Our Enemies Our Emboldened?

[Mammon]

Our enemies our emboldened? They have their man in the White House?

Yeah right. That's why Al-Qaeda is calling Obama a "House negro" and insisting that the attacks be kept up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...0081119?sp=true

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Uh, Mammon?

Continuing (or resuming, or stepping up) attacks would indicate that the enemy is emboldened. Ceasing attacks would indicate the opposite.

[KevinDW78]

And you wonder why people on this forum keep putting you on ignore?

Edited November 19, 2008 by KevinDW78

[Mammon]

Uh, Mammon?

Continuing (or resuming, or stepping up) attacks would indicate that the enemy is emboldened. Ceasing attacks would indicate the opposite.

I thought "emboldened" meant that their was a perception that Obama wouldn't do anything in the event of an attack, or that he was "their man"... So they thought they can get away with attacking us. Emboldened in the sense that your enemy is either becoming your ally or significantly weaker. The latter case could be bad, however...

The point you missed entirely here is -- Al-Qaeda doesn't seem to like Barack Obama. They still hate America no matter who gets elected. Now, it could be brushed off with something like "They are really in cahoots together and this is just a front to make it not seem to so Obama will be more palatable to the American people and it will be easier for him to set up a Caliphate/Dictatorship/Black Monarchy/4th Reich/Millennial Kingdom." You can make that argument if you'd like though.

[sanjavalen]

I'm unaware of who, exactly, in this forum was making an argument that Obama was, in fact, an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent and they'd love America once he waas in and declare sharia law.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I thought "emboldened" meant that their was a perception that Obama wouldn't do anything in the event of an attack,

And what, in their actions, is inconsistent with this? It is clear that they do not fear his response. If they did, they'd find some excuse to NOT attack. Since they don't feel fear, they are indeed "emboldened" and will feel they can attack with impunity.

or that he was "their man"... So they thought they can get away with attacking us. Emboldened in the sense that your enemy is either becoming your ally or significantly weaker. The latter case could be bad, however...

The point you missed entirely here is -- Al-Qaeda doesn't seem to like Barack Obama.

No surprise that I missed that point since nothing you said in the orginal post makes it or pertains to it.

They still hate America no matter who gets elected. Now, it could be brushed off with something like "They are really in cahoots together and this is just a front to make it not seem to so Obama will be more palatable to the American people and it will be easier for him to set up a Caliphate/Dictatorship/Black Monarchy/4th Reich/Millennial Kingdom." You can make that argument if you'd like though.

I don't. I just note your original point was incoherent. Your attempt to counter that with a strawman only makes it worse.

[Thales]

Our enemies our emboldened? They have their man in the White House?

Yeah right. That's why Al-Qaeda is calling Obama a "House negro" and insisting that the attacks be kept up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU...0081119?sp=true

What they are trying to do is intimidate Obama into being a turncoat against America.

[Mammon]

I'm unaware of who, exactly, in this forum was making an argument that Obama was, in fact, an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent and they'd love America once he waas in and declare sharia law.

I'm unaware of where, exactly, in any of these posts I said someone on the forum said these things. How dumb of me. I keep forgetting that if you don't say something explicitly anyone can put words in your mouth and that now is exactly you said.

I should make a post one day saying "People like peaches." I'll be immediately hounded at with posts saying "I don't like peaches and your a irrational liar for saying I do!" or "Obama likes peaches? Then that's why you like them!"

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that I see a lot of people saying these types of things or similar things, so it's the summation of a lot of different bits and pieces I hear from people with the same theme -- that Obama is somehow tied to Islamic terrorism and they, the Islamic terrorists want him in the White House.

I did however, use some of the phrases I've heard on the forum though

"Their man" came from Capitalism Forever who was refering to Iran, but the point is similar. And Thomas said "Our enemies are already emboldened."

Those two particular phrases came from somewhere. But the point wasn't to attack anyone on the forum, just to show that our terrorist enemies don't like Obama like some people believe they do. But alas, it's been turned into me attacking the forums members apparently. Again, I didn't say I was attacking them -- therefore I must be! That's the way it works now!

Edit:Well I'll be darned, I found another post linking Obama to radical Islam! From Rearden Steel "and his past is surrounded by radical Islam both friends and family. I did I miss anything? I know I have but I'm not going to wast anymore of my time looking for it to argue pseudo Objectivist goose stepping to Obama's tune." Wow. How did I forget this one?

Edited November 20, 2008 by Mammon

[Mammon]

And what, in their actions, is inconsistent with this? It is clear that they do not fear his response. If they did, they'd find some excuse to NOT attack.

Re-read what you quoted Steve. I said their was "a perception" that he wouldn't respond. I meant a perception amongst the critics. Maybe I wasn't clear enough there, but given that context you sentence there is void.

Since they don't feel fear, they are indeed "emboldened" and will feel they can attack with impunity.

Your side-stepping the issue. Is it more or less than before? The experts even said "there was no sign of an imminent threat." You'd think as emboldened with the feeling that they can attack without impunity they would attack as soon as possible right? Why wait, nothing's going to happen.

No surprise that I missed that point since nothing you said in the orginal post makes it or pertains to it.

You're right, I figured it might be obvious, but it looks like your not going to understand no matter how much I'll explain.

I don't. I just note your original point was incoherent. Your attempt to counter that with a strawman only makes it worse.

What strawman? I only said you, or anyone else for that matter could make an argument like that. Come to think of it, you've made similiar arguments before actually. If I recall correctly it was you who said that the girl who attacked herself and blamed it on an Obama support might actually be an Obama plant!

[KevinDW78]

...

I'm sorry Mammon, what did you say? I have you on ignore.

[aequalsa]

I'm sorry Mammon, what did you say? I have you on ignore.

How do you do that?

[sanjavalen]

I'm unaware of where, exactly, in any of these posts I said someone on the forum said these things. How dumb of me. I keep forgetting that if you don't say something explicitly anyone can put words in your mouth and that now is exactly you said.

Well, lets see...

The point you missed entirely here is -- Al-Qaeda doesn't seem to like Barack Obama. They still hate America no matter who gets elected.

The implication being, Barack Obama is 'their man' and that SOMEONE said AL-QAEDA would love America if Obama got elected.

"Their man" came from Capitalism Forever who was refering to Iran, but the point is similar.

So...no one here actually said that Al-Qaeda's man would be in the white house.

Also, lets see:

Link first: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/0...lections08-iran

The Guardian, hardly known for outright making stuff up. They say:

Obama's victory has been warmly welcomed in Iran, where there is cautious optimism that he will help improve relations between the old enemies

Iranians reacted positively to Barack Obama's election, saluting the choice of the American people in breaking with George Bush's policies and hoping - despite years of deep mutual mistrust - for better relations between Tehran and Washington.

So I guess Capitalism Forever was right. The candidate that the Iranian government most preferred got in, and they are 'cautiously optimistic.'

And Thomas said "Our enemies are already emboldened."

As Steve mentioned, does 'emboldened' mean 'will stop attacking us' or 'will keep attacking us with renewed vigor'?

I think you ought to look it up. Your own post kind of substantiates that.

Those two particular phrases came from somewhere. But the point wasn't to attack anyone on the forum, just to show that our terrorist enemies don't like Obama like some people believe they do. But alas, it's been turned into me attacking the forums members apparently. Again, I didn't say I was attacking them -- therefore I must be! That's the way it works now!

When you post in the format of a challenge / gloating proof of your rightness, people assume it is directed at the audience unless you actually single out some person or group.

I suppose everyone could just ignore you as an alternative, though, since you always attack the ever-evil (and never defined) "they" and "some people."

Edit:Well I'll be darned, I found another post linking Obama to radical Islam! From Rearden Steel "and his past is surrounded by radical Islam both friends and family. I did I miss anything? I know I have but I'm not going to wast anymore of my time looking for it to argue pseudo Objectivist goose stepping to Obama's tune." Wow. How did I forget this one?

I don't see where he said - anywhere in that post - that Al-Qaeda would be happy if he got in. He said that Obama was clearly the most anti-capitalist of the two candidates. As far as his factual claims - well, they stand on their own. I don't have the time or inclination to research some of them, but if you want to, thats fine.

Edited November 20, 2008 by sanjavalen

[Grames]

Our enemies ARE emboldened.

[Zip]

Our enemies ARE emboldened.

LOL Thanks so much. that was really annoying me.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I didn't want to pick on that seventh-grade typo (or any of the others I've seen in this thread); it was too easy a target.

Come to think of it, you've made similiar arguments before actually. If I recall correctly it was you who said that the girl who attacked herself and blamed it on an Obama support might actually be an Obama plant!

And for all I knew at the time, she might have been (apparently she was a long time McCainiac, *and* has a history of pulling this type of crap). If in a campaign, NEVER underestimate the other side's ability to pull a dirty trick. (And they should never underestimate yours either.) There are a variety of dirty tricks that involve doing something deliberately stupid and/or obnoxious and making it look like the opponent's campaign did it. In fact I *still* wouldn't be terribly surprised if this turned out to be the case, though admittedly I now think it is *unlikely* given what we now know. This is NOT by the way a situation specific to Obama; any apparent faceplant of such gross stupidity by a minor worker in *either* campaign would have been suspect.

The point you missed entirely here is -- Al-Qaeda doesn't seem to like Barack Obama. They still hate America no matter who gets elected. Now, it could be brushed off with something like "They are really in cahoots together and this is just a front to make it not seem to so Obama will be more palatable to the American people and it will be easier for him to set up a Caliphate/Dictatorship/Black Monarchy/4th Reich/Millennial Kingdom." You can make that argument if you'd like though.

But that is not the point you are *actually* making when you title a post, however sarcastically, "our enemies are emboldened". You started out by claiming that they are not emboldened. That is IT. And them threatening more attacks indicates the opposite. When called on that you weaseled, changed your point to "they hate him" (far different from a claim the enemy is not emboldened) and erected strawmen.