Winter Soldier No Longer Fiction: MSNBC panel openly calls for drone strikes on Americans who incite violence (1 Viewer)

[Insein]

Hail Hydra.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thepostmillennial.com/watch-msnbc-expert-casually-suggests-killing-american-citizens-with-drone-strikes

"There is until the end of April, a persistent threat of domestic extremism, domestic terrorism, carried out in the ideology and around this belief that the election was fraudulent, that the COVID restrictions are unnecessary, all of those pushed ideologies by Donald Trump," Wallace said.

"We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years and under the Obama years, attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, with a drone strike, for the crime of inciting violence," Wallace went on to suggest."

__________________________

Love that open ended "threats until end of April" also. How much you want to bet by April we get an extension of "still seeing threats for the perceivable future"? That's ok. Patriot Act was great for America right?

 

[thriftyrocker]

Did you watch the video or just read the outrage porn? The host is asking, How can McConnell not prosecute Trump for inciting violence if he was willing to support killing Muslims for the same crime? 

 

[rockaction]

Did you watch the video or just read the outrage porn? The host is asking, How can McConnell not prosecute Trump for inciting violence if he was willing to support killing Muslims for the same crime? 

Something about this tells me that twain you two is the truth.

 

[squistion]

Horribly misleading and inflammatory thread title.

No, the MSNBC panel does not openly call for drone strikes on Americans who incite violence. Not even close.

:IBTL:

 

[Insein]

Did you watch the video or just read the outrage porn? The host is asking, How can McConnell not prosecute Trump for inciting violence if he was willing to support killing Muslims for the same crime? 

Yes I watched the video. No she does not equate this to Mcconnell. Shes asking why Mcconnell is not supporting this like the drone strikes. 

 

[Insein]

Horribly misleading and inflammatory thread title.

No, the MSNBC panel does not openly calls for drone strikes on Americans who incite violence. Not even close.

:IBTL:

Not misleading at all. Did you watch the video? She directly asked why Mcconnell is not willing to root out and kill those that incite violence when he understands that's what was done under Bush and Obama.

 

[squistion]

Not misleading at all. Did you watch the video?

Yes I did and the mods should shut this thread down as no one on the panel came close to suggesting domestic drone strikes on US citizens.

 

[Insein]

Yes I did and the mods should shut this thread down as no one on the panel came close to suggesting domestic drone strikes on US citizens.

"We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years and under the Obama years, attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, with a drone strike, for the crime of inciting violence,"

How else do you interpret that?

 

[parasaurolophus]

"We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years and under the Obama years, attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, with a drone strike, for the crime of inciting violence,"

How else do you interpret that?

I think she favors the policy of killing terrorists that incite violence. Her later quote about how Mitch understands the way you root out terrorism, to me shows that she treats this idea as factual. She didnt say Mitch believed, Mitch thought, etc she said he understands. 

But I acknowledge that this could have been show notes that she is quick reading, could have misspoke, jumbled a phrase, etc. 

I do not think she is openly calling for this to happen. 

 

[Insein]

I think she favors the policy of killing terrorists that incite violence. Her later quote about how Mitch understands the way you root out terrorism, to me shows that she treats this idea as factual. She didnt say Mitch believed, Mitch thought, etc she said he understands. 

But I acknowledge that this could have been show notes that she is quick reading, could have misspoke, jumbled a phrase, etc. 

I do not think she is openly calling for this to happen. 

Very rarely are things openly called for like this but the direct correlations are made to implant that idea that this wouldn't be so bad. That way when it happens, people are less shocked.

 

[timschochet]

I’m in love with Nicolle Wallace. 

 

[whoknew]

That's hilarious. What's in the title is not at all what she said in the video.

 

[squistion]

"We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years and under the Obama years, attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, with a drone strike, for the crime of inciting violence,"

How else do you interpret that?

Yes, we had this policy which I thought violated the due process clause of the Constitution and said so in the FFA at the time.

But she does not come close to suggesting we should now use drones against American citizens. Please.

Horrible Straw Man argument.

 

[Insein]

Yes, we had this policy which I thought violated the due process clause of the Constitution and said so in the FFA at the time.

But she does not come close to suggesting we should now use drones against American citizens. Please.

Horrible Straw Man argument.

Why bring it up when discussing current "domestic terrorists" then?

 

[squistion]

Why bring it up when discussing current "domestic terrorists" then?

It was a piss poor analogy to use, along the lines of: "If McConnell supported drone strikes against terrorists, then he should support impeachment charges against Trump". While I don't follow this so called logic, she was not suggesting what you claim in the misleading thread title. 

 

[Insein]

It was a piss poor analogy to use, along the lines of: If McConnell supported drone strikes against terrorists he should support impeachment charges against Trump. While I don't follow this so called logic, she was not suggesting what you claim in the misleading thread title. 

If she was making a connection to Mcconnell, she did a really REALLY poor job of it since it sounds like she was encouraging Mitch and others to do this as the right thing to do.

 

[squistion]

If she was making a connection to Mcconnell, she did a really REALLY poor job of it since it sounds like she was encouraging Mitch and others to do this as the right thing to do.

Um, no it doesn't sound like she is encouraging them to kill Americans with drones. Awful and probably not unintentional mischaracterization of what she said. 

 

[DaVinci]

If she was making a connection to Mcconnell, she did a really REALLY poor job of it since it sounds like she was encouraging Mitch and others to do this as the right thing to do.

By “this” do you mean convicting Trump? Because that is what she was promoting that McConnell do. And it’s also the right thing to do.

 

[Sea Duck]

That's hilarious. What's in the title is not at all what she said in the video.

We also shouldn't ignore the OP's attempt to conflate a comic book character with media pundits.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

"We had a policy, and it was very controversial, it was carried out under the Bush years and under the Obama years, attacking terrorism at its root, of going after and killing, in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American, with a drone strike, for the crime of inciting violence,"

How else do you interpret that?

I interpret that as explaining the policy  I’d need to see some evidence that she called for that policy to be extended in this case. 
 

Which is not to say that I don’t think that Bush 43, and Obama shouldn’t face condemnation for the policy she described. 

 

[jon_mx]

Seems like the case they made wass that we should be able to take Trump out with a drone, but since the Senate can only convict on the impeachment surely McConnell should support that.

 

[squistion]

Seems like the case they made wass that we should be able to take Trump out with a drone, but since the Senate can only convict on the impeachment surely McConnell should support that.

No, that doesn't seem like the case, just a pathetic attempt to deflect from the impeachment proceedings by mischaracterizing what Nicole Wallace actually said. 

 

[quick-hands]

No, that doesn't seem like the case, just a pathetic attempt to deflect from the impeachment proceedings by mischaracterizing what Nicole Wallace actually said. 

Deflect from impeachment  hearings?  They are a joke.   I doubt anybody thought "oh boy here is our chance."    In fact.  Im gonna need a link.

 

[jon_mx]

No, that doesn't seem like the case, just a pathetic attempt to deflect from the impeachment proceedings by mischaracterizing what Nicole Wallace actually said. 

She equated Trump to terrorists who were killed by drone strikes to make the case for impeachment.  To me the person making the over the top analogy is the bigger problem.  Here is a hint, if you want to make the case that Trump's rhetoric promoted violence, perhaps you should not engage violent rhetoric when making the case.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think if we’re going with this analogy, Trump is Bin Laden, the Capitol rioters are the 9/11 highjackers, and the establishment Republicans are the Taliban.

I’m not pushing for any drones but the analogy doesn’t seem terrible to me.

 

[squistion]

She equated Trump to terrorists who were killed by drone strikes to make the case for impeachment.  To me the person making the over the top analogy is the bigger problem.  Here is a hint, if you want to make the case that Trump's rhetoric promoted violence, perhaps you should not engage violent rhetoric when making the case.

Nicole Wallace used no violent rhetoric. None. If you actually watched the video she is simply noting that if McConnel was OK with using drones on terrorists for the crime of incitement (which he was) then he shouldn't be against impeachment for Trump, after he said on the floor of the Senate that Trump had incited insurrection. 

 

[jon_mx]

Nicole Wallace used no violent rhetoric. None. If you actually watched the video she is simply noting that if McConnel was OK with using drones on terrorists for the crime of incitement (which he was) then he shouldn't be against impeachment for Trump, after he said on the floor of the Senate that Trump had incited insurrection. 

Using an analogy which includes killing people with drones to justify how Trump should be treated, absolutely invokes violent rhetoric.  The fact that you intentionally had to change her use of "killing" to "using" to attempt to cover it up give is a pretty obvious tell.

 

[squistion]

Using an analogy which includes killing people with drones to justify how Trump should be treated, absolutely invokes violent rhetoric.  The fact that you intentionally had to change her use of "killing" to "using" to attempt to cover it up give is a pretty obvious tell.

I wasn't attempting to parse words or cover up anything. Please. What else were they using drones for against terrorists in prior administrations? It is was not for any non-lethal purpose. It is generally understood that the drones were used for killing people.

Yes, Wallace used a poor analogy but she obviously wasn't suggesting that drones be used to kill Trump or anyone else. 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

I think if we’re going with this analogy, Trump is Bin Laden, the Capitol rioters are the 9/11 highjackers, and the establishment Republicans are the Taliban.

I’m not pushing for any drones but the analogy doesn’t seem terrible to me.