Reply #81

In the discussion thread: "Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again" is the rhetoric we want to represent us? [View all]

Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:24 PM

DisgustipatedinCA (5,411 posts)

81. So your rationale for invading Libya is PanAm/Lockerbie?

You're not much for swift justice, are you? More importantly, you're arguing the point that we were justified with invading Libya because of a 25 year old incident. Has the White House or Pentagon used Lockerbie as a rationale for invasion? No? Then why are you using this line of reasoning? Lockerbie doesn't justify attacking Libya in 2011, and no rational person could make the argument that it does.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

112 replies	Author	Time	Post
"Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again" is the rhetoric we want to represent us? [View all]	Bonobo	Jan 2012	OP
why do you get offended by such things ? it's about winning the election	JI7	Jan 2012	#1
"It's about winning the election"	Bonobo	Jan 2012	#2
of course there is a lot we can lose like Roe v Wade,all the accomplishments	JI7	Jan 2012	#4
It has been said in many ways by many people...	Bonobo	Jan 2012	#9
Not at this time. Please try back in 2016.	FarLeftFist	Jan 2012	#6
we are murderers and assassins and bullies and thieves	SixthSense	Jan 2012	#3
Still upset we couldn't bring a violent criminal to trial? nt	Confusious	Jan 2012	#5
Supposedly he was the leader of a terrorist network.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#59
What makes you think he could	Confusious	Jan 2012	#109
Yes. It's the reason the United States of America was created.	rug	Jan 2012	#7
I care about winning, not what makes me feel good inside	bluestateguy	Jan 2012	#8
The 2 principal war criminals won't have to come to trial and I'm very happy they are out of the way	phleshdef	Jan 2012	#10
Good analogy. (nt)	pinto	Jan 2012	#15
Here's a good article...	Drunken Irishman	Jan 2012	#19
Er. I was quoting Harry Truman on the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini.	phleshdef	Jan 2012	#20
Yes, I know...	Drunken Irishman	Jan 2012	#38
This message was self-deleted by its author	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#28
Why don't you read my entire post next time instead of just the title?	phleshdef	Jan 2012	#32
This message was self-deleted by its author	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#33
I said Truman's statement was an example of a Democrat using the same kind of rhetoric.	phleshdef	Jan 2012	#35
As you prefer.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#40
Civilized societies do trials, summary executions is what savages do.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#62
I thought you were talking about Bush and Cheney at first.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#97
I'm sorry, we have not "become them."	downwardly_mobile	Jan 2012	#11
Did Libya ever invade a nation on the other side of the world...	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#30
No, but...	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#42
The case against Libya for the Lockerbie bombing is dubious.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#48
Poor old Gaddafi.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#50
Who cares what the truth is, right?	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#51
The truth is, Libya bombed Pan Am 103 the hell out of the sky.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#52
The Scottish review board does not share your certainty.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#56
The circuit board is impeached by one person. Other evidence shows that Libya had possession	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#60
False. The circuit board is impeached by at least two persons.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#69
Edwin Bollier? The guy who also claimed Gaddafi offered him $200M to get Megrahi free?	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#72
My "narrative" is not "USA-bad-Libya-good."	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#75
The fuck it ain't.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#76
Scotland is in the UK. Scotland is why it's called the UK.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#78
So your rationale for invading Libya is PanAm/Lockerbie?	DisgustipatedinCA	Jan 2012	#81
Is that what I said? I don't think I said that.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#86
Watch this trick:	DisgustipatedinCA	Jan 2012	#92
No worries.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#102
That's all you got out of that excellent summary of	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#99
#94. New facts have come to light. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#103
poor old bolo. proven wrong and resorting to strawmen..	frylock	Jan 2012	#106
Really? I've been proven wrong? I'm not noticing a lot of responses to my #94.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#107
JackRiddler I used to think Megrahi did bomb the plane, but your logic and facts are solid.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#64
American scales of justice	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#93
Poor old Gaddafi.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#98
Bravo and thank you. Needs to be an OP.	inna	Jan 2012	#49
Thank you inna.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#54
" Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing is MSM sourced" Gross overstatement	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#61
See Post #48. Please show the factual errors in that post.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#65
One piece of evidence is said to be faked by one person. That's true.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#67
Who in the world releases someone who kills 300 people for "Compassion" reasons? Really?	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#68
Overwhelming evidence. None of it has any kind of rational dispute.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#71
And despite all this overwhelming evidence, a re-trial was planned for him. How do you explain that?	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#82
Because the defense wasn't told about the CIA offer to Gauci. A technicality.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#84
Gotcha. So re-trials are routine for cases settled with overwhelming evidence	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#85
Yes. Take for example the incredibly guilty Ted Stevens...	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#87
Apples & Oranges. Ted Stevens was accused of political corruption, not terrorism/mass murder.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#90
Check out #94 for a response. But also	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#96
This is a good point (the release) but even more important...	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#80
Don't you know? He had OVERWHELMING evidence against him. Yet a re-trial was approved.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#83
You know, when you put it in ALLCAPS like that, it feels more overwhelming!	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#88
Here's another good point - the actual summary of referral from the Scottish review board	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#94
I agree on all counts.	SammyWinstonJack	Jan 2012	#63
US or international politics of it all aside, bin Laden's demise was bluntly necessary, imo.	pinto	Jan 2012	#12
Bluntly necessary? To shoot rather than capture the best source of intelligence?	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#55
I can't help but wonder	RZM	Jan 2012	#89
This is not a contradiction.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#95
'If they believed what they said' is a really big 'if'	RZM	Jan 2012	#101
I understand your rationale politically.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#110
But I'm talking about orders here	RZM	Jan 2012	#111
Nope. He's dead and rotting of his own choice. I have no qualms about it	NYC Liberal	Jan 2012	#13
If osama truly was the criminal mastermind behind deaths of thousands and thousands of innocents	Muskypundit	Jan 2012	#14
I'm not happy about that kind of rhetoric.	RevStPatrick	Jan 2012	#16
That what sells. Want to get elected? That's what you talk about?	joshcryer	Jan 2012	#17
This rhetoric has been representing Democrats since 9/11	frazzled	Jan 2012	#18
Personally, I'm glad that particular shithead is dead. If that makes me a bad man, I'm a bad man.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#21
I didn't mean to confront THAT issue again. I am trying to get people to see...	Bonobo	Jan 2012	#23
This is the first I've heard of this particular statement by the President	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#25
I understand what you're saying,	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2012	#22
"if you use the time to seriously consider why you got your cheek slapped"	Bonobo	Jan 2012	#24
I can live with it.	aikoaiko	Jan 2012	#26
I considered the capture or killing of Bin Laden as a worthy goal of our government.	MilesColtrane	Jan 2012	#27
...	Summer Hathaway	Jan 2012	#29
"we can't "become them" etc.	greyl	Jan 2012	#36
It deserves to be in the Top Ten of rhetoric. nt	greyl	Jan 2012	#31
Better:	ProSense	Jan 2012	#34
People like you are	LiberalAndProud	Jan 2012	#37
well that and all those dead women and kids killed by drones & our military nt	msongs	Jan 2012	#39
Right up there with Americans screaming, USA! USA!, teeth clenched and veins	truth2power	Jan 2012	#41
9/11 changed everything..	DCBob	Jan 2012	#43
killing that bastard wasn't about defining Democrats	bigtree	Jan 2012	#44
Sure. It's an awesome talking point.	jefferson_dem	Jan 2012	#45
Don't like that phrase, but winning the war against terrorism sounds pretty good...	JCMach1	Jan 2012	#46
It is the truth	quaker bill	Jan 2012	#47
Removing the advantage (R)s have in security	Motown_Johnny	Jan 2012	#53
Just run Gingrich as a (D)--if we are EXACTLY like them, they won't be able to criticize us!	Romulox	Jan 2012	#57
They wouldn't be able to criticize ?!?!?	Motown_Johnny	Jan 2012	#100
Not if Gingrich (D) is the nominee, as I suggested earlier. How could they criticize ANYTHING,	Romulox	Jan 2012	#104
Gingrich as a (D) is right up there with Sanders as an (R)	Motown_Johnny	Jan 2012	#105
Yep! He was directly responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people	Liberal_Stalwart71	Jan 2012	#58
He should be dead	Welcome_hubby	Oct 2012	#112
First off, their is no such thing as a soul, but to go ahead and continue your thought process...	snooper2	Jan 2012	#66
Yes.	JoePhilly	Jan 2012	#70
Yes. It shuts the other side up quite well. nt	msanthrope	Jan 2012	#73
Sure, I have no problem with it. He was a piece of shit who killed a lot of innocent people.	WI_DEM	Jan 2012	#74
Please to trim your ideals	gratuitous	Jan 2012	#77
I'm not thrilled by that type of rhetoric. It does appeal to some.	Solly Mack	Jan 2012	#79
No,	Raffi Ella	Jan 2012	#91
Fine by me.	WilliamPitt	Jan 2012	#108

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.