Discussion for article #229196
Meaningless blowhard posturing.
8 Likes
This idiot seems to have fabricated his Snowden stories from whole cloth. Where’s the first hint of evidence that he released information about military plans? IMO this gasbag represents the very worst of the Republican party.
2 Likes
Wanna get in the business of deciding what charges are appropriate? Leave the legislature and go to the executive branch where that power resides.
4 Likes
Have these murders Snowden allegedly committed happened yet? Just wondering. Just idle, not-a-lawyer speculating but I’d imagine that would be breaking new legal ground.
2 Likes
when does his radio program start… just another effort by this gasbag to get his name out there to remind folks his bits of wisdom soon will be available over the airwaves…
1 Like
We have more evidence to convict Cheney and Rumsfeld than we do Snowden.
4 Likes
I’m not a Snowden fan but this sort of talk just makes people more sympathetic to him. Snowden’s chief PR spokesman published an article this morning, just prior to the shootings in Ottawa, literally justifying Islamic extremists trying to murder soldiers at home.
3 Likes
I was thinking that this stunt is just part of the soft launch for his new radio show.
1 Like
Good grief. It is pretty well known around here that I have zero love or respect for Snowden, but this is hyperbolic crapola.
3 Likes
Kinda of a weird extension of Bush Doctrine #4? “If a group or country has the capability of harming us, we must pre-emptively stop them from attacking us - by attacking them first.”
So if Snowden could possibly do something that could possibly result in the harm or death of a US or Brit troop, then he must pay for that murder now - before it ever happens.
Why am I now thinking of Tom Cruise? I hate it when that happens.
1 Like
Maybe this is news to the Congressman, but you actually need a dead body to charge someone with murder. It is not a theoretical charge.
1 Like
“Snowden’s chief PR spokesman published an article this morning, just prior to the shootings in Ottawa, literally justifying Islamic extremists trying to murder soldiers at home.”
Ohmygosh, that’s crazy, who did that? I know that Glenn Greenwald wrote a column in the wake of the recent ideologically-motivated automotive assault in Canada, not saying that it was justified, but that it was a logical result of Canada’s policy of militarism abroad, but you clearly must be talking about a completely different article, since you’re certainly smart enough to understand that claiming causation is entirely different from claiming justification. So who exactly wrote the article “literally justifying Islamic extremists trying to murder soldiers at home”, and what exactly did he or she say to literally justify those violent acts? Can you provide some quotes of him or her literally justifying that violence?
Even Republicans get it right from time to time. Snowden should be on trial for his life, but not specifically for murder; Snowden committed treason while we are at war in Afghanistan, providing aid and comfort to the enemy, In times of war such treason carriess the death penalty.
Yeah, the “causation” v “justification” was a nice semantic update. Too bad he wasn’t as clear in the first draft.
Oh, so you can’t provide some quotes in which this person (evidently we are talking about Greenwald?) was “literally justifying Islamic extremists trying to murder soldiers at home”? Because when I, myself, read the first draft-- even before the update-- I never saw any such justification for this violence being claimed… just an observation about this violence being an entirely-predictable result of militarism abroad. You do understand the distinction between the two concepts, yes?
I understand Greenwald thinks Canada is to blame for the two terror attacks they’ve experienced this week.
That’s the nature of war. A country doesn’t get to run around for years wallowing in war glory, invading, rendering and bombing others, without the risk of having violence brought back to it. Rather than being baffling or shocking, that reaction is completely natural and predictable. The only surprising thing about any of it is that it doesn’t happen more often.
In other words Canada literally had it coming because that’s the nature of war.
I think the main thrust of Greenwald’s article, before the unfortunately timed attack yesterday and the subsequent updates, was that he really dislikes the word “terrorism.” That article gives a strong impression that the attacks in Canada were legitimate acts of war.