Where's Trayvon Martin level of outrage for Obama's due-process-free assassinations?

GIF THREAD!

 

Banananananaanananananananana Batman!

 

Hightop, it's a vicious cycle.

 

I want that bike, I'm not gonna lie.

 

I'll bite for the sake of discussion; I don't think these incidents are anywhere close to the same thing. The anger in the Trayvon case simply does not translate toward anger toward Obama's killing of targets it has deemed to be terrorists. They are not equal or and the only substantive similarity is that someone is dead. Not that I agree, but many Americans are for extra-judicial killings of individuals deemed to be terrorists by the executive and military. Additionally, the media coverage of these two dissimilar things has been different. Trayvon is literally all that is on the news with outrage being manufactured on both sides to a certain extent. On the other hand, media coverage on both sides of the aisle of the details of killing of U.S. citizens abroad was rather anemic. I don't find this response strange at all, rather it is expected.

I hope your outrage about Trayvon Martin's killing and your outrage about extra-judicial killings translates into any future incidents of unequal application of the law toward minorities or improper treatment of those deemed to be terrorists. I would ask you, where is your outage about those asylum seekers who are denied asylum in contravention of well-established human rights law because they have been deemed to have given material support to terrorists? Why is no one talking about that issue? People are not talking about it because it is not an issue they care about and it is not one than is getting coverage. These things reinforce themselves.

 

The "Stand your ground" law is essentially how US foreign policy operates.

 

I have to admit I somewhat agree with Hightop here. The Zimmerman case has some implications beyond just the case but those are mostly limited to FL and self-defense laws. The Assassination program has far greater implications worldwide.

 

While all true, outrage isn't and never has been determined by future implications. I don't see the relevance at all.

Outrage is more commonly linked to celebrity, scandal, sleaze, and emotion. This case has lots of scandal and emotion. The assassination program has some ambiguous sleaze, but that's about it.

If Hightop doesn't see the difference, then it's because he doesn't understand at all how people function. Or, more likely, he's just trying to feign his own outrage and confusion to score political points.

 

What if the drone-powered assassination program saw Highcrop in a hoodie? Ponder that for a moment or two, and you'll see why this thread is absolutely critical.

 

No, it's a vicious circle.

 

Unlike with Awlaki, there would be no evidence to back it up. With Awlaki we have his own statements to back it up, as well as those by Al Qaeda confirming it after he was killed in the military action.

 

Technically, thanks to Congress, which passed the law with a veto-proof margin.

 

issues.

 

The evidence was Awlaki's own words on the fact that he was an enemy of the United states, and Al Qaeda confirming it after Awlaki was killed.

It has nothing to do with what anybody in the government presented. You weren't wrong to question Obama, and Obama should always be questioned.