(Close Window)
Topic: I.S.I.S.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Sep 18, 2014 05:48AM)
This is a bit of a rant, and since I know how much people just love it when I "go off", I figured it was just fair to give warning

I stumbled onto this in a thread I started about costumed characters of all things -

https://www.vocativ.com/world/isis-2/isis-pipe-bomb-attack-america/?page=all

To start let me say that I am not given to either fear mongering or paranoia regarding terrorism, especially regarding possible attacks in America. This however has given me pause, not that there is anything I, or any other "average citizen" can do about it directly.

I know that other organizations have issued calls to action from these "lone wolves", and so far we've been lucky, the marathon bombings not withstanding.
I have unbelieveable respect for all the true patriots who work tirelessly to keep these maniacs at bay.

I consider myself patriotic. However I believe that America has brought a lot of what we're dealing with upon ourselves due to our ridiculous foreign policy. We've set ourselves up as the police of the world, constantly involving ourselves in the affairs of other countries. We say that we're doing it for the greater good, but that is only a small part of the truth, if any of it is.

I've long since come to the conclusion that we need to mind our own business. I believe democracy is the best system humanity has, but that doesn't give us the right to impose it on others. For any reason.

I'm not saying that our actions are the cause of all the porblems of the world, but let's not beat our chests and claim we're the best when our actions show differently.

We say we're doing it to help the helpless, but even if that were the truth we never seem to do them any lasting good. Saddam was a monster but the are Iraqi people better off now? I'd argue that they are worse off. Much worse.

I could cite example after example going back to the Vietnam war. Every time we get involved we only hurt ourselves. Countless American lives and trillions of dollars for what?

If we'd spent the money we've wasted in Iraq on our education system, or our infrastructure we'd be far better off. That's only one example. How much have we spent in total? How many lives needlessly wasted for nothing?

We are in unimaginable debt. I can't wrap my mind around what a trillion dollars is, yet we borrow money at ridiculous rates to spend on more weapons, more conflicts, more stupidity. Let's not even get into all the foreign "aid' we throw down a rat hole every year.

I'm not naive. I know that our stated reasons for our interference are not the real ones. Slowly but surely our government has been corrupted to the point where it's being openly bought and sold.

Corporations have the same rights as individual people and they can essentially donate unlimited amounts to political candidates? Yeah, that's what democracy is. My level of disgust is off the charts, not that my disgust matters.

Which brings me back to I.S.I.S. To me they are a natural reaction to our involvement in Iraq and other places. Cut off one head, for whatever reason and two more, much worse than the original, takes it's place.

America and the rest of the world is not going through a financial crisis, or a military crisis, or a population crisis. We are going through a moral crisis. We have been for a long, long time and it's getting worse.

People with unfathomable power to affect the lives of others are running amok all over the world. These so called leaders talk an talk while we all skip happily towrds the edge, staring at our phones.

As I said I believe democracy is the best system for people to live together, but it can never be imposed on others. At one time we were an example, deservedly so to a great degree. An example is all we should ever try to be.

This country needs a real leader. Someone who isn't tied to anyone else's interest or agendas. Someone who puts the interests of this country first in all matters. Not that we shouldn't know what's going on in the rest of the world, or empathize. It's that we have our own problems to deal with and they're getting worse. That isn't fear mongering. To me it's fact.

The republican party and the democratic party are both FUBAR. There is no one in either party that isn't a criminal, an incompetent, a coward, or a dam fool, as far as I'm concerned.

We need a new party, the American party. And we need it now.

Thanks for reading my naive, ridiculous rant.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 18, 2014 07:54AM)
I agree that both the Democratic and Republican parties are screwed up and majority need to be replaced. I do agree about the debt but it's not just a result of wars costing us- it's useless government programs that are not properly overseen, it's the increase in assistance given out by the government aiding in Americans laziness taking away the incentive to work, the hefty salaries of our government officials and their pension packages when they only serve one term and still get healthcare forever paid by us. This is the first time in history that our government has not yet passed a budget since the current administration has been in office (2008). Not passing blame on one particular party either just stating that a budget still has not been passed since 2008 because there is no Bi-partisan agreement.

We are in a moral crisis- a major contributing factor to this would be TV. Look at the useless CRAP on TV and some of the sickening shows, i.e. MTV- Teen Moms, Jersey Shore, VH1- nude dating show etc.... Local television stations airing shows like Jerry Springer and Modern Family- show about a dysfunctional family and viewers think it's cool and funny. The more people watch this crap the more they think it's a normal way of life.

As far as America being the police- well remember- we did not begin this MAJOR intrusion of other countries until WE were attacked by terrorists in 2001. Yes- I understand some believe we should have never went to Iraq blah blah blah.... Point is- we know Suddam and Iraq was a safe haven for Al-Qaida terrorists not to mention the chemical weapon labs in Iraq that could create biological weapons within weeks if they had to. Some disagree there was WMD's in Iraq and some believe there was- I don't think we will never know the truth. Point is- the terrorists put the pedal to the metal when they attacked America in 2001 and outright stated that western culture needs to be destroyed and replaced by Sharia Law which is definitely laws NOT equaling freedom for all!

America now has no choice but to DESTROY these sickening extreme radical muslims who think their way SHOULD be the way of the whole world. It is THEM who are trying to impose their laws and beliefs to the WORLD. It is they who suppress woman and their roles in life. It is they who BEHEAD and STONE fellow people of not just opposite faith but their OWN faith for much less crimes than what it takes to get put to death here in America.

Further- we ARE an example- that's why so many people are trying to enter our country because Americans are FREE and have the OPPORTUNITY to better themselves (which is slowly being taken away, but nevertheless still possible).

Thank God America is and always will be the strongest nation in the world and that we have the power and might to defend and ultimately destroy these sickening people and anyone who wants to try and take away our freedoms God Blessed us with!

RNK
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 18, 2014 08:01AM)
Nope, you do not have a morale crisis, what you have is an oil crisis.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 18, 2014 08:12AM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, tommy wrote:
Nope, you do not have a morale crisis, what you have is an oil crisis. [/quote]

Yes- this to! If we would just tap into our own HUGE oil reserves here and become energy independent for a while the rest of the world would notice that we do not NEED to purchase their oil but choose to buy it which helps the global economy.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 18, 2014 10:19AM)
Oxymoron:
Imposing deomocracy.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 18, 2014 12:36PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
Oxymoron:
Imposing deomocracy. [/quote]

Imposing democracy = Liberating the oppressed and suffering
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 18, 2014 12:42PM)
Don't know about you guys, but I'm having a hard time evaluating the depth of the ISIL threat. Is it huge? Is it tiny? Where's the trustworthy and responsible journalism?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 18, 2014 01:03PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Don't know about you guys, but I'm having a hard time evaluating the depth of the ISIL threat. Is it huge? Is it tiny? Where's the trustworthy and responsible journalism? [/quote]
That's the key. With the NSA and DOJ all over the media's cell phones and Apache helicopters shooting reporters in Iraq, while a group I'd never heard of until a month or two ago, putting out A grade video's of beheadings and such ... It's pretty easy to see that the media is TAINTED to say the least. This administration was threatening prison terms to those who would not give up their sources. Media people dropping like flies. I agree ... Where is the trustworthy and responsible journalism?
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 18, 2014 01:10PM)
To me what's most worrisome is the sheer number of foreigners joining this group. It makes you wonder how many sympathizers we have in our own country that while they may not be able to visit them for training, may in fact still get enough of it online to launch an attack on our soil?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 18, 2014 01:13PM)
If 140 had the cash to leave the US and join in the fight ... How many didn't have the cash and STAYED?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 18, 2014 01:16PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
To me what's most worrisome is the sheer number of foreigners joining this group. It makes you wonder how many sympathizers we have in our own country that while they may not be able to visit them for training, may in fact still get enough of it online to launch an attack on our soil? [/quote]

Does anyone have an estimate of the number of foreigners that have joined ISIL? Is it more than a couple of hundred?

Several thousand (some estimates are much higher) Canadians fought for the US in Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans enlisted in the Canadian military to serve in the world wars (before American joined). The ISIL numbers are probably puny by comparison.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 18, 2014 01:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
If 140 had the cash to leave the US and join in the fight ... How many didn't have the cash and STAYED? [/quote]

Exactly! We must be more diligent then we have ever been in confronting and during whatever it takes to destroy them or dismantle them to a degree where they understand that they will never destroy us. I don't think these radical extremist muslims will ever totally go away. But I at this point- I feel we do not a have a choice but to pursue, seek and destroy them as aggressively as possible.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 18, 2014 01:38PM)
Do you think destroying all of these fighters will stop their desire for a Caliphate?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 18, 2014 01:40PM)
How many did it take to pull off 9/11?

Numbers are not relevant.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 18, 2014 01:42PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
How many did it take to pull off 9/11?

Numbers are not relevant. [/quote]
I agree Danny ... And while we are at it ... Where are the recruitment centers where these guys sign up?
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 18, 2014 01:45PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
To me what's most worrisome is the sheer number of foreigners joining this group. It makes you wonder how many sympathizers we have in our own country that while they may not be able to visit them for training, may in fact still get enough of it online to launch an attack on our soil? [/quote]

Does anyone have an estimate of the number of foreigners that have joined ISIL? Is it more than a couple of hundred?

Several thousand (some estimates are much higher) Canadians fought for the US in Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans enlisted in the Canadian military to serve in the world wars (before American joined). The ISIL numbers are probably puny by comparison. [/quote]

I believe the estimates in around 500? I may be off though. That is how many I believe that have left their country of origin to join them to fight. If we only had let's say 20 in the U.S., think of how much damage they could do. They can do a lot of damage to our normal daily lives by attacking a bunch of grocery stores and malls throughout the entire United States. If done properly, a lot of people won't want to do their normal shopping out in public if they can help it. Amazon and Ebay may benefit from that though. Just creating mass hysteria can do a world of hurt on our economy.
Message: Posted by: Pecan_Creek (Sep 18, 2014 02:00PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Do you think destroying all of these fighters will stop their desire for a Caliphate? [/quote]

Well, I would suppose so, unless they can have a Zombie Caliphate.

Should we make sure that all the kill shots are head shots?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 18, 2014 02:08PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
To me what's most worrisome is the sheer number of foreigners joining this group. It makes you wonder how many sympathizers we have in our own country that while they may not be able to visit them for training, may in fact still get enough of it online to launch an attack on our soil? [/quote]

Does anyone have an estimate of the number of foreigners that have joined ISIL? Is it more than a couple of hundred?

Several thousand (some estimates are much higher) Canadians fought for the US in Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans enlisted in the Canadian military to serve in the world wars (before American joined). The ISIL numbers are probably puny by comparison. [/quote]

I believe the estimates in around 500? I may be off though. That is how many I believe that have left their country of origin to join them to fight. If we only had let's say 20 in the U.S., think of how much damage they could do. They can do a lot of damage to our normal daily lives by attacking a bunch of grocery stores and malls throughout the entire United States. If done properly, a lot of people won't want to do their normal shopping out in public if they can help it. Amazon and Ebay may benefit from that though. Just creating mass hysteria can do a world of hurt on our economy. [/quote]

[irony]Hey maybe we can reopen the internment camps? Worked so swell last time.[/irony]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 18, 2014 02:36PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
To me what's most worrisome is the sheer number of foreigners joining this group. It makes you wonder how many sympathizers we have in our own country that while they may not be able to visit them for training, may in fact still get enough of it online to launch an attack on our soil? [/quote]

Does anyone have an estimate of the number of foreigners that have joined ISIL? Is it more than a couple of hundred?

Several thousand (some estimates are much higher) Canadians fought for the US in Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans enlisted in the Canadian military to serve in the world wars (before American joined). The ISIL numbers are probably puny by comparison. [/quote]

How many Americans enlisted in the North Vietnamese Army?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 18, 2014 02:44PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Do you think destroying all of these fighters will stop their desire for a Caliphate? [/quote]

I doubt it. But I think if we are persistent enough and take out a huge majority as quick as we can then it may slow them down quite a bit. My thoughts are that to accomplish any gains in diminishing ISIS structure is going to require ground troops. If not- you will see what is happening in Iraq where pulling our troops out early basically handed back Iraq to the terrorists. Unfortunately, I think this is a cancer that we are going to have to deal with for the rest of this earth's life.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 18, 2014 03:27PM)
"Your mission, Jim/Osama/ or whatever your name is, if you decide to accept it, is to recruit mercenaries, give them causes, arm, fund and train them, to destabilize or destroy sovereign countries etcetera, or whatever fits the bill. As always, should you or any of your I.M. Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Sep 18, 2014 03:39PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
Oxymoron:
Imposing deomocracy. [/quote]

Imposing democracy = Liberating the oppressed and suffering [/quote]

This was exactly my point. Is is NOT our job. We should not be interfering in the affairs of other nations, especially when we have our own problems. Let's end the oppression of those people who are suffering from poverty et.al. in this country. That's assuming that our motives are completely altruistic, which they are decidedly not.

Without getting into a religious debate, the beliefs of most of the people we're speaking of are directly opposed to what democracy stands for. The oppression of women, the persecution of gays, massive censorship and on and on and on.

The point is you can't force people to be free, and we have no right to try to do so, again given pure motives.

If these people want to be free then they must fight for their freedom. Will many of them die trying? Absolutely, but they're dying anyway, their fate in the hands of everyone but themselves.

From the very beginning our involvement has been a disaster, on every level. They are no more free now then when we first got involved.

In my opinion if we withdrew our presence, our weapons, our troops, and our money, the entire region would collapse due to infighting among the various factions and sects.
We could then use those wasted resources on our own problems.

The terrorists say it's because of our interference that they hate us and want us dead. Fine, let's stop interfering and mind our own business.

Will they settle their differences and become a global threat? Perhaps, but considering that most of these societies have existed for far longer that the USA and still can't consistently provide the basic neccesities of life, leads me to believe they won't. More likely they'll destroy themselves.

Instead we're sending more people into Iraq and the insanity is escalating. Again.

More lives and more resources, wasted for more stupidity and greed. And let's face it, it's the money pouring into the pockets of those who make and supply the weapons, that's the true motivation for all this.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 18, 2014 03:51PM)
I have no idea what is or is not going on. I know war is a bad option. Always. Maybe the best option at times, but always a bad one.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 18, 2014 04:09PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
To me what's most worrisome is the sheer number of foreigners joining this group. It makes you wonder how many sympathizers we have in our own country that while they may not be able to visit them for training, may in fact still get enough of it online to launch an attack on our soil? [/quote]

Does anyone have an estimate of the number of foreigners that have joined ISIL? Is it more than a couple of hundred?

Several thousand (some estimates are much higher) Canadians fought for the US in Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans enlisted in the Canadian military to serve in the world wars (before American joined). The ISIL numbers are probably puny by comparison. [/quote]

How many Americans enlisted in the North Vietnamese Army? [/quote]

Bad analogy. So far, the foreign nationals in ISIL are not from countries that are at war with them. Undoubtedly some of the locals are in a position of civil war, but not the ones we're talking about.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 18, 2014 04:31PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
To me what's most worrisome is the sheer number of foreigners joining this group. It makes you wonder how many sympathizers we have in our own country that while they may not be able to visit them for training, may in fact still get enough of it online to launch an attack on our soil? [/quote]

Does anyone have an estimate of the number of foreigners that have joined ISIL? Is it more than a couple of hundred?

Several thousand (some estimates are much higher) Canadians fought for the US in Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans enlisted in the Canadian military to serve in the world wars (before American joined). The ISIL numbers are probably puny by comparison. [/quote]

How many Americans enlisted in the North Vietnamese Army? [/quote]

Bad analogy. So far, the foreign nationals in ISIL are not from countries that are at war with them. Undoubtedly some of the locals are in a position of civil war, but not the ones we're talking about. [/quote]

I think it's your analogy that's the bad one. Lunatik's follow-up point about sympathizers we have in our own country and attacks on our own soil from within don't suggest Americans joining Canadians to fight against the North Vietnamese or Nazis.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 18, 2014 04:35PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, lunatik wrote:
To me what's most worrisome is the sheer number of foreigners joining this group. It makes you wonder how many sympathizers we have in our own country that while they may not be able to visit them for training, may in fact still get enough of it online to launch an attack on our soil? [/quote]

Does anyone have an estimate of the number of foreigners that have joined ISIL? Is it more than a couple of hundred?

Several thousand (some estimates are much higher) Canadians fought for the US in Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans enlisted in the Canadian military to serve in the world wars (before American joined). The ISIL numbers are probably puny by comparison. [/quote]

How many Americans enlisted in the North Vietnamese Army? [/quote]

Bad analogy. So far, the foreign nationals in ISIL are not from countries that are at war with them. Undoubtedly some of the locals are in a position of civil war, but not the ones we're talking about. [/quote]

I think it's your analogy that's the bad one. Lunatik's follow-up point about sympathizers we have in our own country and attacks on our own soil from within don't suggest Americans joining Canadians to fight against the North Vietnamese or Nazis. [/quote]

I was referring to the original question of foreign nationals joining ISIL to fight. Domestic spies/terrorists is another issue.

But Canadians joining Americans to fight North Vietnamese is not particularly different from Canadians joining ISIS to fight Syrians. (For the record I don't believe either deployment was justified, nor do I find it morally justifiable to join either of the invading armies.)
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 18, 2014 04:37PM)
Twister ... They hate us and want us dead because we are INFIDELS....NOT because we are interfering with them, although we truly are!!!!
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Sep 18, 2014 05:27PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Twister ... They hate us and want us dead because we are INFIDELS....NOT because we are interfering with them, although we truly are!!!! [/quote]

So let's stop pretending, leave them to kill each other so the world can see the nonsensical reasons why they are fighting , and deal with what remains. Which probably won't be much.

NO troops, NO weapons and NO aid of any kind.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 18, 2014 05:31PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
Oxymoron:
Imposing deomocracy. [/quote]

Imposing democracy = Liberating the oppressed and suffering [/quote]
Please look up the definitions of oxymoron, impose, and democracy.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 18, 2014 05:34PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
If 140 had the cash to leave the US and join in the fight ... How many didn't have the cash and STAYED? [/quote]

Exactly! We must be more diligent then we have ever been in confronting and during whatever it takes to destroy them...[/quote]
How would you feel about military going door to door and searching for weapons?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 18, 2014 06:23PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Do you think destroying all of these fighters will stop their desire for a Caliphate? [/quote]


I can tell you this. To do nothing definitely won't. However that is not the reason for us wanting them out. It is the way they practice their religion using it as an excuse. People should be able to practice their religion as they wish...until it involves killing hundreds of thousands to do so. Also practicing their religion should not include beheadings on youtube. Anyway I do not think it should.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 18, 2014 08:14PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
Oxymoron:
Imposing deomocracy. [/quote]

Imposing democracy = Liberating the oppressed and suffering [/quote]
Please look up the definitions of oxymoron, impose, and democracy. [/quote]


Look up humor.....
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 18, 2014 08:48PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
Oxymoron:
Imposing deomocracy. [/quote]

Imposing democracy = Liberating the oppressed and suffering [/quote]
Please look up the definitions of oxymoron,[/quote]

I am glad I did because I thought you were calling me a fat dum dum.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 18, 2014 08:55PM)
Democracy was imposed on the United States, once upon a time.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 18, 2014 09:48PM)
Democracy has many meanings.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 18, 2014 10:58PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Democracy was imposed on the United States, once upon a time. [/quote]

Technically landmark does not seem to agree with democracy so it is kind of imposed on him isn't it? There are people in this country today who feel it is imposed on them as well.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Sep 18, 2014 11:05PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, tommy wrote:
Democracy has many meanings. [/quote]

Nope, just one.

Noun, plural democracies.

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 18, 2014 11:23PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, tommy wrote:
Democracy has many meanings. [/quote]

Nope, just one.

Noun, plural democracies.

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. [/quote]

You've got to get a better dictionary.


1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government:
The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Sep 18, 2014 11:42PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, tommy wrote:
Democracy has many meanings. [/quote]

Nope, just one.

Noun, plural democracies.

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. [/quote]

You've got to get a better dictionary.


1.
government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government:
The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.
political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.
the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. [/quote]

And the difference is.............?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2014 12:51AM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Democracy was imposed on the United States, once upon a time. [/quote]

Technically landmark does not seem to agree with democracy so it is kind of imposed on him isn't it? There are people in this country today who feel it is imposed on them as well. [/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Gotta stop that one. Democracy is [i]the[/i] first principle for me. Govt decision of the people, by the people, for the people. And I defy you to show me one word I've ever posted here that contradicts that.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2014 12:58AM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Democracy was imposed on the United States, once upon a time. [/quote]
Really? News to me.

I did once read about a war where a people in a settler nation tried to exterminate another people, then went on to overthrow their own oppressive overseas government. They created what they called a Republic. That Republic allowed certain rich white men to consolidate their own power. Later, the principle of one dollar, one vote was de facto enshrined. But democracy? Please, don't make me laugh.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 19, 2014 01:41AM)
Democracy ... two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch ... Pure democracy is insane ... It means that 51% of the people can vote to kill the other 49% and take everything they own .... We live in a Republic ..That gives rights to everyone, despite the shenanigans of everyone else. Our constitution is what allowed slaves to be free and women to vote. We live in a Republic brothers and sisters... never forget that! :sun:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 19, 2014 02:15AM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Democracy was imposed on the United States, once upon a time. [/quote]

Technically landmark does not seem to agree with democracy so it is kind of imposed on him isn't it? There are people in this country today who feel it is imposed on them as well. [/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Gotta stop that one. Democracy is [i]the[/i] first principle for me. Govt decision of the people, by the people, for the people. And I defy you to show me one word I've ever posted here that contradicts that. [/quote]

Are you not the self described socialist? I must have you confused with someone else if not sorry.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 19, 2014 02:59AM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Do you think destroying all of these fighters will stop their desire for a Caliphate? [/quote]

No. :no:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 19, 2014 05:06AM)
In the meantime the USA will give the mercenaries another $500,000,000. While the French start the bombing.

People has many meanings.
Message: Posted by: Pecan_Creek (Sep 19, 2014 07:03AM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:



Are you not the self described socialist? I must have you confused with someone else if not sorry. [/quote]

Umm, Socialism is an economic system, Democracy is a political one. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 19, 2014 07:47AM)
Compatibility, a merge of the two eh? Umm. Lets go back in the writings of Lenin. Lenin said the dictatorship will last about 70 years and then we shall merge into the West. The system that will come out of it will be not quite be capitalist nor quite socialist. Alvin Toffler's book "The Third Wave" is all about, the coming together of the two systems. Read Gorbachev's last speech to the politburo he said "you'll hear that communism is dead. Don't believe it. We're simply moving into the next phase." What he's talking about the New World Order – it's actually global socialism, a globalist fascist system at the top running the whole kit-and-caboodle. The media which all owned by the globalists and altogether attack you government left right and centre. The net effect is national government look incompetent and the solution is?
i,e

Nation states cause some of our biggest problems, from civil war to climate inaction. Science suggests there are better ways to run a planet

Try, for a moment, to envisage a world without countries. Imagine a map not divided into neat, coloured patches, each with clear borders, governments, laws. Try to describe anything our society does – trade, travel, science, sport, maintaining peace and security – without mentioning countries. Try to describe yourself: you have a right to at least one nationality, and the right to change it, but not the right to have none.

- New Scientist

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22......ies.html
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 19, 2014 08:56AM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Pecan_Creek wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:



Are you not the self described socialist? I must have you confused with someone else if not sorry. [/quote]

Umm, Socialism is an economic system, Democracy is a political one. They aren't mutually exclusive. [/quote]


Socialism is not a political philisophy? The good people at Wiki seem confused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Perhaps you should clear it up for them.

While it may have @any flavors it is indeed a political movement. But by all means continue the condescending superior attitude if it makes you feel like the smartest guy in the room.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2014 09:08AM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Democracy was imposed on the United States, once upon a time. [/quote]

Technically landmark does not seem to agree with democracy so it is kind of imposed on him isn't it? There are people in this country today who feel it is imposed on them as well. [/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Gotta stop that one. Democracy is [i]the[/i] first principle for me. Govt decision of the people, by the people, for the people. And I defy you to show me one word I've ever posted here that contradicts that. [/quote]

Are you not the self described socialist? I must have you confused with someone else if not sorry. [/quote]
And you call yourself a capitalist? I must have confused you with someone else if not sorry.

The first day in 7th grade Social Studies class back in JHS 240 Mr. Anger (that was his name, but we thought he was cool since he drove a red sports car) told us, "If there's one thing I want you to learn this year and nothing else, it's that democracy and dictatorships are political systems, and capitalism and communism are economic systems."

I am a democratic socialist as are many folks around the world. Democracy being the political system I favor, and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism] Syndicalism [/url]socialism (i.e. worker control of businesses) the economic system.

I don't believe we've seen a democracy in this world yet--govt of the people, by the people, for the people-- (despite how countries might self-describe), whether capitalist or socialist.

I don't believe that the structures of capitalism allow for democracy; inevitably, I believe, monied interests will grab hold of the political apparatus for their own ends. We can see how that has happened in all the Western capitalist nations.

Whether worker ownership of the economy will allow for democracy remains to be seen. It has never been tried yet. The self-described socialist countries were never worker run. Soviet Communist Party policy around the world for a long time was to eschew real syndicalism as the betrayed anarchists in Spain found out during the Spanish Civil War.

Summary: I don't believe that capitalism is compatible with democracy; it remains an open question whether democracy is compatible with some form of socialism. In any event, try talking to people about democracy from a very fundamental viewpoint, and you'll find all kinds of criticism about it, starting from Plato to Shakespeare to the founders of the US. Democracy ain't popular.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2014 09:12AM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, landmark wrote:
Oxymoron:
Imposing deomocracy. [/quote]

Imposing democracy = Liberating the oppressed and suffering [/quote]
Please look up the definitions of oxymoron, impose, and democracy. [/quote]


Look up humor..... [/quote]
If you were saying my comment ws not very humorous, I agree; I wasn't trying to be humorous there.
If you were saying that [i]your[/i] remark was meant to be humorous, then I agree. It was funny in a Windows 8 kind of way.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 19, 2014 10:49AM)
I never said we live in a democracy. We have a representative republic. So lets be clear. This is not compatible wi

Communism and socialism are not necessarily interchangeable.

One flaw in your thinking. There are money interests in ANY form of government or economic system.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 19, 2014 03:06PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Do you think destroying all of these fighters will stop their desire for a Caliphate? [/quote]

No. :no: [/quote]
My point .... No one does ... It's NOT the answer .. We've had 10 years to dig a hole in water .. It doesn't work. So Obama's answer is to do it more..... INSANE
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 19, 2014 04:54PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Democracy was imposed on the United States, once upon a time. [/quote]

Technically landmark does not seem to agree with democracy so it is kind of imposed on him isn't it? There are people in this country today who feel it is imposed on them as well. [/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Gotta stop that one. Democracy is [i]the[/i] first principle for me. Govt decision of the people, by the people, for the people. And I defy you to show me one word I've ever posted here that contradicts that. [/quote]

Are you not the self described socialist? I must have you confused with someone else if not sorry. [/quote]
And you call yourself a capitalist? I must have confused you with someone else if not sorry.

The first day in 7th grade Social Studies class back in JHS 240 Mr. Anger (that was his name, but we thought he was cool since he drove a red sports car) told us, "If there's one thing I want you to learn this year and nothing else, it's that democracy and dictatorships are political systems, and capitalism and communism are economic systems."

I am a democratic socialist as are many folks around the world. Democracy being the political system I favor, and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism] Syndicalism [/url]socialism (i.e. worker control of businesses) the economic system.

I don't believe we've seen a democracy in this world yet--govt of the people, by the people, for the people-- (despite how countries might self-describe), whether capitalist or socialist.

I don't believe that the structures of capitalism allow for democracy; inevitably, I believe, monied interests will grab hold of the political apparatus for their own ends. We can see how that has happened in all the Western capitalist nations.

Whether worker ownership of the economy will allow for democracy remains to be seen. It has never been tried yet. The self-described socialist countries were never worker run. Soviet Communist Party policy around the world for a long time was to eschew real syndicalism as the betrayed anarchists in Spain found out during the Spanish Civil War.

Summary: I don't believe that capitalism is compatible with democracy; it remains an open question whether democracy is compatible with some form of socialism. In any event, try talking to people about democracy from a very fundamental viewpoint, and you'll find all kinds of criticism about it, starting from Plato to Shakespeare to the founders of the US. Democracy ain't popular. [/quote]

I think a good idea would be for you and all of the rest of the Syndicalism Socialists to band together, start your own businesses owned by all the workers and compete with the rest of the world. Or do you prefer to just steal existing businesses from the current owners?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2014 05:06PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I never said we live in a democracy. [/quote]
And yet some people want us to bring "democracy" to other places. What they really mean is, let's impose some system, not really important what, that allows us to exploit your resources, thanks, have a nice day, and here are some bombs.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 19, 2014 05:17PM)
Let's not be goofy here. While every instantiation of democracy has deeply problematic features, it hardly follows that each is a "non-democracy".
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 19, 2014 05:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Let's not be goofy here. While every instantiation of democracy has deeply problematic features, it hardly follows that each is a "non-democracy". [/quote]

Remember, Landmark has also been quite critical of Obama, so perhaps he's getting some goofy ideas from Fox News.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 19, 2014 05:22PM)
The horror!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNUr__-VZeQ
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 19, 2014 07:36PM)
Once the attacks start here on U.S. soil, our walmarts, our malls, our parks, our grocery stores, will everyone here be so adamant in not letting the gov't intrude on some of our rights or will ya'll just want the attacks to multiply and take more and more lives. At what point does a liberal break and let the bad guys be stopped, saving lives?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2014 10:40PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Let's not be goofy here. While every instantiation of democracy has deeply problematic features, it hardly follows that each is a "non-democracy". [/quote]

I disagree, John. As the waiter said the customer, How much poison in your coffee would you like with that sir? What's the matter, you don't like coffee?

No; there have been no democratic nation-states that I have been aware of. Some democratic institutions (juries), some democratic organizations, some democratic workplaces, some democratic households. But thus far, no democratic countries. Frankly, there's not that much interest from the elites.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 19, 2014 10:44PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
Once the attacks start here on U.S. soil, our walmarts, our malls, our parks, our grocery stores, will everyone here be so adamant in not letting the gov't intrude on some of our rights or will ya'll just want the attacks to multiply and take more and more lives. At what point does a liberal break and let the bad guys be stopped, saving lives? [/quote]

fear, fear, fear, fear, cower, buy, buy, fear, fear, cower, fear, fear, buy, fear, fear fear.


Thanks, message received.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 19, 2014 10:51PM)
Avoid question avoid question avoid question avoid question avoid question afraid of reality avoid question avoid question avoid question .

Thanks, message not received.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 19, 2014 10:52PM)
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 19, 2014, lunatik wrote:
Once the attacks start here on U.S. soil, our walmarts, our malls, our parks, our grocery stores, will everyone here be so adamant in not letting the gov't intrude on some of our rights or will ya'll just want the attacks to multiply and take more and more lives. At what point does a liberal break and let the bad guys be stopped, saving lives? [/quote]

fear, fear, fear, fear, cower, buy, buy, fear, fear, cower, fear, fear, buy, fear, fear fear.


Thanks, message received. [/quote]

Is this a gun thread?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 20, 2014 12:36AM)
ISIS has less members than the IRS ... Send the IRS over there!!!!! :welcome:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 20, 2014 07:23AM)
Osiris, Egyptian god of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 21, 2014 09:19PM)
Quite a 60 Minutes piece on ISIS tonight.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 21, 2014 09:33PM)
What is the difference between ISIS and ISIL? Why are they being referred to by both names?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 21, 2014 09:36PM)
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has told the BBC that it may be necessary to use ground troops to defeat IS militants.

Referring to Barack Obama's airstrike policy he said that the "fanatical force" could only be "harried and hemmed in by airpower".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29306005

These ex Prime Ministers etcetera, they tend to get promoted up to the big boys club after they leave office and then they tend to tell you what is really going to happen next. Ground troops next fits the bill.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 22, 2014 06:57AM)
Headline from Israel's Ha-Aretz Newspaper, 3 days ago:

"Islamic State recruitment soaring in wake of U.S. bombing"

You can read more here: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.616730?v=70C66F8BF1B22147832742B9E36A8D91

Way to go.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 22, 2014 07:28AM)
I do my best to refrain from commenting on these types of issues.

But...

Beware of this ISIS movement, it is just the tip of the iceberg.

They're ALL Sleeper Cells just waiting for the upperhand.

Disregard at your own peril.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 22, 2014 07:28AM)
I do my best to refrain from commenting on these types of issues nowadays.

But...

Beware of this ISIS movement, it is just the tip of the iceberg.

They're ALL Sleeper Cells just waiting for the upperhand.

Disregard at your own peril.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 10:57AM)
Thank God you posted it twice.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 22, 2014 11:45AM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, landmark wrote:
Headline from Israel's Ha-Aretz Newspaper, 3 days ago:

"Islamic State recruitment soaring in wake of U.S. bombing"

You can read more here: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.616730?v=70C66F8BF1B22147832742B9E36A8D91

Way to go. [/quote]

You really think that ISIS was going to stop at Iraq and Syria? And because we are now going after them, only because we are going after them, ISIS now and only now wants the US? Wow. Talk about naïve.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 11:49AM)
Yea and Batman created the Joker.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 22, 2014 12:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Thank God you posted it twice. [/quote]

One for The Almighty and one for the Flying Spaghetti Monster of course... :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 22, 2014 01:10PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, landmark wrote:
Headline from Israel's Ha-Aretz Newspaper, 3 days ago:

"Islamic State recruitment soaring in wake of U.S. bombing"

You can read more here: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.616730?v=70C66F8BF1B22147832742B9E36A8D91

Way to go. [/quote]

You really think that ISIS was going to stop at Iraq and Syria? And because we are now going after them, only because we are going after them, ISIS now and only now wants the US? Wow. Talk about naïve. [/quote]
Naive is thinking that you can win a guerilla war with bombing. Disproved over and over and over again throughout history.
As indicated, it virtually assures making the enemy stronger.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 01:39PM)
Well what is your idea landmark? Will they just go away and never bother us if we are nice to them or what ? What evil thing did we do that caused this problem?

How do we assure not being attacked? Give us the game plan here.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 22, 2014 01:44PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well what is your idea landmark? Will they just go away and never bother us if we are nice to them or what ? What evil thing did we do that caused this problem?

How do we assure not being attacked? Give us the game plan here. [/quote]

I can't wait to here this one! Anxiously awaiting your plan landmark?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 22, 2014 02:10PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, landmark wrote:
Headline from Israel's Ha-Aretz Newspaper, 3 days ago:

"Islamic State recruitment soaring in wake of U.S. bombing"

You can read more here: http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/1.616730?v=70C66F8BF1B22147832742B9E36A8D91

Way to go. [/quote]

Apart from your natural inclination to agree with its conclusion, does that strike you as a particularly credible story?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 22, 2014 02:31PM)
Absolutely. It's the same pattern we've seen with Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. Bomb civilians whether you mean to or not and you're guaranteed to create more terrorists. Gasoline on a fire.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 02:35PM)
Your plan?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 22, 2014 02:55PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, landmark wrote:
Absolutely. It's the same pattern we've seen with Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. Bomb civilians whether you mean to or not and you're guaranteed to create more terrorists. Gasoline on a fire. [/quote]

That's agreeing with the conclusion, not the story. The [i]story[/i], for instance, includes things like the sources and their actual knowledge of the numbers, demographics of the recruits, etc.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 22, 2014 02:57PM)
Hint: The story's own numbers are internally inconsistent, casting IMO serious doubt about the reliability of the sources.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Sep 22, 2014 03:08PM)
More coming home to the US

https://www.yahoo.com/news/official--some-americans-who-fought-in-syria-have-returned-160953525.html
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 04:02PM)
I still want to know his brilliant plan. All I ever hreat are complaints.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 22, 2014 04:31PM)
His plan is to pass an international (World Law) law to ban guns, just like many want to do here in The U.S. Then all the terrorists and bad guys will turn in their weapons and it will nice and everybody lived happily ever after. :)
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 22, 2014 05:07PM)
The IRS and other non-military agencies bought 2 billion rounds of ammo... Let's send them over.. They outnumber ISIS 100 to 1 AND they could shoot each bad guy over 10,000 times each!!!!!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/17/Feds-Buy-2-Billion-Rounds-Of-Ammunition
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 22, 2014 06:01PM)
I posted an article about two weeks ago Six Ways to deal with ISIS by Phyllis Bennis.

But I am intrigued by the argument which says let's do the thing guaranteed to get the results that are the exact opposite of what we want, because we can't think of anything better.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 22, 2014 06:27PM)
Hey Slim- Bet you didn't read this OTHER article on the Breitbart site that exposes the myths behind the ammunition purchases:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/The-Great-DHS-Ammunition-Stockpile-Myth

[quote]With the recent release of a letter from the Department of Homeland Security to Senator Coburn, the numbers we calculated independently seem to corroborate the narrative coming from DHS. The concerns surrounding DHS stockpiling ammunition are nothing but more fear-mongering and largely unwarranted. For once, here are the facts to set the record straight:...[/quote]

So even your own source doesn't agree with you and states this is just groundless fear mongering. This should be about the point where cognitive dissonance sets in for you.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 07:23PM)
It does bode well for the credibility of the site though.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 07:23PM)
It does bode well for the credibility of the site though.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 22, 2014 07:36PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Hint: The story's own numbers are internally inconsistent, casting IMO serious doubt about the reliability of the sources. [/quote]
How so?

"recruited more than 6,000 new fighters"

"20 new recruits a day in the town of north-west Syrian town al-Bab alone"

"There are "hundreds" of other towns in Syria seeing a similar level of arrival"

Seems consistent, by which I mean not internally contradictory (i.e. 100s times 20 times 30 is well over 6,000). Although I suspect the last of the lines I quoted is not be meant to be taken completely literally anyway (he probably means hundreds in the way I do, when I exaggerate and say I have seen hundreds of magicians perform a cups and balls routine). Also, when he says similar level of arrival he could mean a similar increase in recruitment measured as a percentage. Translation may be an issue here.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 08:01PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, landmark wrote:
I posted an article about two weeks ago Six Ways to deal with ISIS by Phyllis Bennis.

But I am intrigued by the argument which says let's do the thing guaranteed to get the results that are the exact opposite of what we want, because we can't think of anything better. [/quote]


I never put any such argument forth. I am asking you how to deal with the problem, or is it just as usual the only problem is the United States military?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 22, 2014 08:04PM)
The problem is that, indeed, the actual number would be well over 6,000 at those rates. If "hundreds" is taken conservatively to mean, say, 200-300, then there would be 28,000 to 42,000 in a week, not 6,000 since some time last month.

The 6,000 figure, btw, comes from the "Syrian Organization for Numan Rights," which appears to be one guy on another continent who hates the Syrian government. The publication apparently ran his press release and if there was any vetting of the figure, it doesn't show up in the article. It's just put out as gospel to be cited as fact by anyone who wants to believe its conclusion. There's also no attempt at contextualization by reference to what the recruitment numbers were like [i]before[/i] the bombing. Not really an example of journalism at its finest; just a handy citation to have for for the choir.

ERW:
[quote]
"Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) is an information office opposed to the Government of Syria. There was conflict between Rami Abdulrahman,[1] a Syrian expatriate, and Mousab Azzawi about who rightfully ran the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.[2][3] Abdulrahman's UK based SOHR has been cited by virtually every western news outlet since the beginning of the uprising.[1][3]

The United Kingdom-based SOHR is run out of a two-bedroom terraced home in Coventry by one person, Rami Abdulrahman,[4] a Syrian Sunni Muslim who also runs a clothes shop. After three spells in prison in Syria, Abdulrahman came to Britain in 2000 fearing a longer, fourth jail term.[1]

In a December 2011 interview with Reuters, Abdulrahman said the observatory has a network of 200 people and that six of his sources had been killed. Abdulrahman reports on events in the Syrian uprising, including the deaths of civilians, rebels and army defectors (which he calls "martyrs")[5] and government soldiers.[6] SOHR's methodology for counting civilian victims has been questioned,[7] as the organisation includes opposition combatants among the number of civilian casualties, as long as these are not former members of the military.[8]

Contents
Rival claims to the name
Criticism
References
External links
Rival claims to the nameEdit

The website Syriahr.org claimed that Rami Abdulrahman was in fact called Osama Ali Suleiman and he merely used the name Rami Abdulrahman, a pen-name that the website claimed to have been initially used by all "SOHR members".[9] Syriahr.org claimed that Abdulrahman was able to wrest control of the SOHR website Syriahr.net in August 2011 by changing all the passwords and that he proceeded to make himself the chairman of the SOHR, upon which an organisation claiming to be the 'real' SOHR created the rival website Syriahr.org.[9] This new website Syriahr.org then proceeded to attack Abdulrahman, claiming he only had a "very modest level of education", thus not able to "communicate professionally in English," and condemning his "lack of professionalism" and even alleging that he is a member of the Kurdistan Workers' Party.[2][9][10]

Abdulrahman, meanwhile, says the new site Syriahr.org is run by Mousab Azzawi, who used to translate for the SOHR[3] but was fired after falsely claiming to be an official spokesman for the organisation and calling for foreign intervention in Syria.[2] The SOHR which was run by Mousab Azzawi had stated that they consider reporting on the deaths of government soldiers to be "not in their interest".[2][3] Since the early conflict, it appears that Azzawi's Syriahr.org is inactive and has adopted the name Syrian Network for Human Rights with a website Syrianhr.org whereas Abdulrahman's group continue to use the sites Syriahr.net (Arabic version) or Syriahr.com/en (English version).

Criticism

SOHR has been accused of selective reporting, covering only violent acts of the government forces against the opposition for the first two years of its existence. Although critics concede that its reports haves become less partisan than during its time under Abdulrahman, critics interviewed by AsiaNews charge that as of 2013 SOHR "continues to defend Islamic extremists to avoid losing support among rebel forces".[11]"
[/quote]


So, seriously, even if you want to take the position that "hundreds" doesn't mean hundreds, do you really also want to take the position that this is reliable, unbiased journalism, and we should all take it on faith that the clothier in Coventry has the accurate numbers?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 22, 2014 08:53PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, landmark wrote:
I posted an article about two weeks ago Six Ways to deal with ISIS by Phyllis Bennis.

But I am intrigued by the argument which says let's do the thing guaranteed to get the results that are the exact opposite of what we want, because we can't think of anything better. [/quote]


I never put any such argument forth. I am asking you how to deal with the problem, or is it just as usual the only problem is the United States military? [/quote]


[quote]I posted an article about two weeks ago Six Ways to deal with ISIS by Phyllis Bennis.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 22, 2014 09:07PM)
The choir, really? Turn on the television or radio any time of the day or the night and the choir is singing Bomb, bomb, bomb, / Bomb, bomb (Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, enter your country of the week).

Whether that particular article is accurate remains to be seen; it doesn't change the fact that bombing has been a completely failed strategy in guerilla wars throughout history, in particular with reference to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 09:30PM)
I am not interested in what someone ELSE puts forth, what is YOUR solution?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 22, 2014 09:37PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, landmark wrote:
The choir, really? Turn on the television or radio any time of the day or the night and the choir is singing Bomb, bomb, bomb, / Bomb, bomb (Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, enter your country of the week).
[/quote]
That's exactly why members of the vehemently anti-war choir cite not to the American mainstream media, but to sources that are willing to cite to single individuals in the clothing business who reside nowhere near the Middle East, but have an entity name that sounds disingenuously credible.

[quote]
Whether that particular article is accurate remains to be seen;[/quote]
I was only ever asking you about the article; I *knew* what you thought of its point.
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Sep 22, 2014 10:05PM)
Retreating back to the illusionary safety of a land surrounded by two oceans certainly isn't the answer to ISIS. You can't just ignore the threat that ISIS poses and hope it just goes away or will never harm the US. They have already beheaded several of our citizens before any of these airstrikes on Syria commenced. We learned on 9/11 that a nation surrounded by two oceans is nothing but an illusion of safety. You have to take the fight back to the enemy.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 22, 2014 10:14PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am not interested in what someone ELSE puts forth, what is YOUR solution? [/quote]
I agree with the article Danny.
What is your solution?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 22, 2014 10:16PM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, General_Magician wrote:
Retreating back to the illusionary safety of a land surrounded by two oceans certainly isn't the answer to ISIS. You can't just ignore the threat that ISIS poses and hope it just goes away or will never harm the US. They have already beheaded several of our citizens before any of these airstrikes on Syria commenced. We learned on 9/11 that a nation surrounded by two oceans is nothing but an illusion of safety. You have to take the fight back to the enemy. [/quote]
Welcome back, General. I've missed you.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 22, 2014 11:01PM)
So ISIS is beheading the Shia, Christians and Jewish folks in IRAQ, basically OUR FAULT for leaving them at risk... So our government is bombing SYRIA...
I think we've been lied to again. :sawingchick:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2014 11:12PM)
I am not such a fan of bombing. For that matter not a fan of involvement at all.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 22, 2014 11:21PM)
The leader of ISIS has ordered the killing of all Canadians whether military or civilian.
This is evil.
I am Canadian as are my daughters. This group wants to murder us because we are not muslims.
They must be neutralized by the global community at all cost.
If the world must go to war to stop it then so be it.
My desire is world peace. But to get it, we must destroy those bent on war.
A paradox difficult for the pacifist to comprehend, but thank goodness pacifists weren't at the helm in 1939.
Unfortunately, War is 100% necessary to achieve peace, whether against a bully in the school yard, or an organization bent on world domination.
Period.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 22, 2014 11:43PM)
The Grand Chessboard by the geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, the first thing it says is:

"For my students—to help them shape tomorrow's world"

"EVER SINCE THE CONTINENTS started interacting politically,
some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of
world power. In different ways, at different times, the peoples
Inhabiting Eurasia—though mostly those from its Western European
periphery—penetrated and dominated the world's other
regions as individual Eurasian states attained the special status
and enjoyed the privileges of being the world's premier powers.
The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic
shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian
power has emerged not only as the key arbiter of Eurasian power
relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and
collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance
of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the
sole and, indeed, the first truly global power.
Eurasia, however, retains Its geopolitical importance. Not only
is its western periphery—Europe—still the location of much of the
world's political and economic power, but its eastern region—
Asia—has lately become a vital center of economic growth and rising
political influence. Hence, the issue of how a globally engaged
xin
xiv INTRODUCTION
America copes with the complex Eurasian power relationships—
and particularly whether it prevents the emergence of a dominant
and antagonistic Eurasian power—remains central to America's
capacity to exercise global primacy.
It follows that—in addition to cultivating the various novel dimensions
of power (technology, communications, information, as
well as trade and finance)—American foreign policy must remain
concerned with the geopolitical dimension and must employ its influence
in Eurasia in a manner that creates a stable continental
equilibrium, with the United States as the political arbiter.
Eurasia is thus the chessboard on which the struggle for global
primacy continues to be played, and that struggle involves
geostrategy—the strategic management of geopolitical interests. It
is noteworthy that as recently as 1940 two aspirants to global
power, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, agreed explicitly (in the secret
negotiations of November of that year) that America should
be excluded from Eurasia. Each realized that the injection of American
power into Eurasia would preclude his ambitions regarding
global domination. Each shared the assumption that Eurasia is the
center of the world and that he who controls Eurasia controls the
world. A half century later, the issue has been redefined: will America's
primacy in Eurasia endure, and to what ends might it be applied?
The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign
and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in
keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests
of humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no
Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and
thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive
and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of
this book."

Zbigniew Brzezinski
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 22, 2014 11:48PM)
Magicfish ... Are there Canadians in Iraq? Are those the ones ...Or is it ANY Canadian. Very bad! I'm beginning to wonder exactly how big this group really is. Is it all just about money? And aren't these guys just the same terrorists we've been fighting under a dozen different names? So many questions. And the biggest problem I have is that we generally kill many more innocent civilians than bad guys. Makes me sick. But bottom line. It's not constitutional to attack a country we aren't at war with. And after the NO WMD fiasco ... I don't trust our intel at all!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 23, 2014 12:04AM)
Slim, Canada has been in iraq and we fought valiantly in afghanistan.
But he was referring to all Canadians everywhere- men, women and children, to be killed.
I'm not too worried.
The Supreme Leader of Iran doesn't like it when a Sunni madman asserts himself.
I think the Ayatollah will make a move here
.
Funny how even in the midst of a mass, serial murderer calling for the grand scale slaughter of women and children, there are still pathetic morons who blame the U.S.
Its beyond disgusting.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 23, 2014 12:42AM)
I have Bible thumping friends. They say Iran and Turkey will get together on this and go after Saudi Arabia. Possibly nuke them. The scenario is headed in that direction I must admit. I'm not hip on Sharia Law. It's the original War on Women.
No leader of any of the other major religions personally killed those of other faiths .... correct me if I'm wrong... with the exception of Mohammed. I'm all for freedom of religion or freedom of lack of religion... But not if they advocate beheading those who don't agree.
Operation Northwoods.....
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Sep 23, 2014 12:53AM)
My brother's sister's cousin never said anything about Sharia Law.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 23, 2014 01:47AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am not such a fan of bombing. For that matter not a fan of involvement at all. [/quote]
I'll refrain from calling you an unpatriotic military hater, 'cuz I got class.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 23, 2014 08:58AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am not such a fan of bombing. For that matter not a fan of involvement at all. [/quote]
I'll refrain from calling you an unpatriotic military hater, 'cuz I got class. [/quote]


I know what ya mean. I know this is a joke. But nuttin patriotic about killing people who are minding their own business.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 23, 2014 09:38AM)
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The problem is that, indeed, the actual number would be well over 6,000 at those rates. If "hundreds" is taken conservatively to mean, say, 200-300, then there would be 28,000 to 42,000 in a week, not 6,000 since some time last month.

The 6,000 figure, btw, comes from the "Syrian Organization for Numan Rights," which appears to be one guy on another continent who hates the Syrian government.[/quote]
So you have problems with the number and style of reporting, I get that, but as I mentioned earlier it seems the numbers were not actually necessarily inconsistent. Which is the point I was curious about.

I really do not know anything much about the SOHR. I've no agenda or motive to either defend it or attack it.

But I would point out that in this day and age small operations can be very effective. Just because it is small, does not mean it cannot be doing excellent work.

www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/world/middleeast/the-man-behind-the-casualty-figures-in-syria.html

"Mr. Abdul Rahman has been faulted for not opening his list up for public access online, but the world of nongovernmental organizations gives him mostly high marks. "Generally, the information on the killings of civilians is very good, definitely one of the best, including the details on the conditions in which people were supposedly killed," said Neil Sammonds, a Mideast researcher for Amnesty International."

You might also take a look at this. Some evidence it cites suggests at least some of the criticisms against SOHR may not be all they appear to be:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31934.htm

"the row between the two rival groups laying claim over SOHR seems to reflect a wider political feud brewing between the two main Syrian opposition camps: the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change in Syria (NCB), both increasingly at odds with each other over the call for foreign intervention. The moving force behind the rival group (www.syriahr.org) who issued a letter attacking Abdulrahman’s group (www.syriahr.com) is a London-based Syrian exile and medical doctor named Mousab Azzawi. The smear campaign launched by Azzawi seemed to have undertones of classism."

"While disputing the personal identity and political connections of Abdulrahman, Azzawi himself seems to have offered misleading information about his credentials."

"The row between Azzawi and Abdulrahman is not restricted to a question of personal identity and reputation, but also the role each played in the Observatory ... Azzawi claimed on the phone that the syriahr.com domain had been idle until August when Abdulrahman hijacked the website by taking sole control ... But an examination of the Internet Archive's WayBack Machine – which preserves old versions of websites – casts doubt on this claim ..."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 23, 2014 10:10AM)
Lobo wrote: [quote]That's exactly why members of the vehemently anti-war choir cite not to the American mainstream media, but to sources that are willing to cite to single individuals in the clothing business who reside nowhere near the Middle East, but have an entity name that sounds disingenuously credible. [/quote]

I think you did some good work researching SOHR; but I do want to point out that the source I quoted (Ha-aretz) who quoted SOHR was about as mainstream as can be given the subject. It certainly makes sense to look at Israeli mainstream newspapers--which Ha-aretz most certainly is--to find out the latest about ISIS. In fact, The NY Times also quoted SOHR in one of its stories. So mainstream publications are just as (and often more so) prone to using questionable but disingenuously credibly named sources ("White House sources say..." and so on).
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 23, 2014 10:33AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Sep 22, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The problem is that, indeed, the actual number would be well over 6,000 at those rates. If "hundreds" is taken conservatively to mean, say, 200-300, then there would be 28,000 to 42,000 in a week, not 6,000 since some time last month.

The 6,000 figure, btw, comes from the "Syrian Organization for Numan Rights," which appears to be one guy on another continent who hates the Syrian government.[/quote]
So you have problems with the number and style of reporting, I get that, but as I mentioned earlier it seems the numbers were not actually necessarily inconsistent. Which is the point I was curious about.

I really do not know anything much about the SOHR. I've no agenda or motive to either defend it or attack it.

But I would point out that in this day and age small operations can be very effective. Just because it is small, does not mean it cannot be doing excellent work.

www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/world/middleeast/the-man-behind-the-casualty-figures-in-syria.html

"Mr. Abdul Rahman has been faulted for not opening his list up for public access online, but the world of nongovernmental organizations gives him mostly high marks. "Generally, the information on the killings of civilians is very good, definitely one of the best, including the details on the conditions in which people were supposedly killed," said Neil Sammonds, a Mideast researcher for Amnesty International."

You might also take a look at this. Some evidence it cites suggests at least some of the criticisms against SOHR may not be all they appear to be:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31934.htm

"the row between the two rival groups laying claim over SOHR seems to reflect a wider political feud brewing between the two main Syrian opposition camps: the Syrian National Council (SNC) and the National Coordination Body for Democratic Change in Syria (NCB), both increasingly at odds with each other over the call for foreign intervention. The moving force behind the rival group (www.syriahr.org) who issued a letter attacking Abdulrahman’s group (www.syriahr.com) is a London-based Syrian exile and medical doctor named Mousab Azzawi. The smear campaign launched by Azzawi seemed to have undertones of classism."

"While disputing the personal identity and political connections of Abdulrahman, Azzawi himself seems to have offered misleading information about his credentials."

"The row between Azzawi and Abdulrahman is not restricted to a question of personal identity and reputation, but also the role each played in the Observatory ... Azzawi claimed on the phone that the syriahr.com domain had been idle until August when Abdulrahman hijacked the website by taking sole control ... But an examination of the Internet Archive's WayBack Machine – which preserves old versions of websites – casts doubt on this claim ..." [/quote]

The numbers are inconsistent unless "hundreds" doesn't mean hundreds.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 23, 2014 10:34AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, landmark wrote:
Lobo wrote: [quote]That's exactly why members of the vehemently anti-war choir cite not to the American mainstream media, but to sources that are willing to cite to single individuals in the clothing business who reside nowhere near the Middle East, but have an entity name that sounds disingenuously credible. [/quote]

I think you did some good work researching SOHR; but I do want to point out that the source I quoted (Ha-aretz) who quoted SOHR was about as mainstream as can be given the subject. It certainly makes sense to look at Israeli mainstream newspapers--which Ha-aretz most certainly is--to find out the latest about ISIS. In fact, The NY Times also quoted SOHR in one of its stories. So mainstream publications are just as (and often more so) prone to using questionable but disingenuously credibly named sources ("White House sources say..." and so on). [/quote]

That's a very good point. And with regard to disingenuous credibility, "White House sources" are, indeed, even more so. In any administration.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 23, 2014 03:47PM)
Hey everybody ... Obama bombed the janitors last night!!!!
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 23, 2014 06:28PM)
And BTW ... They claim to have killed 30 terrorist last night along with 3 children and 5 innocent adults. At this rate the administration will have to kill 15,000 innocent women and children to get these bad guys...... but they are Syrians ... so I guess they just don't care.
This makes me sick.....
http://rt.com/news/189872-children-killed-strike-syria/
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 23, 2014 07:07PM)
I they don't want their civilians casualties due to airstrikes, then perhaps they should stop butchering innocent people. Just an idea.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 23, 2014 07:28PM)
I think he catch is, we're not supposed to want civilian casualties, either.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 23, 2014 07:36PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, magicfish wrote:
I they don't want their civilians casualties due to airstrikes, then perhaps they should stop butchering innocent people. Just an idea. [/quote]
You think those three kids beheaded anyone?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 23, 2014 08:34PM)
Gotta love the way some folks use the word innocent. and other weasel words.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 23, 2014 09:52PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Gotta love the way some folks use the word innocent. and other weasel words. [/quote]
You've got to be kidding me ... Children aren't INNOCENT? Syrian citizens aren't INNOCENT?
Weasel words? These people were alive yesterday. Little kids playing and laughing with their parents in Syria. Now they are DEAD!!!!!Man ..that's low by any ones standards.....
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Sep 23, 2014 10:01PM)
There is always collateral damage in war. That is why we must strive to avoid war when possible. Unfortunately, diplomacy does not work with people who sole purpose to to create terror and chaos.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 23, 2014 10:20PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think he catch is, we're not supposed to want civilian casualties, either.
Who said we did?
We don't. But they're unavoidable in modern warfare.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 23, 2014 10:22PM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, magicfish wrote:
I they don't want their civilians casualties due to airstrikes, then perhaps they should stop butchering innocent people. Just an idea. [/quote]
You think those three kids beheaded anyone? [/quote]
No. And the german children killed when we invaded nazi germany didn't commit the Holocaust.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 24, 2014 12:30AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think he catch is, we're not supposed to want civilian casualties, either. [/quote]

You guys are so [i]fussy[/i]
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 24, 2014 06:56AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, Salguod Nairb wrote:
There is always collateral damage in war. That is why we must strive to avoid war when possible. Unfortunately, diplomacy does not work with people who sole purpose to to create terror and chaos. [/quote]

Very true. Sad, but true. These innocent kids are being trained and brainwashed to commit the same sickening acts of terror on us. Unfortunately- to save the MASS of the kids, as Salgoud stated, there has to be collateral damage. So yes, some innocent kids may have to die to save the mass of them.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 24, 2014 07:08AM)
[quote]Very true. Sad, but true. These innocent kids are being trained and brainwashed to commit the same sickening acts of terror on us.[/quote]
No better way to train and brainwash innocent kids to commit sickening acts of terror than to kill their parents and sisters and brothers.

[quote]Unfortunately, diplomacy does not work... [/quote]
No, what 13 years in Afghanistan and Iraq shows is that bombing and military solutions don't work. Definition of insanity, etc.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 24, 2014 07:08AM)
[quote]On Sep 23, 2014, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Gotta love the way some folks use the word innocent. and other weasel words. [/quote]
With all due respect, innocent is exactly the correct word.

"Collateral damage," "terrorists," and "American democracy" are more fitting words to target for weaseldom.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 24, 2014 07:17AM)
Http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm?s=t
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 24, 2014 09:16AM)
You are not going to avoid these things in war. Which is why it is an absolute last resort. Also not calling it a war doesn't count.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 24, 2014 09:50AM)
Looks like obama is bombing other groups too!!!! Without congressional approval ... Glad the REPUBLICANS or LIBERTARIANS don't have a base there.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 24, 2014 11:51AM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]Very true. Sad, but true. These innocent kids are being trained and brainwashed to commit the same sickening acts of terror on us.[/quote]
No better way to train and brainwash innocent kids to commit sickening acts of terror than to kill their parents and sisters and brothers.

[quote]

Again- unfortunately it is the parents brainwashing their kids. And your solution would be what? Have ever answered that question? I believe it has been asked to you before? What is your solution?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 24, 2014 12:15PM)
Every time you kill innocent civilians like the 8 killed last night (three children) you **** off another 300 who run off and join ISIS ... Think Man Think!!!!! If group A was fighting group B and group A killed my son ... Who do you think I'm siding with.
These are the same genius's that said IRAQ had thousands of WMD's .. We are being played!
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Sep 24, 2014 12:47PM)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/G31JNPN.gif[/img]
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 24, 2014 12:55PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Every time you kill innocent civilians like the 8 killed last night (three children) you **** off another 300 who run off and join ISIS ... Think Man Think!!!!! If group A was fighting group B and group A killed my son ... Who do you think I'm siding with.
These are the same genius's that said IRAQ had thousands of WMD's .. We are being played! [/quote]

I do see your point Slim. But if we leave them alone- is it your opinion that they will leave us alone?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 24, 2014 01:01PM)
O/...history could use a man like Neville Chamberlain again...o/
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 24, 2014 01:56PM)
? Not making moral claim on killing here. Look at the statements of those who do.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 24, 2014 02:01PM)
Killing is not really the sort of thing that lends itself to moral claims.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 24, 2014 02:10PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Killing is not really the sort of thing that lends itself to moral claims. [/quote]

sure reads like such statements with qualifiers ... and synonyms and weasle words.

a rose by any other name...
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 24, 2014 04:47PM)
The purpose of the Middle East wars was never to win anything. It was to disrupt the alignment of factions that could destabilize certain countries. It was to stop the growth of ALQ.
Now we're not sure what we're doing. We helping the guy we wanted to get rid of in Syria. We are arming people that will likely kill many civilians if they defeat ISIL. Many civilians are caught between the worst of two evils. We talked big on Iran, Russia, Syria and did nothing to followup.

Do you think we would be doing this if the ISIL guys weren't great showmen. Video beheadings show up and now we have to act. Those people were held for years in some cases. We didm;t act then. It's a PR war. It's not designed to win, just to make it look like we're taking action till the bad PR (beheadings) blow over. Civilians always pay for a country's war. It is part of the equation of knocking out an enemy. The bigger question is what is our overall goal? Is it to help the people overthrow oppressors? We could do that. Is it to eliminate a faction? We might do that. Or, is it to look like we're taking action, limit the action to PR focused maneuvers and get out. I think the later.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 24, 2014 05:04PM)
Wasn't this Arab Spring all about the Arabs wanting Democracy in Northern Africa... But hindsight is 20/20 ... Northern Africa is now a cesspool of terrorism.
We've been snowed this entire time.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 24, 2014 05:11PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Killing is not really the sort of thing that lends itself to moral claims. [/quote]
Not sure where that statement comes from. What issue could involve more questions of morality than the issue of killing? It's one of the top 10 issues according to most of the world's religions last time I looked.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 24, 2014 05:31PM)
Exactly Slim. As a country you have to stand for something. If we are the leading democracy, we have to encourage and support democracy where it is trying to break out. The fall of the Soviet Union is complicated and I don't give Reagan all the credit, it also goes to Lech Walesa, John Paul II and others that stood up to the politburo. However, Reagan and Thatcher supported the Solidarity movement and encouraged the actions that moved the Soviets to Glasnost and eventually a breakup. Would it have happen anyway? Maybe. But, you can't deny American support help and encouraged those struggling. I don't see this happening anywhere today. We're feckless and make bold statements with little follow thru.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 24, 2014 06:41PM)
I suspect gasoline prices will rise soon. It costs more and more to get to it as they have to drill deeper and deeper. Gasoline prices, they have been comparatively stable for the past few years despite all the upheaval in the Middle East. Don't you find that strange folks? Gasoline prices, I suspect them to rise quickly soon and trigger a series of economic events, a global financial crisis and gasoline rationing to be be upon us before we know it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 24, 2014 07:20PM)
Well nobody really mentioned the downward spiral of gas prices as being the presidents fault. Under 3 bucks a gallon here.

I mean for consistency and all. I mean unless the high price is not his fault either.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Sep 24, 2014 09:49PM)
Gasoline prices haven't changed here within the last 10 years.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 24, 2014 10:11PM)
Gasoline prices have actually continued a decline from what they where in many places a few years ago and they haven't been this low here for about four years I heard somebody say. That will not stop them rising fast when they do.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 24, 2014 11:41PM)
[quote]On Sep 24, 2014, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Gasoline prices haven't changed here within the last 10 years. [/quote]


It is probably common knowledge here. But I missed it. Where is here that you refer?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Sep 25, 2014 12:19AM)
I'm in the Middle East. I assume it is due to the proximity of the refinery’s that makes it so cheap. If so, shouldn't the fuel be much cheaper in states such as Texas? If the oil is refined locally the cost of distribution should be exceedingly cheaper within that state.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Sep 25, 2014 12:34AM)
[quote]On Sep 25, 2014, Salguod Nairb wrote:
I'm in the Middle East. I assume it is due to the proximity of the refinery’s that makes it so cheap. If so, shouldn't the fuel be much cheaper in states such as Texas? If the oil is refined locally the cost of distribution should be exceedingly cheaper within that state. [/quote]


Should be. Should being the key word. I don't know for sure but probably very little of the oil that comes from Texas is consumed in Texas. That would make to much sense. :) Although I am not sure.

Thanks for letting us, or should I say me know where you reside. All the best.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 25, 2014 09:09AM)
The US-led coalition against Islamic State (IS) has targeted 12 oil refineries in Syria

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29357934

Hmmm
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 25, 2014 10:18AM)
[quote]On Sep 25, 2014, Salguod Nairb wrote:
I'm in the Middle East. I assume it is due to the proximity of the refinery’s that makes it so cheap. If so, shouldn't the fuel be much cheaper in states such as Texas? If the oil is refined locally the cost of distribution should be exceedingly cheaper within that state. [/quote]
You are assuming that capitalism guarantees that capitalists will pass on all cost savings to the consumer. It doesn't.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 25, 2014 10:28AM)
"All" is not part of the assumption he's making.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 25, 2014 06:09PM)
[quote]On Sep 25, 2014, Salguod Nairb wrote:

I'm in the Middle East. I assume it is due to the proximity of the refinery’s that makes it so cheap. If so, shouldn't the fuel be much cheaper in states such as Texas? If the oil is refined locally the cost of distribution should be exceedingly cheaper within that state. [/quote]

For many decades, refineries in Texas were geared to process heavy crudes imported from Venezuela, Mexico and Canada. For about 3 decades, actual oil production in Texas was on the decline. Only in the last few years has it been increasing again.

So they are now refitting some refineries in Texas and North Dakota etc. to handle more light domestic crudes and natural gas liquids from the shale fields, but that is an on-going process.

Obligatory link in case you want to read more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/business/energy-environment/oil-boom-is-driving-a-revival-in-refining.html
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 25, 2014 08:06PM)
Looks like we will be going over to stake our claim for our slice of the oil soon:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29366007
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 25, 2014 09:11PM)
Slim-

Why do you keep repeating that "these are the same geniuses who said there were WMDs in Iraq?"

No- that was the previous neo-con administration and Secretary of Defense. In case you didn't notice, they are no longer in office.

And consider this- every time ISIS publicly beheads another journalist they only succeed in putting another nail in their coffin and strengthen international resolve to erase them from the face of the earth.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 25, 2014 09:58PM)
Yes they have changed the puppets and so on with the show. The USA's variously named mercenary groups, in the Middle East and North Africa, including Libya, etcetera, will continue to wield military might, waging guerilla war, to challenge the authority of governments. “Al Qaeda”, which is the database of international arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel these mercenary guerrillas arms and money into the above countries and other places and to do other stuff, will continue to provide their usual service.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 25, 2014 10:35PM)
[quote]On Sep 25, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Slim-

Why do you keep repeating that "these are the same geniuses who said there were WMDs in Iraq?"

No- that was the previous neo-con administration and Secretary of Defense. In case you didn't notice, they are no longer in office.

And consider this- every time ISIS publicly beheads another journalist they only succeed in putting another nail in their coffin and strengthen international resolve to erase them from the face of the earth. [/quote]

Sorry BOB ... I see little difference between the parties. Bush attacked 4 countries and Obama added 2 more basically turning Northern Africa into a cesspool of terrorism. These were secular countries until the powers that be killed or removed their leaders. And BOB ... The USA has supposedly been destroying ALL of these terrorist groups for over a decade now. But it appears they are stronger than ever. 20/20 hindsight will tell you that this was the plan all along or our leaders are the most inept idiots on the planet. Which is it BOB?
:gunfighter:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 25, 2014 10:49PM)
Why do you keep capitalizing all the letters in my name, DAVE? Why is that, DAVE? Do you think my name is amusing or something to be mocked?

What do you not understand, DAVE, about the fact that, despite your opinion, these are not the same guys who declared the existence of WMDs?

So should we respond to the brutal beheadings of journalists? Or should we do nothing, thus capitulating to terrorist threats?

Which is it DAVE?

Yours truly,
BOB (at least you spelled it right)
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 25, 2014 10:56PM)
Well BOB, I'm happy for your quick response !!!! The Government IS the Government. So far these new wave of attacks on ISIS have killed just as many innocent civilians as ISIS fighters. I'm pretty sure every time you kill an innocent woman or child you upset a few dozen others. So numerically we are helping to grow ISIS every time we kill these "Collateral Damage" women and children. The entire idea is repulsive to me. I have children. If you kill them ... I'll join the side that fights you..... Pretty simplistic BOB! :bikes: :gunfighter:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 25, 2014 11:37PM)
It may be a lot of things but simplistic certainly is not one of them.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 25, 2014 11:48PM)
If you publicly behead our people, we certainly won't sit back. (You might, but I wouldn't.) Too bad that the killers choose to hide behind human shields of innocents. Their blood is on ISIS's hands.

Pretty simple, DAVE.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 25, 2014 11:48PM)
[quote]On Sep 26, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
It may be a lot of things but simplistic certainly is not one of them. [/quote]
Getting upset because someone killed your family is a no brainer....
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 25, 2014 11:51PM)
[quote]On Sep 25, 2014, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Sep 26, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
It may be a lot of things but simplistic certainly is not one of them. [/quote]
Getting upset because someone killed your family is a no brainer.... [/quote]

You mean like beheading one of your sons because he happens to be an American or a British journalist? You're right, it's a no brainer.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 26, 2014 12:16AM)
Yes BOB ... That exactly what I mean. How long will you let the media drag you around with these two murders? Since this has happened check out how many murders in CHICAGO!!!!
http://homicides.suntimes.com/
Maybe you need some air strikes over there? :angel:
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Sep 26, 2014 12:45AM)
[quote]On Sep 26, 2014, Slim King wrote:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KaKWDci.gif[/img][/quote]
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 26, 2014 01:07AM)
Brian ... Man you work way too hard at this. You could make some real cash with your skill set. :applause:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2014 06:16AM)
The use of radical Jihadist fanaticism etcetera is as old as the hills. ie

Gerhard von Mende (December 25, 1904-December 16, 1963) was a Baltic German who was head of the Caucasus division at the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territory, or Ostministerium, in Nazi Germany. He was a scholar on Asiatic and Muslim minorities within the Soviet Union and was considered the pioneer of mobilising them as a fifth column against the Communists, while being one of their staunchest advocates within Nazi Germany and post-war West Germany. Following World War II, he established the Research Service Eastern Europe through financing by the West German foreign office, a company which replicated his activities at the Ostministerium, becoming an intelligence asset for the CIA and BND.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_von_Mende



[img]http://www.tlnt.com/media/2011/02/lawrence-of-arabia1.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 27, 2014 11:56PM)
I just read that the building we have been blowing up at night were basically empty with ISIS leaving more than a week ago. Read the news from a local reporter there. I wondered why there weren't a lot of cars in the parking lot .......
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 28, 2014 09:17AM)
ISIS is out to behead EVERYONE (EVEN CHILDREN) just because they're deemed infidels, to set up their Caliphate, including other Muslims they deem "apostates".

Eradicate them fast I say.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 28, 2014 09:39AM)
No one is stopping you. They are looking for people like you in Syria.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 28, 2014 10:52AM)
[quote]On Sep 28, 2014, tommy wrote:
No one is stopping you. They are looking for people like you in Syria. [/quote]

They are everywhere.

I do my bit. ;)
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 28, 2014 07:15PM)
As I stated a long time ago- I personally spoke to a veteran that specifically told me they used to dig the ground down in the desert during the war for shooting ranges that couldn't be picked up by Iraq's radar. When doing this his unit FOUND cache's of mustard seed gas- a WMD. So- YES- Iraq did have WMD's. Not to mention they had labs that could develop chemical/biological weapons within a week if ordered.

Second- the oil fields are being taken out by the US because ISIS is using them to make money. It is very smart for the US to take these out.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 28, 2014 07:23PM)
And a long time ago I asked you for any PROOF of WMDs found in Irag.

There is none, the statement of an anonymous veteran notwithstanding. (Funny that he never said anything about that to the press, or they would have been all over it, as would the Bush administration.)

There were no WMDs found in Iraq. Even Bush himself finally admitted that.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2014 08:59PM)
He used them to gas his own people. They existed. Did he have them when we got there? Who knows? Did he try to make it look to the world like he had them? ABSOLUTELY.

Was it stupid to go into Iraq? OH HECK YEA.

Do we really need to keep going over this?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 28, 2014 09:15PM)
Http://dcxposed.com/2014/02/05/muslim-brotherhood-lobbyist-anas-altikriti-white-house/

Nudge Nudge Wink Wink Say No More
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 29, 2014 02:49AM)
R4BIA?

The hand graphic works, not so sure the meme and text are aligned.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 29, 2014 06:53AM)
Inside the Muslim Brotherhood in the West

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/august/inside-the-muslim-brotherhood-in-the-west/
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 29, 2014 11:12PM)
Here's my prediction....The only reason we are in Syria is to eventually kill ASSAD... ISIS is just the excuse to arm the other terrorists ... ASSAD has killed more ISIS than all of the US forces combined. Syria will become just like Libya .. A cesspool of terrorism..... :spinningcoin:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 30, 2014 02:03AM)
I predict government will seek new powers. That people could be stopped from speaking at public events and their social media use limited under "extremism ASBOs".
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 30, 2014 10:18AM)
I gotta stick up for slim on this one bob. see no capitals at all. The intelligence community that called out the Iraq WMDs are still there. They never change. In fact, it appears they called out ISIS long ago. The WMD issue is a lot of 'what is a WMD'. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/12/wmd-in-iraq-a-rather-nuanced-issue/


This administration did nothing when the journalist were captured and threatened. Then after the beheading, a lot of talk and deciding to do something. I don't think we jumped on it. And, the world community, whatever that is, isn't jumping in to help in a big way. Unless the Commander in Chief can articulate what we want to accomplish and set the end game, it's really hard for the public to get behind it. Degrade, destroy - no boots, no risk to Americans. All war is risk. Starting from that premise, almost promises failure because we have no real stated success goal. At least Bush's stand with us or against us set the tone and put everyone on notice. All these guys have Obama's number and are just pushing the buttons to humiliate him - ISIS, Putin, Assad and so on. In the same vein they are pushing Americans. The public is getting tired of this. Obama runs it like a publicity issue. It is going to overwhelm him when the next real act of barbarism happens. I don't think he's up to the task and the military hates him. My family is high ranking officers and we live in a military heavy area. No one has faith in the man to lead. Leadership is setting a tone, having values and being able to articulate those against threats to the country he apparently serves. He only now has given lip service to American exceptionalism and so on. Too little too late.

If we could get ISIS to change to SISI, I think we might make progress.. No one is scared of a sisi.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 30, 2014 01:01PM)
Just for the record re WMDs: International law says nothing about the possession of WMDs. Lots of countries have them no matter how you want to define them. What gives a country the supposed right to invade another one, by every standard of international morality and law, is the question of imminence. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat against the US is the relevant question. The answer, clearly outlined by every US and British intelligence service at the time was a resounding NO. In fact the CIA assessment was that the only way that Iraq might become an imminent threat was if the US bombed it--then there might be a danger of extremists coming to the US and causing imminent harm.

Take a look at the John Oliver on Drones thread for a more detailed understanding of the word games the US uses concerning the word imminent.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 30, 2014 01:14PM)
Whether Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. is not the only relevant moral question. Iraq - under the same leadership - had invaded a major U.S. ally and failed to comply with the terms of the ceasefire from the first Gulf War. We didn't know whether or not there were WMD in Iraq, and we didn't know specifically because of the actions of Hussein.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 30, 2014 01:19PM)
We know that the office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was the forerunner of the CIA, had a program in which over 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers from Nazi Germany and engineers and from other foreign countries, were brought to the United States for employment in the aftermath of World War II. We also know that after the war the CIA took control of the leadership of the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood based in Munich. Employed them to help the USA fight its enemies the communists, to do the same thing as they had been doing for the Nazi's in the war. Which was to facilitate espionage, sabotage, as well as recruit mercenaries to destabilize the enemy using guerilla warfare and terrorist tactics. We know ISIS etcetera are associated with the Brotherhood. But did you hear about Prescott Bush?
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 30, 2014 02:24PM)
[quote]On Sep 30, 2014, landmark wrote:
Just for the record re WMDs: International law says nothing about the possession of WMDs. Lots of countries have them no matter how you want to define them. What gives a country the supposed right to invade another one, by every standard of international morality and law, is the question of imminence. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat against the US is the relevant question. The answer, clearly outlined by every US and British intelligence service at the time was a resounding NO. In fact the CIA assessment was that the only way that Iraq might become an imminent threat was if the US bombed it--then there might be a danger of extremists coming to the US and causing imminent harm.

I don't disagree in principle. However, the UN gave Iraq a deadline. It gave Bush the opening to say 'I'm only making them comply with your mandate'. Most of Congress voted for it, after CIA/NSA briefings on WMDs. Almost no one poses an imminent threat to the US unless they have ICBMs. Imminence is never a standard. Also, there is no such thing as international morality or law.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 30, 2014 02:31PM)
Tommy don't know your point. However, once a war is over, it's time to get ready for the next one. One day an enemy, the next an ally. There are no morals or friendships in international relations. Only shared aims or not at the time. Protection of your country and your stuff, the ability to prosper is the only driver. Alls fair you know. As to bringing the engineers,etc over to learn their secrets, why not? War is over. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan did the same thing when they captured a people. They looked for the good stuff they had and took the knowledge across the empire. It's the main reason civilizations advanced.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 30, 2014 03:49PM)
Syria has destroyed all of it's chemical weapons just as we asked. On the flip side THIS ADMINISTRATION has THREE TIMES more chemical WMD's than Syria ever had. Why aren't we destroying THEM? Is it OK for Canada or any other country to attack The USA because WE have Chemical Weapons and WMD's?

Where is the LOGIC in this room?????? :cuteangel:
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 30, 2014 03:51PM)
[quote]On Sep 30, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Sep 30, 2014, landmark wrote:
Just for the record re WMDs: International law says nothing about the possession of WMDs. Lots of countries have them no matter how you want to define them. What gives a country the supposed right to invade another one, by every standard of international morality and law, is the question of imminence. Did Iraq pose an imminent threat against the US is the relevant question. The answer, clearly outlined by every US and British intelligence service at the time was a resounding NO. In fact the CIA assessment was that the only way that Iraq might become an imminent threat was if the US bombed it--then there might be a danger of extremists coming to the US and causing imminent harm.

I don't disagree in principle. However, the UN gave Iraq a deadline. It gave Bush the opening to say 'I'm only making them comply with your mandate'. Most of Congress voted for it, after CIA/NSA briefings on WMDs. Almost no one poses an imminent threat to the US unless they have ICBMs. Imminence is never a standard. Also, there is no such thing as international morality or law. [/quote]
ASSAD met his deadline with the UN yet this Administration still wants kill him.... Why is that? Who can trust the USA?
:gunfighter:
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Sep 30, 2014 04:08PM)
I believe it's logical to have better weapons than your enemy. The only reason we want them destroyed in Syria, is that they use them on their own people. Why we care, I don't know. Usually when you kill your own, we don't !@#$% (Cambodia, Soviets, China). We only get involved when you kill other people. We wanted Assad out for some reason, it was a pretext. Why did we bomb Libya and take out Ghadaffi? He wasn't a problem for us. He did make the Brits look like fools with the Pan Am Bomber and his oil is necessary for Europe. Assad has no real oil.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 30, 2014 04:19PM)
When the highjackers from Saudi Arabia destroyed 3,000 Americans, why didn't we kill Fahd .. The King of Saudi Arabia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahd_of_Saudi_Arabia
Seems like the only reason the Secretary of State had Gadaffi killed was because he demanded gold for oil and had his own monetary system. Nothing to do with bombings .. In fact Libya was a Allie of the US since 2006.....
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 30, 2014 05:16PM)
Yes indeed. The point is all has been going according to plan since the CIA took control of the board of directors of Nazi Muslim Brotherhood.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Oct 1, 2014 07:35AM)
Lol
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 1, 2014 08:42AM)
[quote]I don't disagree in principle. However, the UN gave Iraq a deadline. It gave Bush the opening to say 'I'm only making them comply with your mandate'. Most of Congress voted for it, after CIA/NSA briefings on WMDs. Almost no one poses an imminent threat to the US unless they have ICBMs. Imminence is never a standard. Also, there is no such thing as international morality or law. [/quote]

Violating UN resolutions is not an automatic trigger to go to war; if it were, the US and Israel would have been invaded many times over.

Imminence was a major reason that the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq right away. There are many internationally recognized laws. That's why the Hague exists. The CIA/NSA briefing that Congress got concerning the potential Iraqi threat was the declassified version. If you look at the classified version (now de-classified) you'll see that what was left out was exactly the point that the intelligence agencies did not think the Iraqi threat was imminent. That was deliberate and willful fraud.

Vincent Bugliosi of Manson prosecution fame has recently come out with a new documentary film called Prosecution of an American President (based on his earlier book with the poetic symbolic title "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder"). The evidence he gathers in the book and the film is pretty compelling. He talks about the CIA/NSA intelligence reports, as well as how "War is Only a Last Resort" Bush only invaded Iraq after the UN pleaded for just two more months to finish up their weapons inspection. When Hans Blix said he had found nothing yet but needed a few more months, Bush--not Sadaam-- ordered all inspectors out of Iraq and commenced bombing.

The book is better than the amateurishly put together film, but if you're pressed for time, the film gives you the quick scoop:
http://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-American-President-Vincent-Bugliosi/dp/B00LNID1NQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412170835&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Prosecution+of+an+American+President
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Oct 1, 2014 09:19AM)
No one is going to invade the US or Israel. Having control of the oceans and skies pretty much stops that from happening. Although we must be vigilant about the Canadians. Israel maybe, but they're scrappy and have nukes. Nobody wants that.

There may be international laws that are recognized, but not binding. The Hague had some conventions, but they can't enforce anything. The country also has legal drugs and prostitution. That's like saying Vegas has some good ideas about how stuff should run. And, I suspect it may be just a front for the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood.

And how can you prosecute GWB for murder? Ordering a military attack WITH the approval of Congress is part of the job. Like free travel on Air Force One.
Message: Posted by: Mystification (Oct 1, 2014 09:40AM)
The FACTS don't lie. I get tired of hearing people on here lie about the WMD's in Iraq. Then they blame Republicans. So, here are some quotes and facts. Try to remember all the democrats who were on the Intelligence Committee who were telling President Bush about the WMD's. They were the ones advising him.



“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 1, 2014 10:01AM)
What happens when a place goes broke, which is going to happen in the USA, is that the military follow money and move out. We in England then unofficially send in our man to get a little private army together there. Then England says, “There's a war started now and there's English people involved. We have to take the military in and save them” and who is going to stop us: The law? :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 1, 2014 10:24AM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, The Hermit wrote:
No one is going to invade the US or Israel. Having control of the oceans and skies pretty much stops that from happening. Although we must be vigilant about the Canadians. Israel maybe, but they're scrappy and have nukes. Nobody wants that.

There may be international laws that are recognized, but not binding. The Hague had some conventions, but they can't enforce anything. The country also has legal drugs and prostitution. That's like saying Vegas has some good ideas about how stuff should run. And, I suspect it may be just a front for the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood.

And how can you prosecute GWB for murder? Ordering a military attack WITH the approval of Congress is part of the job. Like free travel on Air Force One. [/quote]

Oh quite agreed that the US will probably not have to pay for its crimes. That does not change the fact that they were crimes, and that the present excellent adventure is also a war crime.

But maybe, just maybe, if ordinary Americans apply enough pressure, the administration and the rest of the no-nothing cowboys in Congress will have to back down as they did a few months ago when they wanted to bomb the [i]other[/i] side in Syria. (Research question for someone's Ph.D thesis: was there [i]ever[/i] a country on the face of the planet that John McCain [i]didn't[/i] want to bomb?)

The evidence is clear over decades; no matter what you might think the intentions are, the involvement of the US in the Mideast has only made things exponentially worse. The FIRST STEP to any kind of resolution, to any kind of putting back the broken shards of a broken society and a broken people is for the US to get out.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 1, 2014 10:38AM)
[quote] Try to remember all the democrats who were on the Intelligence Committee who were telling President Bush about the WMD's. They were the ones advising him. [/quote]

Exactly backwards. George Tenet, director of the CIA reported and met everyday with Bush jr. He told him that there was no imminent threat from Iraq. The classified intelligence assessment of Oct 1 2002 backs up that account. Three days later on October 4, 2002 when the unclassified version was sent to Congress, that account was left out, as were other minority opinions.

Bush fed a doctored assessment to Congress and Congress made their assessment based on that false assessment.

In what world do you think a Congressional "oversight" panel is the provider of CIA briefings to the executive branch??? Never.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 1, 2014 10:39AM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, landmark wrote:
The evidence is clear over decades; no matter what you might think the intentions are, the involvement of the US in the Mideast has only made things exponentially worse. [/quote]

You might find a Kuwaiti or two who disagree.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 1, 2014 10:47AM)
You might find a Kuwaiti who knows that Saddam Hussein was given the OK by the USA to go into Kuwait in the first place.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 1, 2014 10:50AM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, landmark wrote:
The evidence is clear over decades; no matter what you might think the intentions are, the involvement of the US in the Mideast has only made things exponentially worse. [/quote]

You might find a Kuwaiti or two who disagree. [/quote]


You know where Kuwait is located don't you? Right between Iraq and a hard place. BAM yea I just recycled that old chestnut uh huh.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 1, 2014 10:56AM)
Yes probably this one: the moving tearful young Kuwaiti, Nariyah, who gave the gruesome testimony about Saddam's troops ripping babies from their incubators. Except it was a PR stunt.


"The Nayirah testimony was a testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a woman who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and the American president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

The Kuwaitis were stealing oil from Iraq. That dispute did not warrant the horrific slaughter of Iraqis by US forces that followed. Many many worse disputes the US never seemed to care about. And now two decades later the murderous results are there for all to see.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 1, 2014 11:22AM)
But for the U.S., there would not be a Kuwait now.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 1, 2014 11:27AM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, Mystification wrote:
The FACTS don't lie. I get tired of hearing people on here lie about the WMD's in Iraq. Then they blame Republicans. So, here are some quotes and facts. Try to remember all the democrats who were on the Intelligence Committee who were telling President Bush about the WMD's. They were the ones advising him.



“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998 [/quote]
AMAZING!!!!
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 1, 2014 11:28AM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, tommy wrote:
You might find a Kuwaiti who knows that Saddam Hussein was given the OK by the USA to go into Kuwait in the first place. [/quote]
True story!
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 1, 2014 11:31AM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, landmark wrote:
Yes probably this one: the moving tearful young Kuwaiti, Nariyah, who gave the gruesome testimony about Saddam's troops ripping babies from their incubators. Except it was a PR stunt.


"The Nayirah testimony was a testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a woman who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and the American president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

The Kuwaitis were stealing oil from Iraq. That dispute did not warrant the horrific slaughter of Iraqis by US forces that followed. Many many worse disputes the US never seemed to care about. And now two decades later the murderous results are there for all to see. [/quote]
Yes .. The media dragged us around like a rag doll........
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 1, 2014 01:23PM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
But for the U.S., there would not be a Kuwait now. [/quote]
But for the US, there wouldn't have been Saddam Hussein.

And so on.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 1, 2014 01:30PM)
I'm reminded of one day during my childhood when I came home from school and told my mother that my history teacher had said that there really shouldn't have been a Civil War, because other countries had abolished slavery, and undoubtedly the USA would have, too. My mother's response was, "I'm guessing your history teacher isn't black."
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Oct 1, 2014 01:41PM)
Like I said before, we used to not care if some dictator killed his own people. Now we seem to want to get involved.

The Mideast as a ^#*$hole is not the result of the US. It's the result of small groups of royals/dictators that control all the money. They use the money and religion to keep people in line. Extremist muslims are funded to create turmoil and keep people from focusing on the fact that there is no chance of prosperity in their land. Talking about crimes is useless. There are is no 'law' governing war. War crimes is just BS. War is war. People die, stuff is destroyed. Only the victor counts.

We do what we do to keep the oil flowing. Without it or high priced oil our economy would go off the cliff. It's a realistic approach for a major superpower. We need to keep oil flowing to the productive countries and keep the world economy going for prosperity for those that can manage it. The fact that most of the ME lives in the stone age is no concern. They aren't going to be a factor in the world outside of oil reservers. Morality and crimes mean nothing. If the civilized world's economy stalled, we would have mass riots and who knows what. Princes and Dictators stay rich, ignorant people stay ignorant and controlled. Civilization marches on. Unless of course the Nazi Muslim Brotherhood becomes more powerful.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 1, 2014 02:35PM)
[quote]On Oct 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm reminded of one day during my childhood when I came home from school and told my mother that my history teacher had said that there really shouldn't have been a Civil War, because other countries had abolished slavery, and undoubtedly the USA would have, too. My mother's response was, "I'm guessing your history teacher isn't black." [/quote]

I'm reminded how nice it is to create a problem and then get credit for solving it. Except for the few hundred thousand dead.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 9, 2014 01:19PM)
ISIS slowly making their way into the U.S.?


http://www.examiner.com/article/the-truth-of-what-is-really-going-on-at-the-texas-mexico-border-is-frightening
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 10, 2014 09:14AM)
Good thing we have the RIGHT to own arms and take out these scums if they try. I just might feel a little unsafe if the liberals had their way and made everyone turn their guns over.

RNK
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 10, 2014 10:00AM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V3SqxUomwk
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 10, 2014 11:26AM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:
Good thing we have the RIGHT to own arms and take out these scums if they try. I just might feel a little unsafe if the liberals had their way and made everyone turn their guns over.

RNK [/quote]
Wow, really? You are so afraid of ISIS in the USA that you feel the need to protect yourself from them with a gun? How would that even work against a suicide bomber?

If that is your level of daily walkaround fear, then for at least as far as you are concerned, the terrorists really have won.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 11:39AM)
If you're so afraid of getting shot that that you support gun restriction legislation, and you walk around daily with that kind of fear, thn the NRA has really won.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 10, 2014 11:42AM)
Shall we compare the getting shot numbers with the domestic deaths from ISIS numbers?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 12:01PM)
Seems rather specious. Reasonable fear shouldn't be based on relative numbers.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 10, 2014 12:18PM)
If you were to list all the ways that you are likely to die, and then list them from most- to least-likely, where do you suppose dying in an ISIS-implicated act would be? Higher or lower than being struck by lightning or being crushed by a vending machine? More likely than dying of Ebola?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 12:27PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:
Good thing we have the RIGHT to own arms and take out these scums if they try. I just might feel a little unsafe if the liberals had their way and made everyone turn their guns over.

RNK [/quote]

Why is this lie constantly perpetrated by the NRA and extremists? I am a Liberal. I have no desire to make "everyone turn their guns over."

That is just another example of fear mongering.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 10, 2014 12:51PM)
To be fair many like to characterize anyone who wants to keep the second amendment as an extremest as well. Usually the extremes try to paint the middle as extreme to make themselves look less extreme.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 12:53PM)
Probably because according to the CNN poll you endorsed, 13% of Americans DO think that only police and military personnel should be allowed to own guns. And those are just the ones who admit it.

Edit: Danny snuck in there. This post is in response to Bob.

So assuming those 13% are liberals, and assuming, say, 40% of Americans are liberal (and 40% conservative and 20% in the middle, or something close to that), it's true that it's not "the liberals" who want to take your guns away; it's only a third of them.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 01:07PM)
Didn't we already let the terrorists win when we put armed guards and metal detectors at airports?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 01:28PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Didn't we already let the terrorists win when we put armed guards and metal detectors at airports? [/quote]

No. Not at all. Did we let criminals win when we first put police officers on the streets?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 10, 2014 01:29PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:
Good thing we have the RIGHT to own arms and take out these scums if they try. I just might feel a little unsafe if the liberals had their way and made everyone turn their guns over.

RNK [/quote]
Wow, really? You are so afraid of ISIS in the USA that you feel the need to protect yourself from them with a gun? How would that even work against a suicide bomber?

If that is your level of daily walkaround fear, then for at least as far as you are concerned, the terrorists really have won. [/quote]

I guess you have not noticed that ISIS takes hostages to behead them. Pretty naïve to think that all they do is use suicide bombers.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 01:31PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Probably because according to the CNN poll you endorsed, 13% of Americans DO think that only police and military personnel should be allowed to own guns. And those are just the ones who admit it.

Edit: Danny snuck in there. This post is in response to Bob.

So assuming those 13% are liberals, and assuming, say, 40% of Americans are liberal (and 40% conservative and 20% in the middle, or something close to that), it's true that it's not "the liberals" who want to take your guns away; it's only a third of them. [/quote]

Interesting spin- Why not just put it this way- MOST liberals, nearly two thirds of them (which would be a landslide in any election) do NOT want to take your guns away from you.

Of course, putting it that way doesn't fit into the fear mongering agenda, does it?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 10, 2014 01:34PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:
Good thing we have the RIGHT to own arms and take out these scums if they try. I just might feel a little unsafe if the liberals had their way and made everyone turn their guns over.

RNK [/quote]

Why is this lie constantly perpetrated by the NRA and extremists? I am a Liberal. I have no desire to make "everyone turn their guns over."

That is just another example of fear mongering. [/quote]

Ok. Sorry, you are correct Bob- it's not fair to state ALL liberals, just some Liberals and no Conservatives want to take the right to own a gun away. No Conservatives that I know of anyway.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 01:53PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Probably because according to the CNN poll you endorsed, 13% of Americans DO think that only police and military personnel should be allowed to own guns. And those are just the ones who admit it.

Edit: Danny snuck in there. This post is in response to Bob.

So assuming those 13% are liberals, and assuming, say, 40% of Americans are liberal (and 40% conservative and 20% in the middle, or something close to that), it's true that it's not "the liberals" who want to take your guns away; it's only a third of them. [/quote]

Interesting spin- Why not just put it this way- MOST liberals, nearly two thirds of them (which would be a landslide in any election) do NOT want to take your guns away from you.

Of course, putting it that way doesn't fit into the fear mongering agenda, does it? [/quote]

I think 2/3 is an awfully small percentage, when you're considering that what they want to do is completely abrogate the Second Amendment.

If 1/3 of conservatives wanted to re institute slavery, would you call it fear mongering to maximize that number? Would you say, "think of it this way - MOST conservatives, nearly 2/3 of them (which would be a landslide in any election) do NOT want to bring back slavery"?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 01:54PM)
Might as well also point out, though, that a majority of ALL Americans, including a majority of NRA members, favor reasonable gun safety laws, including background checks.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 01:55PM)
Or would you "spin" it to make it sound like that 1/3 minority was a disturbingly large number?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 10, 2014 01:55PM)
[quote]
On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:

Ok. Sorry, you are correct Bob- it's not fair to state ALL liberals, just some Liberals and no Conservatives want to take the right to own a gun away. No Conservatives that I know of anyway.

[/quote]

Then you should know about this conservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brady :)

And these conservative https://www.facebook.com/Conservativesforguncontrol

As well as this guy http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/conservative-georgia-congressman-expresses-support-for-some-gun-control-measures

Then of course Ronald Reagan supported gun control as well http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/feb/05/barack-obama/did-reagan-support-assault-weapons-ban/

So it's not just a liberal only issue.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 10, 2014 02:09PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Might as well also point out, though, that a majority of ALL Americans, including a majority of NRA members, favor reasonable gun safety laws, including background checks. [/quote]

I am with you on that! We especially need much better background checks.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 10, 2014 02:36PM)
Does the NRA think there should be background checks for private sales and gun shows? I wonder if the percentage who think there shouldn't be is greater than 13%.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 02:50PM)
The NRA position is significantly different that that held by the majority of its own members.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 04:11PM)
Assuming we could accurately and definitively label all possible gun laws as "reasonable" or "unreasonable," undoubtedly, many conservatives (and some liberals) would oppose "reasonable restrictions." However, conversely, many liberals (and some conservatives) would support [i]unreasonable[/i] restrictions - a fact which doesn't seem to particularly bother you as a gun owner, Bob. If fewer liberals supported unreasonable restrictions, I suspect that fewer conservatives would support the NRA. The NRA opposes the unreasonable along with the reasonable, and afaik, they're the only game in town when it comes to fighting the unreasonable ones, so the baby goes out with the bath water.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 04:14PM)
It says a lot the the NRA puts the interests of gun manufacturers over those of its own members.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 10, 2014 04:21PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:
Good thing we have the RIGHT to own arms and take out these scums if they try. I just might feel a little unsafe if the liberals had their way and made everyone turn their guns over.

RNK [/quote]

Why is this lie constantly perpetrated by the NRA and extremists? I am a Liberal. I have no desire to make "everyone turn their guns over."

That is just another example of fear mongering. [/quote]

Ok. Sorry, you are correct Bob- it's not fair to state ALL liberals, just some Liberals and no Conservatives want to take the right to own a gun away. No Conservatives that I know of anyway. [/quote]

Oh, I'm pretty certain you could find Conservatives who would want to take guns away. It depends on who owns the guns. I wonder what the general consensus of the Black Panthers arming themselves would be among Conservatives.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 04:22PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
It says a lot the the NRA puts the interests of gun manufacturers over those of its own members. [/quote]

What makes you think that they do that?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 04:24PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, RNK wrote:
Good thing we have the RIGHT to own arms and take out these scums if they try. I just might feel a little unsafe if the liberals had their way and made everyone turn their guns over.

RNK [/quote]

Why is this lie constantly perpetrated by the NRA and extremists? I am a Liberal. I have no desire to make "everyone turn their guns over."

That is just another example of fear mongering. [/quote]

Ok. Sorry, you are correct Bob- it's not fair to state ALL liberals, just some Liberals and no Conservatives want to take the right to own a gun away. No Conservatives that I know of anyway. [/quote]

Oh, I'm pretty certain you could find Conservatives who would want to take guns away. It depends on who owns the guns. I wonder what the general consensus of the Black Panthers arming themselves would be among Conservatives. [/quote]

I'm pretty sure it would be that the ones who haven't been convicted of violent crimes or felonies should be allowed to own guns.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 04:28PM)
The last time the NRA came out in OPPOSITION to open carrying of firearms was when the Black Panthers claimed the right to do so.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 10, 2014 04:31PM)
And how would they propose to enforce that? Do they support background checks of private and gun show sales?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 10, 2014 04:31PM)
And how would they propose to enforce that? Do they support background checks of private and gun show sales?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 04:36PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, landmark wrote:
And how would they propose to enforce that? Do they support background checks of private and gun show sales? [/quote]

Of course not. They've openly supported legislation that would preserve the gun show and private sales loop holes.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 10, 2014 05:18PM)
Before issuing guns, sharp knives and so on, the the US government background checks include making sure you are a fully paid up member of the Nazi Muslin Brotherhood.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 10, 2014 05:20PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Ok. Sorry, you are correct Bob- it's not fair to state ALL liberals, just some Liberals and no Conservatives want to take the right to own a gun away. No Conservatives that I know of anyway.


Oh, I'm pretty certain you could find Conservatives who would want to take guns away. It depends on who owns the guns. I wonder what the general consensus of the Black Panthers arming themselves would be among Conservatives.

I'm pretty sure it would be that the ones who haven't been convicted of violent crimes or felonies should be allowed to own guns. [/quote]

I'm not arguing that, I'm pretty certain most vocal Conservatives (I'm looking at you, Rush) would take to the airwaves ranting about "extremist groups" owning guns.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 05:41PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Ok. Sorry, you are correct Bob- it's not fair to state ALL liberals, just some Liberals and no Conservatives want to take the right to own a gun away. No Conservatives that I know of anyway.


Oh, I'm pretty certain you could find Conservatives who would want to take guns away. It depends on who owns the guns. I wonder what the general consensus of the Black Panthers arming themselves would be among Conservatives.

I'm pretty sure it would be that the ones who haven't been convicted of violent crimes or felonies should be allowed to own guns. [/quote]

I'm not arguing that, I'm pretty certain most vocal Conservatives (I'm looking at you, Rush) would take to the airwaves ranting about "extremist groups" owning guns. [/quote]

Well, you said you wondered what the general consensus of conservatives would be. Are there blowhard extremists who are inconsistent? Of course. Do think that's only true of conservatives?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 10, 2014 05:56PM)
Do you care what the official parrots say?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 06:01PM)
Http://thegrio.com/2013/01/11/nra-was-pro-gun-control-when-it-came-to-black-panthers/

[quote]...The organization actively lobbied in favor of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned gun sales by mail, and enacted a system of licensing those people and companies who bought and sold firearms. Franklin Orth, then the executive vice president of the NRA, said that although certain aspects of the law “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

During that time, the NRA and conservative politicians such as California Governor Ronald Reagan supported gun control as a means of restoring social order, and getting weapons out of the hands of radical, left-leaning and revolutionary groups, particularly the Black Panther Party.

Responding to the perceived failures of the nonviolent civil rights movement, the Black Panthers took a more militant and uncompromising approach of the fallen leader Malcolm X. Led by figures including Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, the Panthers’ “by any means necessary” approach included a most aggressive gun ownership policy to protect their communities from police abuse.

Beginning in 1966, the Panthers carried out police patrols, in which they rushed to the scene of an arrest with their loaded weapons publicly displayed, and notified those being arrested of their constitutional rights. California state legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the state law allowing citizens to carry loaded guns in public if they were openly displayed. Mulford had the Panthers in mind with this legislation.

On May 2, 1967, a group of Black Panthers protested the bill by walking into the California State Capitol Building fully armed. In response, the legislature passed the Mulford Act. And Gov. Reagan, who was a major proponent of disarming the Panthers, signed the bill into law, effectively neutralizing the Panther Police Patrols.

Yet, in the 1970s the NRA began to shift their direction rightward and actively lobby for gun rights. Their chief lobbyist, Harlon Carter, was a former border control agent and staunch supporter of gun rights. In 1977, Carter and his faction staged a coup within the NRA, against an establishment that wanted to shift away from gun control and crime in favor of conservation and sportsmen’s issues.

With the Black Panther Party and other left wing gun control foes out of the picture, the new hardline NRA feared the government would similarly take away their guns. Further, these predominantly white and conservative gun rights advocates in the NRA shared the Panthers’ distrust of the police.

Ironically, Ronald Reagan—who had signed the Mulford Act to disarm the Black Panther Party—changed his stance and advocated for guns as a defense against state power.

“So isn’t it better for the people to own arms than to risk enslavement by power-hungry men or nations? The founding fathers thought so,” Reagan said in a radio commentary in 1975.

In 1980, the NRA endorsed Reagan for president, the first such endorsement by the group. On March 30, 1981, President Reagan and three others were shot and injured by John Hinckley, Jr., 25, outside the Washington Hilton Hotel.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 06:16PM)
What about ISIS infiltrating our porous south border? Should it be tightened like the Israel wall? Or are some waiting for another 9-11 to happen or worse?
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 10, 2014 06:26PM)
What proof do you have that they're infiltrating the border?

Ron
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 06:31PM)
Despite what some right wingers and GOP members are saying, there is absolutely NO evidence to support the allegation that ISIS is infiltrating our southern borders. And even FOX news has questioned it.

The allegation has been rated "Pants on Fire" by Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/oct/10/duncan-hunter/duncan-hunter-makes-unconfirmed-claim-border-patro/

[quote]Fox News, in its original Oct. 8, 2014, online news report on Hunter’s declaration, quoted the Department of Homeland Security disputing his account.

Homeland Security told PolitiFact Texas that no such apprehensions have occurred. An agency spokeswoman, Marsha Catron, emailed: "The suggestion that individuals who have ties to ISIL have been apprehended at the Southwest border is categorically false, and not supported by any credible intelligence or the facts on the ground. DHS continues to have no credible intelligence to suggest terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border."

And after Hunter spoke, the Texas Department of Public Safety wrote state legislators, saying in an Oct. 8, 2014, email it "does not have any information to confirm" statements about Islamic terrorists or ISIS fighters entering the country. A DPS spokesman, Tom Vinger, confirmed the message’s authenticity.

In the message, a DPS deputy director, Robert Bodisch, mentioned the Hunter interview and an Oct. 8, 2014, news report by Judicial Watch, a conservative news website, stating Islamic terrorists had entered the country from Mexico. According to unidentified Homeland Security sources, Judicial Watch said four terrorists had been apprehended in the previous 36 hours by federal authorities and the DPS in McAllen and Pharr.

In the message to legislators, Bodisch further wrote: "An unsecure border is certainly a vulnerability that can be exploited by criminals of all kinds, and it would be naïve to rule out the possibility that any criminal organization would not look for opportunities to take advantage of security gaps along our international border. That said, DPS does not have any information to confirm the specific statements recently reported in the press."[/quote]

So let's stop the fear-mongering.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 10, 2014 06:39PM)
That's right, Bob. Here is a clip of the ISIS fear mongering going on at Fox News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8LDynohuQk&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ


Ron
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 06:42PM)
So some Isis members have been stopped from entering. Is it reasonable that ANY have made it across? If so, the border needs to be tightened. Unless of course you'd rather gamble with the safety of our country. If you don't live in our country, no need to reply.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 10, 2014 06:43PM)
Is our northern border less porous? Heck our coastline is fairly unguarded. If you want to use fear do it right.

Better yet not doing it works better.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 06:44PM)
Where is your evidence, lunatik, the ANY ISIS members have been stopped at the Mexican border?

Hint: There is none. This is just more right-wing fear mongering that some are shamelessly peddling for political reasons.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 06:48PM)
You are correct Danny. I'd lock down al of our borders.

And Bob, if there was enough evidence of Isis members entering our country through our borders to satisfy your requirements, would you EVER approve of locking down our border? If not, Please provide an example where you would. Don't beat around the bush, please spell out an example.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 06:52PM)
I note how you completely ignored my request that you provide ANY evidence, let alone evidence that would support whatever you seem to think my requirements are, that ISIS members have attempted to cross the border.


And if you can't, please stop the fear mongering. It's getting laughable.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 07:05PM)
They first confirmed that they detained 3-4 ISIS members but now they don't want to confirm anything. Seems suspicious, eh? It should, but with millions of illegal immigrants and a lot lot liberal supporters not wanting us to lockdown the border, it's stopping our gov't from using common sense. Talk about politics!!! You do realize terrorists have entered our country and have successfully entered our country killing thousands, right? Or did you so soon forget? Yes, they flew into our country and it's nowadays it's a lot harder for them to just hop on a plane and fly here. Do you REALLY think that the next best place for these terrorists to enter our country is not our borders? One would have to be either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb to think not

Bob, Please answer my previous question:

Please provide an example where you would lock down our borders. Don't beat around the bush, please spell out a couple of examples.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 10, 2014 07:13PM)
Folks want to confuse south americans seeking economic ( and political ) benefits by entering into our country as illegals with islamic terrorists?

is there really that much support for islam in south america that such would be feasible?
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 07:18PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Folks want to confuse south americans seeking economic ( and political ) benefits by entering into our country as illegals with islamic terrorists?

is there really that much support for islam in south america that such would be feasible? [/quote]


Are you saying that terrorists would make known their beliefs and intents to the locals? Would that be advantageous to the terrorists in completing their mission? Possibly, if it was some of the cartels?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 10, 2014 07:26PM)
IMHO the locals are not so tolerant of (militant) non-christian faiths or politics that could interfere with their business.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 10, 2014 07:42PM)
Its a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma. The world is full of dilemmas which are both good and bad at the same time. You could not have destroyed the Soviet Empire without using them there “Illegal Islamic Terrorists.” what can you do without them?
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 07:44PM)
But would they make known their beliefs or intent knowing that the locals might not be so welcoming? A smart terrorist will blend in with the population as much as they can until they decide to enact their objective.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 07:47PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, tommy wrote:
Its a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma. The world is full of dilemmas which are both good and bad at the same time. You could not have destroyed the Soviet Empire without using them there “Illegal Islamic Terrorists.” what can you do without them? [/quote]

You are racist, discriminating, and a bigot!!
:goof:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 08:01PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, lunatik wrote:
They first confirmed that they detained 3-4 ISIS members but now they don't want to confirm anything. Seems suspicious, eh? It should, but with millions of illegal immigrants and a lot lot liberal supporters not wanting us to lockdown the border, it's stopping our gov't from using common sense. Talk about politics!!! You do realize terrorists have entered our country and have successfully entered our country killing thousands, right? Or did you so soon forget? Yes, they flew into our country and it's nowadays it's a lot harder for them to just hop on a plane and fly here. Do you REALLY think that the next best place for these terrorists to enter our country is not our borders? One would have to be either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb to think not

Bob, Please answer my previous question:

Please provide an example where you would lock down our borders. Don't beat around the bush, please spell out a couple of examples. [/quote]

Who is the "they" who confirmed that? Two Republican Congressman who had NO facts to back up their allegations.

How would you go about locking down the border? And what does that even mean? Legally the "border" includes over 300 land, sea, and air ports of entry where all foreign visitors, returning American citizens and imported cargo that enters the U.S. is screened.

http://www.cbp.gov/border-security

How are you going to lock all that down? Nobody in, nobody out- that's what a lock down is.

So please explain what you REALLY mean so we can better understand where your fear mongering is directed.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 08:26PM)
Nobody in our out without us knowing exactly who it is. Sounds responsible to me. Would you be willing make it almost physically impossible for anyone to just physically walk across the our border without us contacting them through an official entry? Or do you support the notion that holes in our border shouldn't be sealed to prevent not only terrorists but drug and human traffickers through? For some reason, I think you like those many holes that our border has, and I think that you like the fact that our gov't has no clue as to who they are or what their intentions are. also, have you ever heard about being proactive rather than reactive? Maybe it would be in your best interest to be proactive so as to not have our gov't draw up new surveillance powers than what they currently have?

What event would have to happen on our soil to have you support having a border that is almost impossible for anyone to cross? Nuclear maybe? Maybe 2-3 dirty bombs?


Be back later, board game night!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 08:39PM)
We know that we have millions of people who are in the country illegally. We know that there is a group with tens of thousands of terrorists intent on killing Americans and harming American interests.

Nope, I can't think of any reason anyone would be concerned.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 08:41PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, lunatik wrote:
You are correct Danny. I'd lock down al of our borders.

And Bob, if there was enough evidence of Isis members entering our country through our borders to satisfy your requirements, would you EVER approve of locking down our border? If not, Please provide an example where you would. Don't beat around the bush, please spell out an example. [/quote]

Tighten the borders?! There's a bunch of folks out there who want to LOOSEN them and believe that only racists disagree.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 08:51PM)
He said "lock down" the borders, Lobo. Not tighten them.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 08:54PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, lunatik wrote:
... For some reason, I think you like those many holes that our border has, and I think that you like the fact that our gov't has no clue as to who they are or what their intentions are. [/quote]

If you actually think that, your screen name is apt.

And- just a tip- Don't question my patriotism or my love for this country.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 08:57PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
He said "lock down" the borders, Lobo. Not tighten them. [/quote]


[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, lunatik wrote:
What about ISIS infiltrating our porous south border? Should it be tightened like the Israel wall? Or are some waiting for another 9-11 to happen or worse? [/quote]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 10, 2014 09:05PM)
How many Americans a day are murdered by illegal immigrants?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 09:07PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
He said "lock down" the borders, Lobo. Not tighten them. [/quote]


[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, lunatik wrote:
What about ISIS infiltrating our porous south border? Should it be tightened like the Israel wall? Or are some waiting for another 9-11 to happen or worse? [/quote] [/quote]

He appears to use the terms interchangeably. He also wrote this:

[quote]
And Bob, if there was enough evidence of Isis members entering our country through our borders to satisfy your requirements, would you EVER approve of locking down our border?[/quote]

Obviously, I'd never approve of locking down our borders. That would bring all international trade and travel to a standstill.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 09:16PM)
And I have no doubt that a large part of the anti-immigrant fear mongering in this country is fueled by racism.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 10, 2014 09:20PM)
Obviously Bob doesn't want to save the world from global warming any longer.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 09:25PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And I have no doubt that a large part of the anti-immigrant fear mongering in this country is fueled by racism. [/quote]

Most of what's commonly referred to as "anti-immigrant" is in actuality "anti-illegal-immigrant."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 10, 2014 09:36PM)
Carlos Mencia had a hilarious bit about building the fence. Maybe someone less lazy than me can locate it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 10:14PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And I have no doubt that a large part of the anti-immigrant fear mongering in this country is fueled by racism. [/quote]

Most of what's commonly referred to as "anti-immigrant" is in actuality "anti-illegal-immigrant." [/quote]

Oh- like the current lies that hispanics and Central and South Americans bring diseases across the border? That kind of fear mongering isn't racist?

Who'd have thought?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 10:18PM)
My statement is accurate, and it means exactly what it says. As a rhetorical tactic, liberals frequently mischaracterize opposition to illegal immigration as opposition to immigration.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 10:25PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And I have no doubt that a large part of the anti-immigrant fear mongering in this country is fueled by racism. [/quote]

Most of what's commonly referred to as "anti-immigrant" is in actuality "anti-illegal-immigrant." [/quote]

Oh- like the current lies that hispanics and Central and South Americans bring diseases across the border? That kind of fear mongering isn't racist?

Who'd have thought? [/quote]

Is this a bogus document?
http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2014/Over_Un_Ali_Chil.pdf
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 10:26PM)
How's this, Danny?

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/rg35pk/stand-up-carlos-mencia--border-fence
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 10:33PM)
How about this, Lobo, which was what I was referring to?

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/vectors-or-victims-docs-slam-rumors-migrants-carry-disease-n152216
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 10:45PM)
Ohhhh you didn't specify that you meant Ebola and Dengue Fever; you just said "diseases." So then you don't dispute that illegal immigrants from those areas DO carry diseases like chicken pox and T.B. - diseases that would bar applicants for LEGAL immigration from entering the country - and are permitted to remain and recieve treatment at taxpayer expense?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 10:47PM)
I was, as you surely know, referring to the lies being spread by fear mongers as described in the NBC story I cited.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 10:56PM)
So, it's true that communicable diseases are being brought by illegal immigrants from south of the border. It's true that current policy benefits illegal immigrants by allowing them to remain in the country and receive subsidized treatment for diseases that would keep applicants for legal immigration out. But the racist fear-mongering is that although some of those reports are true, some of the specified diseases are false.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 11:09PM)
The racist fear mongering is that illegal immigrants are bringing Ebola into the United States. Coupled with the evidence-free allegations that ISIS is sneaking in through the Mexican border, the pandering to the right wing-extremists is obvious.

Nothing like a bit of xenophobia to stir things up in an election year.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 11:17PM)
We have no idea whether ISIS is sneaking in through the Mexican border. Given that millions of people HAVE successfully done so, it hardly seems like a stretch to think it's happened.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 11:22PM)
Surely you'd agree that it's fear mongering when the allegation is made with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 10, 2014 11:29PM)
I think it's speculative - an unproven allegation. Which doesn't mean it's false, nor does it mean that it's probably false. I think it's a valid concern in a country where rewarding past illegal immigeation is prioritized higher than preventing future illegal immigration.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 10, 2014 11:31PM)
Bobs new name is Mongrel. He's infatuated with the word mongering, so he shouldn't take offense :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 10, 2014 11:39PM)
That would make my nickname Monger. But you can call me Mongo if you like.

[youtube]SKRma7PDW10[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 11, 2014 12:16AM)
Mongo bongo! :dancing:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 11, 2014 12:26AM)
Don't mess with Mongo

[youtube]O8cDfnQD0ws[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Oct 11, 2014 01:53AM)
Oh schnaaaaps! That's an auto win for you in my book haha
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 11, 2014 04:16AM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 10, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And I have no doubt that a large part of the anti-immigrant fear mongering in this country is fueled by racism. [/quote]

Most of what's commonly referred to as "anti-immigrant" is in actuality "anti-illegal-immigrant." [/quote]
Just lost a long post replying to this but its essence is this:
Most? No I disagree. I'll buy "some" but not most. In fact what I think is true is just the opposite: that most of what's commonly referred to as " anti - illegal immigration" is "anti immigrant. "
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 11, 2014 08:45AM)
Proof of same landmark?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 11, 2014 06:48PM)
Fair comment. I can't offer proof, but I do offer these observations:

1)In NYC where I live, theoretically one of the more liberal parts of the nation, scarcely a day goes by where I do not hear some variation on the following about some of the people who live in my neighborhood:

a) Why don't those people learn to speak English!
b) They are all on food stamps and welfare.
c) They ignore Americans in their stores and serve their own kind first.
d) They are criminals.

BTW I hear all these comments about the Russian immigrants in my neighborhood. Now you will notice that [i]none[/i] of those comments has anything to do with the legality of their immigration status. The essential complaint is not that they are illegal, but that they are different and plentiful and weren't here before. I don't think it unreasonable to think that the same kinds of conversations happen all over the US.

2) In many municipalities where laws and enforcement policies have been implemented to ostensibly target illegal immigrants, the dragnet fairly indiscriminately causes immense hardships to [i]all[/i] immigrants regardless of legal status. It breaks up families, it puts people in a constant state of fear, it creates situations where racial profiling can't help but happen. I submit that we would not let this kind of hardship be allowed to happen to any other group of innocent people in the name of upholding the law. I think law enforcement and politicians get away with it, because immigrants from some countries are considered de facto second-class citizens.

3) In my neighborhood again, there live many immigrants from the Soviet union who were given visas for political reasons. No question that many under the Soviets suffered and deserve to go to the country of their choice. But why does the same logic not apply to the people of Haiti? Compared to the political terror that the Haitians have endured, the Soviet immigrants were leaving a paradise. No, instead, the Haitian immigration into the US for many is basically labelled "illegal" and those people are viewed as criminals. They have done nothing wrong except try to flee to a place where they can lead a better life. But there is a double standard, and again it is not about the legal status but about discrimination against the people themselves. A similar case can be made for El Salvador and Honduras where masses of people are living under terrible political conditions. In Mexico, many of the intended immigrants are families whose livelihoods have been destroyed by US trade agreements. If your family's business was suddenly wiped out, you would try to feed them as well. No one wants to cross a desert at night and leave their home to go elsewhere.

4)If the President and Congress said tomorrow that immigration could continue unrestricted--that is all immigration would now be legal--would people now be satisfied? After all, there would no longer be illegal immigrants. The argument "but they're breaking the law" would no longer exist. And yet I think we would both agree that there would still be anti-immigrant movements. Maybe even more. Clearly there is something more than the abstract legal status of immigrants that is troubling to many.

Anyway that's a few points to ponder.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 11, 2014 07:27PM)
In the 1930s the people who planned the mass mixing we see today pondered. Way back then they perfectly understood it would cause culture clashes and trouble. They said that they could get over it by calling it racism. Nothing new in all this, no nations, no borders, one people, one world government idea. You are an old man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 11, 2014 08:00PM)
For one who is so obsessed with the Nazi Muslim brotherhood, I find it fascinating that you uphold their theories about race and culture mixing. Good job, young man.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 11, 2014 08:06PM)
It's a matter of fact, not opiniom old boy. You can read their report and if you don't like it, you can lunp it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 11, 2014 08:16PM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2014, landmark wrote:...most of what's commonly referred to as " anti - illegal immigration" is "anti immigrant. " [/quote]

We have a process. Not following that process and then protesting for additional rights raises some eyebrows. Agreed there are additional economic and political issues that can cloud the basic questions about the immigration-naturalization process.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 11, 2014 08:38PM)
That's not what landmark's talking about, Jonathan. It's about bias against immigrants regardless of their legal status.

Like landmark, I see it nearly every day.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 11, 2014 10:01PM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2014, landmark wrote:
Fair comment. I can't offer proof, but I do offer these observations:

1)In NYC where I live, theoretically one of the more liberal parts of the nation, scarcely a day goes by where I do not hear some variation on the following about some of the people who live in my neighborhood:

a) Why don't those people learn to speak English!
b) They are all on food stamps and welfare.
c) They ignore Americans in their stores and serve their own kind first.
d) They are criminals.

BTW I hear all these comments about the Russian immigrants in my neighborhood. Now you will notice that [i]none[/i] of those comments has anything to do with the legality of their immigration status. The essential complaint is not that they are illegal, but that they are different and plentiful and weren't here before. I don't think it unreasonable to think that the same kinds of conversations happen all over the US.

2) In many municipalities where laws and enforcement policies have been implemented to ostensibly target illegal immigrants, the dragnet fairly indiscriminately causes immense hardships to [i]all[/i] immigrants regardless of legal status. It breaks up families, it puts people in a constant state of fear, it creates situations where racial profiling can't help but happen. I submit that we would not let this kind of hardship be allowed to happen to any other group of innocent people in the name of upholding the law. I think law enforcement and politicians get away with it, because immigrants from some countries are considered de facto second-class citizens.

3) In my neighborhood again, there live many immigrants from the Soviet union who were given visas for political reasons. No question that many under the Soviets suffered and deserve to go to the country of their choice. But why does the same logic not apply to the people of Haiti? Compared to the political terror that the Haitians have endured, the Soviet immigrants were leaving a paradise. No, instead, the Haitian immigration into the US for many is basically labelled "illegal" and those people are viewed as criminals. They have done nothing wrong except try to flee to a place where they can lead a better life. But there is a double standard, and again it is not about the legal status but about discrimination against the people themselves. A similar case can be made for El Salvador and Honduras where masses of people are living under terrible political conditions. In Mexico, many of the intended immigrants are families whose livelihoods have been destroyed by US trade agreements. If your family's business was suddenly wiped out, you would try to feed them as well. No one wants to cross a desert at night and leave their home to go elsewhere.

4)If the President and Congress said tomorrow that immigration could continue unrestricted--that is all immigration would now be legal--would people now be satisfied? After all, there would no longer be illegal immigrants. The argument "but they're breaking the law" would no longer exist. And yet I think we would both agree that there would still be anti-immigrant movements. Maybe even more. Clearly there is something more than the abstract legal status of immigrants that is troubling to many.

Anyway that's a few points to ponder. [/quote]

Thanks for taking the time to post such a lengthy and thought-out reply (especially twice!). I agree in part, and disagree in part, and I'll probably respond at length tomorrow.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 12, 2014 04:24AM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
It's a matter of fact, not opiniom old boy. You can read their report and if you don't like it, you can lunp it. [/quote]
Thanks, but I have also read Mein Kampf, a book that outlines the Nazi theories of racial and cultural purity. Amazingly enough, it echoes the theories that you evidently believe as well, if we are to believe your latest posting.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 12, 2014 09:41AM)
What I was talking about was The Royal Institute of International Affairs reports from their 1930s meetings. Where they discussed what they called world integration or something like that. Which was is a plan of mass immigration into all the Western countries by the end of the century and on. They had representatives there from every British Commonwealth country and other non-commonwealth countries, like the United States, Canada and all. They talked of the numbers from different countries, how many Britain would take and from where and all that. The point I was making about it was that they went into the problems foresaw in it all. The said culture clashes were bound to cause trouble. In short they did not want their policy blamed for it so for their politically reasons they said they could blame the people under the cloak racism. None of which means that racism does not exist but means these people, who long plan all this stuff, they are very tricky.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 12, 2014 11:22AM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
In the 1930s the people who planned the mass mixing we see today pondered. Way back then they perfectly understood it would cause culture clashes and trouble. They said that they could get over it by calling it racism. Nothing new in all this, no nations, no borders, one people, one world government idea. You are an old man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk [/quote]

[quote]On Oct 11, 2014, landmark wrote:
For one who is so obsessed with the Nazi Muslim brotherhood, I find it fascinating that you uphold their theories about race and culture mixing. Good job, young man. [/quote]

[quote]On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
It's a matter of fact, not opiniom old boy. You can read their report and if you don't like it, you can lunp it. [/quote]

Good lord, tommy. We've always known you were a bit dotty, but this is foul.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 12, 2014 12:18PM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
In the 1930s the people who planned the mass mixing we see today pondered. Way back then they perfectly understood it would cause culture clashes and trouble. They said that they could get over it by calling it racism. Nothing new in all this, no nations, no borders, one people, one world government idea. You are an old man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk [/quote]

You see the white guy in the picture up there? He's married to a black woman, he has several "mixed" kids. Go ahead, say something else.
:mad:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 12, 2014 12:41PM)
The we you refer to I have always known were of a communist mind set.

You see people as black and white, which make you racist. Whereas I see culture differences, which cause trouble, which makes me practical. So you go ahead and say something more about colour of people Ed.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 12, 2014 12:54PM)
"The we you refer to" - I didn't refer to any "we," I referred to your claim that "inter-mixing" is the problem in the world and pointed out my place in it.

I didn't marry my wife [i]because[/i] or [i]in spite of[/i] the fact that she's black. I married her because I knew from High School that she was my soul mate... it took a little longer for her to realize it.


I'm not the one claiming that "culture mixing" is the trouble in the world. I'm the one who fell in love with someone of a different race, married her and had children. You don't get to play the moral high ground card with me.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 12, 2014 04:11PM)
The “we” is directed at John's “we’ve” above and nothing to do with you Ed.

The mass mixing we see today pondered, refers to mixing of culture: Culture, is the collective customs or behaviour of different peoples from different places. Which has nothing to do with the colour of people or race. When you put people with different collective customs or behaviour in the same country on mass, then you naturally will get culture clashes. They, your government reps in 1930s reports said that in their reports. They also said for political reasons they could put that trouble caused from the culture down to racism. Now if you think that is kooki then you must think its your government that is kooki because it's your kooki government rep that said it. As can you see I nor they mention colour or marriage. Obviously it is your misrepresentation of the word mixing which got you confused.


On Oct 11, 2014, tommy wrote:
In the 1930s the people who planned the mass mixing we see today pondered. Way back then they perfectly understood it would cause culture clashes and trouble. They said that they could get over it by calling it racism. Nothing new in all this, no nations, no borders, one people, one world government idea. You are an old man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

[quote]On Oct 12, 2014, tommy wrote:
What I was talking about was The Royal Institute of International Affairs reports from their 1930s meetings. Where they discussed what they called world integration or something like that. Which was is a plan of mass immigration into all the Western countries by the end of the century and on. They had representatives there from every British Commonwealth country and other non-commonwealth countries, like the United States, Canada and all. They talked of the numbers from different countries, how many Britain would take and from where and all that. The point I was making about it was that they went into the problems foresaw in it all. The said culture clashes were bound to cause trouble. In short they did not want their policy blamed for it so for their politically reasons they said they could blame the people under the cloak racism. None of which means that racism does not exist but means these people, who long plan all this stuff, they are very tricky. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 12, 2014 05:21PM)
My apologies then. But then what's your suggestion? Lock each culture in it's own area (ohh, what's that word, I know; [i]ghetto[/i]) and keep them completely apart?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 12, 2014 05:52PM)
Ed to be fair many cultures have their own places which are not ghettos at all.

You may continue arguing now.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 12, 2014 06:03PM)
What is your point of bringing up the whole "cultural mixing" bit, then, tommy? If it's satire or commentary, I've failed to catch it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 12, 2014 06:28PM)
[quote]On Oct 12, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
My apologies then. But then what's your suggestion? Lock each culture in it's own area (ohh, what's that word, I know; [i]ghetto[/i]) and keep them completely apart? [/quote]

Why does there have to be a "suggestion"? Can't there just be an observation that culture clash can cause problems?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 12, 2014 06:33PM)
[quote]On Oct 12, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
Ed to be fair many cultures have their own places which are not ghettos at all.

You may continue arguing now. [/quote]

Granted, it's only a ghetto is they're [i]required[/i] to stay in it. I don't see how else we're going to avoid Tommy's "cultural mixing" if we don't do that.

BTW, am I in trouble because I'm on this thread AND watching a Japanese cartoon (anime) about swimming called "Free"? - I've discovered the Japanese like to throw odd English phrases in their opening themes. (I actually noticed it first in "Inuyasha" where the theme opens with; "I want to chane the world" and then "Azumanga Diaoh" where the line "cake for you" pops up out of nowhere. I also know there was a pop tune called, "Yatta" which opens with; "It's so easy, happy go lucky."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 12, 2014 09:49PM)
My personal view is, if you want to operate efficiently, if you should be in Rome, live in the Roman manner; if you should be elsewhere, live as they do there. The fastest cars are not aerodynamic for nothing.

If you don't want to operate efficiently then go to America speak Sputnik and drive a car that looks like a box. :)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 13, 2014 07:32AM)
[quote]On Oct 12, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
My apologies then. But then what's your suggestion? Lock each culture in it's own area (ohh, what's that word, I know; [i]ghetto[/i]) and keep them completely apart? [/quote]

Why does there have to be a "suggestion"? Can't there just be an observation that culture clash can cause problems? [/quote]

Observation is all about the observer. Similarly empiricism conveys the values of its empire.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 13, 2014 06:40PM)
[quote]On Oct 12, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 2014, ed rhodes wrote:
My apologies then. But then what's your suggestion? Lock each culture in it's own area (ohh, what's that word, I know; [i]ghetto[/i]) and keep them completely apart? [/quote]

Why does there have to be a "suggestion"? Can't there just be an observation that culture clash can cause problems? [/quote]

Because upon observing that something causes a problem, the general idea is that the problem should be solved.
So, how does this problem get solved?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 13, 2014 06:42PM)
Sometimes problems are just inherent. Or the least of evils.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 15, 2014 10:16AM)
[quote]On Sep 28, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And a long time ago I asked you for any PROOF of WMDs found in Irag.

There is none, the statement of an anonymous veteran notwithstanding. (Funny that he never said anything about that to the press, or they would have been all over it, as would the Bush administration.)

There were no WMDs found in Iraq. Even Bush himself finally admitted that. [/quote]

WMD's, Chemical weapons found in Iraq- please read: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


As I stated previously- a Veteran of the war told me there were WMD they found in Iraq. As stated in the above article, "American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act"
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 15, 2014 10:34AM)
Abandoned weapon fragments are not what I'd call WMDs. That's a bit like saying that there's an American stockpile of atomic weapons on the Kwajalein Atoll.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 15, 2014 11:36AM)
Wow. Naïve. American troops WERE EXPOSED to chemical weapons AFTER 2003 the article states. Unreal- still in denial.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 15, 2014 11:47AM)
So I guess Bush and the rest of the administration that had banked their credibility on finding weapons, was really secretly in collusion with Saddam then in keeping them secret.

Doesn't pass the laugh test.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 15, 2014 12:31PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, landmark wrote:
So I guess Bush and the rest of the administration that had banked their credibility on finding weapons, was really secretly in collusion with Saddam then in keeping them secret.

Doesn't pass the laugh test. [/quote]

I understand- tough for you to swallow.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Oct 15, 2014 12:58PM)
I just came to say FoxNews.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 15, 2014 02:43PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, landmark wrote:
So I guess Bush and the rest of the administration that had banked their credibility on finding weapons, was really secretly in collusion with Saddam then in keeping them secret.

Doesn't pass the laugh test. [/quote]


I understand- tough for you to swallow. [/quote]
Care to address the point I just raised?
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Oct 16, 2014 01:24AM)
Well, they have just given the operation a name. "INHERENT RESOLVE". I was holding out for "This time for sure!"
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 16, 2014 06:03PM)
It was eight o'clock in evening, my son was home alone in country cottage. Next thing his girl bursts through the back door, screening “They coming! They are coming! They are coming!” The dog is growing and going crazy. So he run into back, where his girl is desperately locking the glass door but he nothing. “We are under attack! She screens. Then he sees this black guy picking himself up off the floor outside and he is wearing gas mask and then sees another and another one. They run to front door just as the attacks start breaking it down. He manages to wedge himself between the door and the stair case. But the door his part class and they break that. My son shouts at his girl “Get my gun!” She runs upstairs and comes and down with toy gun. He takes it from stands up shouts “Right so you some do you now you are get it! Sticks the gun out the broken window and they all run off. Apparently the dog got the first one who came through the back door and chased him out. The Nazi Muslim Brotherhood eh, they have less backbone than a jellyfish.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 16, 2014 06:32PM)
[quote]On Oct 16, 2014, Salguod Nairb wrote:
Well, they have just given the operation a name. "INHERENT RESOLVE". I was holding out for "This time for sure!" [/quote]

I was betting for "AND THIS TIME WE MEAN IT". (Sort of the way people take the I will not drink pledge the day of the hangover and such?

How about "Take our "democracy" whether you like it or not!"?

Good idea sir we need to at least name the operations honestly.

Operation "money pit in the sand" might work.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 16, 2014 08:11PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2014, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Sep 28, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
And a long time ago I asked you for any PROOF of WMDs found in Irag.

There is none, the statement of an anonymous veteran notwithstanding. (Funny that he never said anything about that to the press, or they would have been all over it, as would the Bush administration.)

There were no WMDs found in Iraq. Even Bush himself finally admitted that. [/quote]

WMD's, Chemical weapons found in Iraq- please read: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


As I stated previously- a Veteran of the war told me there were WMD they found in Iraq. As stated in the above article, "American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act" [/quote]

Last I heard, what they found was old useless stuff. Bush claimed there were brand new WMD and facilities for creating WMD. Were any facilities found? Was any up-to-date materials or facilities found?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 16, 2014 08:18PM)
No, there were not. The Bush administration falsely alleged that Saddam had active nuclear weapons and WMD programs. What is being passed off now as proof that there were WMDs, is simply the discovery of discarded materials that the US had GIVEN to Saddam over a decade earlier and which were not properly disposed of.

Again, NO evidence of an active WMD program was found, nor were any functioning WMDs "stockpiled" and/or discovered.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 16, 2014 09:04PM)
Well we should agree that being wrong and telling lies are two different things.

Now also we need to agree that what was found was NOT what the Bush administration was speaking of when they made the mistake. To point to it now and say that it was somehow what they thought was there is sort of disingenuous.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 17, 2014 08:36AM)
Sort of? THAT'S an understatement!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 17, 2014 09:51AM)
Yea it would seem so.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Oct 17, 2014 08:59PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Sep 18, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Twister ... They hate us and want us dead because we are INFIDELS....NOT because we are interfering with them, although we truly are!!!! [/quote]

So let's stop pretending, leave them to kill each other so the world can see the nonsensical reasons why they are fighting , and deal with what remains. Which probably won't be much.

NO troops, NO weapons and NO aid of any kind. [/quote]

I believe that as a World Leader the U.S. has a moral responsibility to do something in this situation. Isis is openly committing genocide. They are killing men and taking women as slaves by the hundred if not thousands. What is the answer? I really have no answer. However I definitely feel the answer is not to stand by and watch this take place and see what happens.

I as most Americans hate to see us get involved in these issues. But as we all know great power comes with great responsibility. If you are in the street and see a man beating a child or an invalid do you stand by and watch and say it is no concern of mine just because you do not know the child, the invalid or the attacker? While it may be a poor analogy it gets the point across. What do we do besides stand by and watch. That cannot be the answer. I really don't think we should just stand by and sell tickets to this spectacle of mans inhumanity to man.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 17, 2014 09:37PM)
I agree with you, aces.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 18, 2014 12:04AM)
Why is this different from Saddam Hussein or any of a hundred dictator regimes? Why do we intervene here and it is a moral obligation and before it was an unjust illegal war?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 18, 2014 12:18AM)
Are you saying there's no "imminent threat" to the U.S. From ISIS? Somehow I don't see many of the Bush haters lining up in the street to chant "Hagel lied; people died."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 18, 2014 12:39AM)
I am only trying to see the difference. I don't even care I if the first time was right or wrong. Just want to hear the difference. Suddenly it is enough just to be a brutal regime. What a difference an election makes.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 18, 2014 01:02AM)
[quote]On Oct 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Are you saying there's no "imminent threat" to the U.S. From ISIS? Somehow I don't see many of the Bush haters lining up in the street to chant "Hagel lied; people died." [/quote]

If you're trying to make an analogy between Saddam Hussein's regime and ISIS, I don't think it's a very good one.

They are very different.

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of any leftist who doesn't think that ISIS poses a significant threat to the people of the Mid-east and perhaps beyond.

The leftist critique (and some of the rightist critique) of the present policy is this:

a) The rise of ISIS is dangerous to world peace and is directly attributable to US meddling in the region, beginning specifically with the 2003 Iraq War; and
b) Nothing the US can do militarily will make the situation better and is pretty much guaranteed to make it even worse.

The best bet--and not necessarily the winning solution--is for the US to pressure the other regional powers to stop supplying arms to all sides and also to strengthen Iran from a diplomatic point of view. The suggestions of Phyllis Bennis, a well known leftist writer on Mid-Eastern issues include this: "A real coalition is needed not for military strikes but for powerful diplomacy. That means pressuring U.S. ally Saudi Arabia to stop arming and financing ISIS and other extremist fighters; pressuring U.S. ally Turkey to stop allowing ISIS and other fighters to cross into Syria over the Turkish border; pressuring U.S. allies Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others to stop financing and arming everyone and anyone in Syria who says they're against Assad." - See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/09/187851/six-steps-short-war-beat-isis
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 18, 2014 01:37AM)
The comparison is that, if you don't believe that ISIS poses an imminent threat to the U.S., then we're taking military action based on false representations.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 18, 2014 09:14AM)
My comparison is all the same things could have been said lay war.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 18, 2014 09:22AM)
[quote]On Oct 18, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
My comparison is all the same things could have been said lay war. [/quote]
Either I had too much to drink last night, or your cellphone is possessed. Can't figure out what you meant.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 18, 2014 09:51AM)
Could be said of the last war.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 19, 2014 01:19AM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am only trying to see the difference. I don't even care I if the first time was right or wrong. Just want to hear the difference. Suddenly it is enough just to be a brutal regime. What a difference an election makes. [/quote]

No. The difference is that ISIS is NOT a regime. They are rogue murderous extremists who threaten the entire Middle East.

I don't recall Saddam kidnapping and beheading American and British journalists and then televising their despicable acts.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 19, 2014 01:45AM)
[quote]On Oct 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

The comparison is that, if you don't believe that ISIS poses an imminent threat to the U.S., then we're taking military action based on false representations. [/quote]
Two things:

1. If not an imminent threat, how is it that the U.S. military action is based on false representations? I just don't know what you mean, perhaps because I have not been following the news, perhaps I missed something. Is it a constitutional requirement that military action only take place to address imminent threats?

2. I do wonder what "imminent threat to the U.S." means in this context. How imminent? And is that a threat within the borders of the U.S.? Or does a threat to U.S. overseas interests good enough?

This article argues why action against ISIS is justified from an international law perspective:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/legal-basis-war-isis-syria-islamic-state
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 19, 2014 01:48AM)
[quote]On Oct 19, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Oct 17, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I am only trying to see the difference. I don't even care I if the first time was right or wrong. Just want to hear the difference. Suddenly it is enough just to be a brutal regime. What a difference an election makes. [/quote]

No. The difference is that ISIS is NOT a regime. They are rogue murderous extremists who threaten the entire Middle East.

I don't recall Saddam kidnapping and beheading American and British journalists and then televising their despicable acts. [/quote]

I agree Bob but it isn't just ISIS beheading people and showing to the public, for many many years now...

It's a whole belief system.

I'll stop there. ;)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 19, 2014 05:38AM)
So ask the things he did we give him a pass for? Pretty convenient.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2014 06:16AM)
The USA wanted to overthrow the al-Assad regime. So the CIA ordered the Muslim Brotherhood to use their variously named guerilla groups to help to do so. The World Leader who is responsible for this bit of trouble is the president of the USA.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 19, 2014 06:27AM)
Balducci wrote:
[quote] Is it a constitutional requirement that military action only take place to address imminent threats? [/quote]

Imminence is an important criterion for making war.

(From balducci's reference above): "The use of force in the territory of another state is prohibited under the UN charter and customary international law. However, there are four universally recognised exceptions to this prohibition: UN security council authorisation (it has not acted in this case); consent of the state on whose territory the operations are conducted; self-defence; and collective self-defence."

As far as I know, any claim of self-defense has to include imminent danger.
Message: Posted by: w_s_anderson (Oct 19, 2014 06:49AM)
Not that I didn't see this coming, but yesterday at drill, after our flights were done for the day, the senior leadership was looking for "potential future volunteers....." Last time I had heard that I was about 13 years ago, and I was in Afghanistan a few months later. Though the whole "boots in the air" not being boots on the ground is BS. You need lots on the ground to support the Apache helicopters currently being used around Bagdad.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2014 06:49AM)
The CIA are in Syria etcetera working with militants from the Muslim Brotherhood to overthrow the al-Assad regime, providing them funds, arms, training and so on. There is some infighting between the groups it seems and some have been running wild been apparently disavowed. The World Leader who is responsible for this bit of trouble is the president of the USA for making war this civil war you might call it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 19, 2014 11:18AM)
[quote]On Oct 19, 2014, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Oct 18, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:

The comparison is that, if you don't believe that ISIS poses an imminent threat to the U.S., then we're taking military action based on false representations. [/quote]
Two things:

1. If not an imminent threat, how is it that the U.S. military action is based on false representations? I just don't know what you mean, perhaps because I have not been following the news, perhaps I missed something. Is it a constitutional requirement that military action only take place to address imminent threats?

2. I do wonder what "imminent threat to the U.S." means in this context. How imminent? And is that a threat within the borders of the U.S.? Or does a threat to U.S. overseas interests good enough?

This article argues why action against ISIS is justified from an international law perspective:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/06/legal-basis-war-isis-syria-islamic-state [/quote]


1. In the sense that the Secretary of Defense said that they posed an imminent threat to the USA.

2. Good question.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2014 11:25AM)
As always, should you or any of your I.S.I.S. force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 19, 2014 11:56AM)
[quote]On Oct 19, 2014, landmark wrote:
Balducci wrote:
[quote] Is it a constitutional requirement that military action only take place to address imminent threats? [/quote]

Imminence is an important criterion for making war.

(From balducci's reference above): "The use of force in the territory of another state is prohibited under the UN charter and customary international law. However, there are four universally recognised exceptions to this prohibition: UN security council authorisation (it has not acted in this case); consent of the state on whose territory the operations are conducted; self-defence; and collective self-defence."

As far as I know, any claim of self-defense has to include imminent danger. [/quote]
A little further in the article (around where it says "Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Isis poses an imminent threat to those states that would entitle them to rely on anticipatory self-defence to prevent an attack") it points out that nations may be justified in participating in a war even if they are not under imminent threat themselves. In particular, if they are assisting a state that is under attack that requests aid or perhaps one that is "unable or unwilling" to defend itself.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 19, 2014 12:01PM)
I pity the USA.

They're ***ed if they do and they're ***ed if they don't.

I say go destroy ISIS, those who have the balls do. Those who don't, beatch.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2014 12:13PM)
Niigata has worked with the CIA at the Jordanian base used to train Muslim Brotherhood guerrillas under the still secret joint DOD-CIA program that began in 2012. He will train-and-equip around 5,000 new Muslim Brotherhood guerrillas per year. Snipers will be used to shoot random civilians on all sides as normal to cause them fight each other. USA regular military will then go in to seize Russians oil supply under the humanitarian cloak. For some it will be murder, for the Secretary, it will just be another day in the city.