President Obama: Do you really love America?

[abaris]

Yes Islam is the biggest trouble maker at this current point in human history.

Even that is up for debate. At least when it comes to Western society. More than 90 percent of terrorist attacks in Europe and the USA have political, seperatist or some other motives than religion. According to Europol and FBI statistics.

[The Valkyrie]

I would say Obama loves America and Americans far more than many Republicans.

[Cato]

Or Australians.

[KevinM1]

So.... remember that I'm looking at this from the outside... what did Obama do?

It's called "dog whistle politics". You can't use the n-word anymore so some invent ways of saying it without saying it.

Imagine that scene from "Blazing Saddles" where the Sheriff rides into Rock Ridge for the first time. The town church is ringing a bell as the new sheriff approaches. Variation on that theme with "president" replacing "sheriff".

"The President is a n-" *BONG*
"What did he say?"
"He said the President is a socialist"
"No, I said the President is a n-" *BONG*
"I still can't hear him."
"He said the President isn't really a citizen of the United States."
"No, I said the President is a n-" *BONG*
"Are you sure that's what he said?"
"I thought I heard him say the President doesn't really love this country and isn't really one of us."
...

And the critiques of Obama's patriotism add a delicious dash of Hermann Goering to the whole thing.

[Faith No More]

Or Australians.

Lol, there was a big WTF moment when I read that, but I figured that fact wasn't worth addressing any more than the rest of it.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Yes Islam is the biggest trouble maker at this current point in human history.

Even that is up for debate. At least when it comes to Western society. More than 90 percent of terrorist attacks in Europe and the USA have political, seperatist or some other motives than religion. According to Europol and FBI statistics.

Just to be clear, are we counting drone bombings as terrorist attacks?

[Crossless2.0]

Just to be clear, are we counting drone bombings as terrorist attacks?

Well, of course they count. How could there be any reasonable ques--

*What's that, sir? Oh, they're our drones? Ours. The U.S., right? Ok, roger that.*

No, drone bombings are definitely not a form of terrorist attack. How could you be so feeble-minded as to wonder if they could be. I'll bet you're a Muslim.

[DeistPaladin]

Just to be clear, are we counting drone bombings as terrorist attacks?

As I understand it, terrorism is attempting to effect political outcomes by inspiring fear through attacks upon civilians. Military action is targeting military and possibly industrial targets of a country to blunt their ability to wage war.

By that definition, the KKK lynchings of blacks during the Civil Rights Era would be terrorism, Adolf Hitler's bombing of London and other civilian targets to try to get the British to back down would be terrorism but a guerrilla rebel force that restricts its attacks on military targets would not.

Whether drone bombings constitute terrorism depends on whether or not military (or insurgent) targets are selected. If we were to start bombing civilian targets with the intent to get them to back down through fear, that would qualify. Accidentally hitting civilians when going after insurgents would not.

---

I hope he turns you into a Republican who loves to watch FOX.

[Anomalocaris]

Just to be clear, are we counting drone bombings as terrorist attacks?

As I understand it, terrorism is attempting to effect political outcomes by inspiring fear through attacks upon civilians. Military action is targeting military and possibly industrial targets of a country to blunt their ability to wage war.

By that definition, the KKK lynchings of blacks during the Civil Rights Era would be terrorism, Adolf Hitler's bombing of London and other civilian targets to try to get the British to back down would be terrorism but a guerrilla rebel force that restricts its attacks on military targets would not.

Whether drone bombings constitute terrorism depends on whether or not military (or insurgent) targets are selected. If we were to start bombing civilian targets with the intent to get them to back down through fear, that would qualify. Accidentally hitting civilians when going after insurgents would not.

So the bombing of largely civilian targets in germany, Japan, and north Vietnam would make land of the free and the home of strangely fearful brave the most prolific practitioner of technological terrorism in history.

[DeistPaladin]

So the bombing of largely civilian targets in germany, Japan, and north Vietnam would make land of the free and the home of strangely fearful brave the most prolific practitioner of technological terrorism in history.

Bombing of industrial targets is sometimes part of war. Bombing civilian targets is what crosses the line. This is not to say that we and others on the side of the Allies didn't cross that line. The nuclear bombs did fit that definition, especially since the threat was "unconditionally surrender or we'll annihilate you like we did those cities." The firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg were also questionable. Let's just say I view the second world war as the nastiest conflict that I hope humanity ever sees.

I won't make light of our own history. I'm aware that there is one nation that has used all three kinds of WMD and on civilian targets. I hope Karma isn't a bitch.