement says it all, this guy is a %$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y. It is an act of terrorism, the crew was terrified, the captain is terrified, the us public is
terrified, the world is terrified.

And now they're dead. In the end, the authorization to shoot-to-kill if necessary had to be provided by that "%$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y" you mentioned.

That "%$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y" has also authorized a number of bombings of terrorist camps in Pakistan.

Also, piracy is not the same as terrorism.

The latest outrage is the very word ‘terrorism’ has been banned by the Obama administration and replaced by the phrase ‘man caused disasters’. I kid you not.
SPIEGEL: ‘Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?’
Janet Napolitano, President Obama’s new Homeland Security Secretary: ‘Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.’
Obviously, Obama plans on taking the United States back to a pre 9/11 mentality in dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism. When one can’t even use the word ‘terrorism’ to describe terrorist incidents, something is seriously wrong.

Also, piracy is not the same as terrorism.

this is correct, pirates wear eyepatches, have parrots on their shoulders and some have peg legs and/or hooks where their hands once were....


[QUOTE=Spence]
Actually I was making fun of you.

-spence

that's why I love you Spence Alinsky, you have an incredible sense of humor... :uhuh:

The latest outrage is the very word ‘terrorism’ has been banned by the Obama administration and replaced by the phrase ‘man caused disasters’. I kid you not.
I'd like you to please find me something concrete that asserts the word "terrorism" has been banned. I doubt you will...

The context of the interview remark in question was that the DHS has to be prepared for all kinds of disasters, and that the Obama Administration doesn't intend to pepper their prepared remarks with "9/11" and "terrorism" every third word in an attempt to scare the hell out of everyone like the Bush Administration seemed to do.

There are thousands of blog rants on this topic and not a single one of them that I read actually forms a conclusion.

Last week at the airport I noticed the official Security Threat was still at ORANGE or "A HIGH CHANCE OF TERROR ATTACK".

High chance? You think I'm going to get on the effing plane if I think there's really a HIGH chance of attack?

-spence

I'd like you to please find me something concrete that asserts the word "terrorism" has been banned. I doubt you will...
-spence

you must have missed this in your daily talking points from the administration...it's weeks old...get up to speed..

"terrorist" has also been banned...we're now referring to them as "justifiably angry victims of American arrogance"

The ignorance of some that post here shines through as brightly as the sun on a warm day.

Looks like a new day means a new definition needed for the disillusioned:

Terrorism as defined by the US Federal Criminal Code:
... activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

Someone explain to me how the Pirates taking over ships for nothing more than profit is terrorism.

The Somalians are no different than bank robbers on steroids. They aren't trying to affect government policy or incite fear into the population. They are trying to extort money from companies.

They aren't terrorists, they're extortionists.

The ignorance of some that post here shines through as brightly as the sun on a warm day.

"They are trying to extort money from companies
They aren't terrorists, they're extortionists."


So you are saying that Obama and the Democrats are actually Pirates? OK, I'll go along with that...

... activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population

So the pirates activities were not violent, or life-threatening, nor were they meant to coerce a civilian population to hand over money?

You libs crack me up...

I'd like you to please find me something concrete that asserts the word "terrorism" has been banned. I doubt you will...



News
World news
Global terrorism
Obama administration says goodbye to 'war on terror'
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase 'overseas contingency operations'
Comments (11)
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 17.40 GMT
Article history
The war on terror, George Bush once declared, "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". But Barack Obama's administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly - via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) ... please pass this on to your speechwriters". Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live "overseas contingency operations".

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning "overseas contingency operations" for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.

Tony Blair was an avid supporter of Bush's terminology - "whatever the technical or legal issues about a declaration of war, the fact is we are at war with terrorism", he once said - but experts came to agree that the phrase was unhelpful.

A war on terror was too broad ever to be won, they argued, while defining not a group or ideology but a type of violence as the enemy was incoherent.

Even Donald Rumsfeld, one of the war's architects, tried in vain to persuade Bush to rebrand it the "global struggle against violent extremism", or GSave. Writing in the Guardian in January, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, said it had been a mistake that may have caused "more harm than good".

Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA's secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

"Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare," said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military's Air War College in Alabama.

"Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. 'War' is very much overused here in the United States - on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity."

But he was not enthusiastic about the replacement term. "I'm not sure it means much of anything," he said. "And I'm not sure we're going to make any great progress by replacing one unfortunate term with another."

So the pirates activities were not violent, or life-threatening, nor were they meant to coerce a civilian population to hand over money?

You libs crack me up...

The ignorance of some of the Conservatives here is amazing.

On your deluded understanding, bank robbers are terrorists because they want to coerce the teller to hand over money. A speeder is a terrorist because speeding is life-threatening. Someone who gets in a fight is a terrorist because their actions are violent.

The lack of rational and common sense within you conservatives is pathetic.

The ignorance of some of the Conservatives here is amazing.

The lack of rational and common sense within you conservatives is pathetic.


Meanie :rude:

Meanie :rude:

haha...

By your definition not mine. :rude:

BTW I would not classify a bank robbery as terrorism because most are in and out, not holding the whole bank or customers for hours on end for a ransom.

Because the pizza comment is a big load of crap. Here's the real story:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/04/10/right-wing-slams-barack-obama-for-ordering-pizza-really/



We'll call it Pizza-gate. Add this to Teleprompter-Gate, Lipstick-Gate, Birth Certificate-Gate and Secret Muslim-Gate

And Conservatives wonder why support for their party is dying.


Also, none of the "points" scott mentioned could be defined as childish. But the Conservatives just try to take any negative word they can think of and try to make it somehow applicable without any real evidence like scott and Swimmer have done above.

John I don't think I commented on any of the above alledged childish/immature/inane/foolish acts in any of my posts. Don't lump me in with anyone else. Remember I didn't cite any one reason why I think O'Bowma is childish and naive, thank you. Oh by the way I have voted for Ted Kennedy I believe in every election that he was a candidate.

BY the way your comments reminded of the birth certificate problem. Why is it the hospital in Hawaii wont make public those records? Or did they?

By your definition not mine. :rude:

BTW I would not classify a bank robbery as terrorism because most are in and out, not holding the whole bank or customers for hours on end for a ransom.

So a bank robbery is only terrorism if they take hostages? Either way they're still coercing a civilian into handing over money and inciting fear into people.

Where exactly do you draw the line of what terrorism is then?

In all aspects, terrorism is motivated to incite fear in the general population in the domestic territory of a country, disrupt government or create anarchy.

Piracy falls into none of the above. The pirates are purely for profit. They don't want to disrupt shipping, just inconvenience the companies enough so that they pay ransom. If they disrupt profit, then their income goes away.

The whole country was talking about the piracy episode, not a bank robbery in boston mass. Therefore I think the piracy episode affected the whole country.

John I don't think I commented on any of the above alledged childish/immature/inane/foolish acts in any of my posts. Don't lump me in with anyone else. Remember I didn't cite any one reason why I think O'Bowma is childish and naive, thank you. Oh by the way I have voted for Ted Kennedy I believe in every election that he was a candidate.

BY the way your comments reminded of the birth certificate problem. Why is it the hospital in Hawaii wont make public those records? Or did they?

I'm sorry for any confusion. That post was in reply to scott's post about Obama ordering pizza from 850 miles away.

I apologize if you thought I was lumping you in with the likes of scott. I know you are not at all ridiculous in the way he is.

The whole country was talking about the piracy episode, not a bank robbery in boston mass. Therefore I think the piracy episode affected the whole country.

The whole country was talking about the murder of Caylee Anthony. Does that now make her murderer a terrorist?

The whole country was talking about the murder of Caylee Anthony. Does that now make her murderer a terrorist?

haa, you keep making foolish comments like this and call me rediculous....:rollem:


ahhh..the whole country was talking about the monkey that ate the lady's face off...does that now make the monkey a terrorist?

geez....get a grip....

"Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "

So if a group of pirates, run around taking ships and hostages, influence companies and governments to pay the ransom money. Their acts have influenced the US government enough to increase naval patrols in the area, not only that their actions have influenced a host of governments to send warships to combat their actions. Instead of political reasons behind them they are doing it for cash. Coercing fro money, isn't that different from coercing for political change. The pirates actions instill terror into their victims and have influenced several countries into changing the positions of our warships and are Terrorists.

[QUOTE=Cool Beans;681388]"Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "

sounds like your average Acorn organized, union funded bus trip tour of executives homes...

So if a group of pirates, run around taking ships and hostages, influence companies and governments to pay the ransom money. Their acts have influenced the US government enough to increase naval patrols in the area, not only that their actions have influenced a host of governments to send warships to combat their actions. Instead of political reasons behind them they are doing it for cash. Coercing fro money, isn't that different from coercing for political change. The pirates actions instill terror into their victims and have influenced several countries into changing the positions of our warships and are Terrorists.
By this reasoning then gangs, the mafia etc... are all Terrorists.

I think it's important then to understand what this really means. What can you do to a terrorist that you can't do to a criminal?

Under the Bush Doctrine it means we could strike pre-emptively without regard to Internation law or territory. Even if the Terrorist was a US citizen they could be detained indefinately without council or heabus corpus.

To date most of these attacks appear to have been simple for profit robberies with no loss of life. Their goal certainly isn't terrorism, for if people and shipping companies were afraid to travel their waters they wouldn't have anyone to hold hostage! Their business model would be obsolete.

Now if we have evidence that money from piracy is being funneled to al Queda for instance, now we have a different situation entirely. I'd be curious to see if the Obama Administration looks to make this connection before using hard military force on the Somalia mainland. Even if nobody really cares about Somalia, the thought of dropping bombs to preempt more robberies has many legal and ethical pitfalls.

-spence

Their goal certainly isn't terrorism, for if people and shipping companies were afraid to travel their waters they wouldn't have anyone to hold hostage!

By this reasoning, none should work in high-rises, or travel by airplane, there for 9/11 was not a terrorist act. :biglaugh:

By this reasoning, none should work in high-rises, or travel by airplane, there for 9/11 was not a terrorist act. :biglaugh:
Well, no.

The point of 9/11 wasn't to scare people from flying in planes, it was to hurt the US economy and influence our foreign policy.

The pirates are more akin to violent extortionists.

-spence

haa, you keep making foolish comments like this and call me rediculous....:rollem:


ahhh..the whole country was talking about the monkey that ate the lady's face off...does that now make the monkey a terrorist?

geez....get a grip....

That is precisely my point. Just because it got national attention does not mean it actually affects us nationally.

affects

affects

damn you... I'll give you that on.

you are funny, we should fish sometime, I just got back from the pluggin' at the beach for a while...this weather will cheer everyone up!

[quote=spence;681399]By this reasoning then gangs, the mafia etc... are all Terrorists.
Spence losely all criminal organizations are terrorists. They take over and control large pieces of territory in cities and the suburbs. They take over blocks at a time and protect them fiercely. Everyone is in fear of them. I think the only reason as a society we don't look at this as being as a certainty is because most gangs, mafia types prey on their own kind. All the Italians used to and many still do pay protection money in the big cities. But since its a way of life in a romantic way, as portrayed on TV and in movies, to some its as much a social issue as it is a criminal enterprise.
Next time I attend gang training I'll see if there is an empty seat for you.
Simple put, you can kill a terrorist.
Once probable cause was presented that the person was a terrorist they become enemy combatants. We didn't provide lawyers for all the Germans we took as POW's.
Its only a matter of time before they try killing people as a way of garnering more extortion from the owners of the vessels they have been hijacking.
Actually thier is a group in Somalia that is an organized terrorist organization that has been loosely linked to Al Queda. It would not surpirse me to hear that some of the money is funneled to them from the hijackings.

you are funny, we should fish sometime, I just got back from the pluggin' at the beach for a while...this weather will cheer everyone up!

I'd love to. While in this forum, many people are nutbag, psycho republicans, outside of it I still respect you and see you all as peers.

Spence losely all criminal organizations are terrorists. They take over and control large pieces of territory in cities and the suburbs. They take over blocks at a time and protect them fiercely. Everyone is in fear of them. I think the only reason as a society we don't look at this as being as a certainty is because most gangs, mafia types prey on their own kind. All the Italians used to and many still do pay protection money in the big cities. But since its a way of life in a romantic way, as portrayed on TV and in movies, to some its as much a social issue as it is a criminal enterprise.
Yea, I understand all of that.

The point is that "terrorize" is a verb and "terrorist" is a noun. Terrorist with a big "T" is something special that as a society has meaning. I can terrorize my neighbor all year long but that doesn't make me a "Terrorist" (note the big T). Same goes for the mafia unless you think we should firebomb Providence and waterboard Uncle Louie to know where the next hit is going down.

Hell, even think about some of what you read on this board. Brand someone a "Terrorist" (note the big T again) and all gloves are off. Kill them, torture them etc... with no evidence necessary.

Say someone might not be a "Terrorist" and you get a similar response. It's like a drug...

Its only a matter of time before they try killing people as a way of garnering more extortion from the owners of the vessels they have been hijacking.
All this will result in is more security and dropping margins in the pirate business. There are diminishing returns here that are not very attractive. Just because they're pirates doesn't make them dumb, they'll have to really innovate their business model to continue to succeed.

It's quite possible that taking a US ship was a strategic mistake.

Actually thier is a group in Somalia that is an organized terrorist organization that has been loosely linked to Al Queda. It would not surpirse me to hear that some of the money is funneled to them from the hijackings.
It's certainly possible but I've not heard anything that really offers any proof either. If there is it would make the legitimacy of any such military action much easier to justify.

-spence