What ever became of the women's march organizer?

[SunsetBengal]

Oh yeah, now I remember. She received an agreement to leave the country, in exchange for no jail time, after it was discovered that she had lied on her passport. Turns out she was a terrorist, found guilty of a grocery store attack, and for the murder of two people.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/24/rasmea-odeh-convicted-terrorist-agrees-leave-us-ex/

http://nypost.com/2017/02/25/the-next-womens-march-is-co-organized-by-a-terrorist/

A different perspective

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.775997


My real question is, why did it take so long for anyone to have noticed that she lied? Her having been living in Chicago for the past 20 years does not bode well for the Nation's vetting process. I realize that she was convicted and served 10 years for her original crime, but the nature of that crime certainly should have caused a red flag in the INS data bases, shouldn't it?

[JustWinBaby]

(03-25-2017, 07:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Her having been living in Chicago for the past 20 years does not bode well for the Nation's vetting process. 

Well, the "20 years" part might be a critical factor in that.

But, generally, it seems like our vetting process is working just fine....at least as well as any other country.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The insane alliance between liberal women and the most misogynistic ideology on Earth, islam, is an endless source of confusion/entertainment for me.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-25-2017, 09:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The insane alliance between liberal women and the most misogynistic ideology on Earth, islam, is an endless source of confusion/entertainment for me.

Sometimes I think conservative and liberal leaders get together to decide who takes which side of an issue, and then the lemmings brainlessly buy-in.

And this is a great example - Conservatives COULD have chosen to embrace the religious tolerance/freedom angle, but instead went with security.  Liberals COULD have really hammered on women's and a host of other issues, but happily embraced the racism angle.  That's probably unsurprising - Muslims are, after all, not Christian.  And liberals care much more about identity politics in THIS country than human rights elsewhere in the world.

You'd think we could easily all be aligned on this.  Truthfully, we kind of are.  But by choosing to grossly overemphasize one or two particular aspects, the parties are able to successfully divide the lemmings into distinct voter blocs.  That's what you do when you have no solutions but still want to give the appearance of choice to voters.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Maybe they need to take a hard second look at Madonna's desire to blow up the White House...

[NATI BENGALS]

I remember when all those idiots voted for this lady after years and years of evidence she was a fraud.

Mind blowing

[Benton]

(03-25-2017, 07:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Oh yeah, now I remember.  She received an agreement to leave the country, in exchange for no jail time, after it was discovered that she had lied on her passport.  Turns out she was a terrorist, found guilty of a grocery store attack, and for the murder of two people.  

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/24/rasmea-odeh-convicted-terrorist-agrees-leave-us-ex/

http://nypost.com/2017/02/25/the-next-womens-march-is-co-organized-by-a-terrorist/

A different perspective

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.775997


My real question is, why did it take so long for anyone to have noticed that she lied?  Her having been living in Chicago for the past 20 years does not bode well for the Nation's vetting process.  I realize that she was convicted and served 10 years for her original crime, but the nature of that crime certainly should have caused a red flag in the INS data bases, shouldn't it?

ins like a lot of agencies is underfunded. I'm for smaller government, for the most part. But immigration/border security is one of those issues where the feds should adequately fund the laws and agencies already in place.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-25-2017, 10:59 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I remember when all those idiots voted for this lady after years and years of evidence she was a fraud.

That's pretty harsh, considering the alternative was Trump

[GMDino]

(03-25-2017, 07:41 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Oh yeah, now I remember.  She received an agreement to leave the country, in exchange for no jail time, after it was discovered that she had lied on her passport.  Turns out she was a terrorist, found guilty of a grocery store attack, and for the murder of two people.  

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/24/rasmea-odeh-convicted-terrorist-agrees-leave-us-ex/

http://nypost.com/2017/02/25/the-next-womens-march-is-co-organized-by-a-terrorist/

A different perspective

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.775997


My real question is, why did it take so long for anyone to have noticed that she lied?  Her having been living in Chicago for the past 20 years does not bode well for the Nation's vetting process.  I realize that she was convicted and served 10 years for her original crime, but the nature of that crime certainly should have caused a red flag in the INS data bases, shouldn't it?

"Day without women" not the Women's March on Washington

So I'll play Devil's advocate here:  47 years ago she was labeled a terrorist for her actions.  If she had been on the other side she would have been called a rebel.

And she was convicted and served her time until the exchange.  With no other terrorist events linked to her.  Her worst crime since 1969 seems to be not telling anyone she was convicted and served for an act labeled as terrorism.

And she was in the US for 20 years without so much as a run in with the law?  Boy she must be a terrible terrorist.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-26-2017, 10:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: "Day without women" not the Women's March on Washington

So I'll play Devil's advocate here:  47 years ago she was labeled a terrorist for her actions.  If she had been on the other side she would have been called a rebel.

And she was convicted and served her time until the exchange.  With no other terrorist events linked to her.  Her worst crime since 1969 seems to be not telling anyone she was convicted and served for an act labeled as terrorism.

And she was in the US for 20 years without so much as a run in with the law?  Boy she must be a terrible terrorist.

Somehow that reminds me of Otter's defense of Delta House against the tribunal in Animal House.

[GMDino]

(03-26-2017, 11:05 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Somehow that reminds me of Otter's defense of Delta House against the tribunal in Animal House.

I'm just saying that OP was a hair misleading.

But they got Capone on tax charges.... 

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2017, 09:21 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  That's what you do when you have no solutions but still want to give the appearance of choice to voters.

No solution for what?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2017, 10:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: "Day without women" not the Women's March on Washington

So I'll play Devil's advocate here:  47 years ago she was labeled a terrorist for her actions.  If she had been on the other side she would have been called a rebel.

This is a common tactic for terrorist apologists.  Equating that her being labeled a terrorist is simply due to the side she was on is par for the course for the Lord of False Equivalency.  She's labeled a terrorist because she is one.  Planting a bomb in a shopping center with the aim to kill innocent people seems to me to be the very definition of terrorism.

Quote:And she was convicted and served her time until the exchange.  With no other terrorist events linked to her.  Her worst crime since 1969 seems to be not telling anyone she was convicted and served for an act labeled as terrorism.

No, she lied on her immigration papers.  I'm sure you used this exact same argument to defend the Germans who immigrated her after WW2 and omitted the fact they served in the Waffen SS right?

Quote:And she was in the US for 20 years without so much as a run in with the law?  Boy she must be a terrible terrorist.

I'll return to the above analogy.  Many of the German immigrants lived entire full lives as US citizens, raising families and obeying the law.  So I'm sure you made the same argument for them every time one got caught right?

[GMDino]

(03-26-2017, 12:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

"devil's advocate"

"obtuse".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2017, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: "devil's advocate"

"obtuse".

There's that point by point argument we've all come to expect from GMDabo.  Let the class know when you're ready to continue embarrassing yourself.

[GMDino]

(03-26-2017, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(03-25-2017, 09:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The insane alliance between liberal women and the most misogynistic ideology on Earth, islam, is an endless source of confusion/entertainment for me.

It actually makes sense in a twisted sort of way. What was that old saying? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." An alliance between radical feminists and radical Islam is logical in this construct.

[*Nately120*]

(03-25-2017, 09:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The insane alliance between liberal women and the most misogynistic ideology on Earth, islam, is an endless source of confusion/entertainment for me.

Feelings of Islam seem to be the ultimate "my side vs your side" over logic situation either political party has.  They are ultra conservative, have no gun control, no abortion, being gay is wrong and illegal, they make religion the center of their government, and they treat women as second-class citizens.

Liberals excuse them and conservatives think they're insane and need to wiped off the map.  It boggles the mind, really.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-27-2017, 12:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Feelings of Islam seem to be the ultimate "my side vs your side" over logic situation either political party has.  They are ultra conservative, have no gun control, no abortion, being gay is wrong and illegal, they make religion the center of their government, and they treat women as second-class citizens.

Liberals excuse them and conservatives think they're insane and need to wiped off the map.  It boggles the mind, really.

It truly does.  I do wonder if the tolerance tide isn't turning in Europe though.  When the Dutch, the most tolerant society I have ever personally witnessed, start having significant issues with you something is very wrong.

[Belsnickel]

(03-27-2017, 12:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It truly does.  I do wonder if the tolerance tide isn't turning in Europe though.  When the Dutch, the most tolerant society I have ever personally witnessed, start having significant issues with you something is very wrong.

The only problem I have with a lot of what has been going on over in Europe has been that we see the turning tide being used in a very discouraging way. I don't have any issues with movements to force immigrants to be adherent to the laws of the land they live in. Freedom of religion is a part of a free society, but no freedom is limitless. I don't like that this sentiment is being used in some places, by some (prominent) people, as a reason to turn away people in need. Obviously, the idea of bringing in refugees is a complex one that has many different angles, but arguments from some more nationalist movements against Muslim refugees just on principle of them being Muslim is extremely disheartening. This isn't the majority sentiment, but it is something fueling a lot of propaganda over there (and some here, for that matter) and it's just sad.