Atlanta Jewish Times: Assassinate Obama To Save Israel

[BigSkyBob]

What an idiot. If there is anything that could permanently break the US-Israeli alliance, that would be it. If that were to actually happen and Israeli role were to come out, all hell would break loose.

Seems "our special relationship with the only democracy in the Middle-East" survived the Israelis strafing the Liberty. They killed 34 American sailors in cold blood, including the generally acknowledged war crime of strafing the lifeboats.

Sure, murdering an American President would be a public relations nightmare, but, so was the Liberty. Just lie, conceal, and, accuse anyone too interested in the Truth of "antisemitism." If such rebukes don't work, is not their critic's assassination another option?

What I find most interesting about the article is the assumption that the replacement Vice-President would toe a more pro-Israeli line. Could that be under the threat that he'd better least he be the next target on the list?

What I find most interesting about Ag's comment is not that he directly objects to the sedition, but, rather, he merely notes that treason advocated might not have the desired practical result. Apparently, he is trying to pragmatically appeal to people for whom treason is an option.

That is the real lesson we should draw from this incident.

[BigSkyBob]

What an idiot. If there is anything that could permanently break the US-Israeli alliance, that would be it. If that were to actually happen and Israeli role were to come out, all hell would break loose.

Seems "our special relationship with the only democracy in the Middle-East" survived the Israelis strafing the Liberty. They killed 34 American sailors in cold blood, including the generally acknowledged war crime of strafing the lifeboats.

Sure, murdering an American President would be a public relations nightmare, but, so was the Liberty. Just lie, conceal, and, accuse anyone too interested in the Truth of "antisemitism." If such rebukes don't work, is not their critic's assassination another option?

What I find most interesting about the article is the assumption that the replacement Vice-President would toe a more pro-Israeli line. Could that be under the threat that he'd better least he be the next target on the list?

What I find most interesting about Ag's comment is not that he directly objects to the sedition, but, rather, he merely notes that treason advocated might not have the desired practical result. Apparently, he is trying to pragmatically appeal to people for whom treason is an option.

That is the real lesson we should draw from this incident.

To be fair to the article author Joe Six Pack had a more friendly record towards Israel while in the US Senate.
Probably not friendly enough to invade Iran though.

Yeah the suggestion is just kind of ludicrous really.  I mean I know there is a pro-Israel lobby in this nation but damn........kill the President?  I didn't think that was legal.

It's not just murder, it's treason. Advocating debating his murder is sedition.

[BigSkyBob]

What I find most interesting about Ag's comment is not that he directly objects to the sedition, but, rather, he merely notes that treason advocated might not have the desired practical result. Apparently, he is trying to pragmatically appeal to people for whom treason is an option.

Now, this is extremely offensive. If you ever bothered to read what I usually say about Israel, you'd know I am not at all sympathetic to that state, which I don't even consider friendly to Jews. If anything, I normally tend to do my best to annoy Israel's defenders ) I wouldn't even consider it to be something undesirable, if Israeli-American alliance were to be broken.

But that's beyond the point: I said what I said, and there is no need to impute anything. This guy is an idiot even on his own, twisted criteria of what is good. That you immediately try to interpret my words this way just would have indicated to me that you harbor a certain unpleasant prejudice if I were in any need of such an indication: as it is, your profound anti-semitism is, of course, not in doubt based on our previous conversations.

Finally, on a more amusing note, of course, the charge of treason would be misplaced here even if your interpretation were correct (which it is, emphatically, not). I am a Mexican citizen, not an American. Try as I might, I cannot "betray" the US: if I choose to betray a country, it would have to be your southern neighbor. Having already "betrayed" mother Russia, it won't be a particularly novel experience. Nevertheless, let me state unequivocally: I would certainly not condone any violence toward the president or any other office-holder of the neighboring country.

And, finally, let me repeat. This guy is a twisted idiot.

This is pathetic, a man commits sedition, and, your response is try to distract attention from the fact that he committed sedition by falsely accusing me of accusing you of sedition. I didn't accuse you of sedition. I accuse you of ignoring the fact that he committed sedition. Sedition is completely unacceptable, and, any consideration of whether, or not, sedition is a practical alternative isn't even a tertiary concern.

Again, you have evaded the essential fact that he committed sedition by trying to characterized a serious felony as merely being the rantings of "a twisted idiot."

There is a process for handling sedition. He should be investigated. [Basically, proving that he wrote it] Then, he should be arrested, tried by a jury of his peers, and, if convicted, sentenced to prison proportionally to crime of sedition.

[BigSkyBob]

There is a process for handling sedition. He should be investigated. [Basically, proving that he wrote it] Then, he should be arrested, tried by a jury of his peers, and, if convicted, sentenced to prison proportionally to crime of sedition.

My dearest JewScare Bob.

Yes, you are right, I am indifferent to the sedition aspect of this - and, most certainly, I am opposed to anybody being tried and/or imprisoned for this, unless it can be shown that there was a serious plot to commit violence. The laws that dictate such imprisonment are the gravest danger to liberty: much graver than ramblings of an idiot in Atlanta. He is not a danger to the US: imprisoning him, most surely, would be a direct threat to every American. So, I guess, I might go as far as accuse you of advocating a course of action injurious to the United States of America and all of its citizens. I don't know, whether this would qualify as sedition: nor, honestly, do I care.

Now, you are taking a stand against sedition laws themselves.

Sedition is [law library site]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When you claim that "sedition" should not be prosecuted "unless it can be shown that there was a serious plot to commit violence," then you are against prosecution of sedition because "a serious plot to commit violence [to overthrow the government]" constitutes treason.

We are a nation of laws. Some of those law sanction sedition. If you think that should not be the case, by all means advocate repealing those laws. Until they are repealed, they are the law of the land. Advocating the discussion of the assassination of the President is well within that definition. The author and publishers are guilty of sedition.

Prosecute them.

[BigSkyBob]

Well look at this. Someone said something stupid that completely united Atlas in opposition....and a fight breaks out over the semantics of the nature of the guys crime. Simply amazing.

Your statement is self-contradictory. One one hand, you say there is a "united Atlas in opposition," and, on the other hand, you write about "the nature of the guy's crime."

While the board is united in the stupidity of his statement, it isn't united on whether, or not, he has committed a felony.

In my opinion, trying to plead down an act of sedition to merely an act of stupidity is morally wrong, and repugnant. The man deserves both condemnation and prosecution.

[BigSkyBob]

Oh, yeah. There is such a law. And there are morals. And any person, advocating prosecution under such law is, fundamentally, an immoral person, my dearest PogromBob.

Please, had this been in Israel, and had an Israeli-Arab author suggested debating the assassination of Netanyahu in the belief that his successor would be more sympathetic to their cause, the guy would be being waterboarded as we speak, probably with your blessing.

Advocating murder is immoral, not, merely "idiotic." Advocating murder as a form of regime change for a democracy is both immoral and anti-democratic. It strikes at the very heart of America being a self-governing people. To not prosecute him is both an assault on morality and democracy.

Sedition is a crime for a reason.