We Sent a Special Ops Team to target an Individual Terrorist like Ron Suggested

[DeadheadForPaul]

What's the problem, guys?

I wish we had done this years ago rather than wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

We just showed that only intelligence and a special ops team (letter of marque anyone) is capable of doing what 3 MidEast wars cannot do - take out a mass murderer responsible for innocent deaths

[AZKing]

This works in our favor pretty well, actually. Just proves you don't need 100k troops in Afghanistan to capture and/or kill the terrorists.

[iamse7en]

take out a mass murderer responsible for innocent deaths

They took out Dick Cheney? What? When?! Or are you talking about Bush? I thought I heard them make statements yesterday... Now I'm confused.

[heavenlyboy34]

What's the problem, guys?

I wish we had done this years ago rather than wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

We just showed that only intelligence and a special ops team (letter of marque anyone) is capable of doing what 3 MidEast wars cannot do - take out a mass murderer responsible for innocent deaths
What mass murderer? OBL has no proven ties to the 9/11 attacks. (check out his listing on the FBI's most wanted list)

[BamaAla]

What mass murderer? OBL has no proven ties to the 9/11 attacks. (check out his listing on the FBI's most wanted list)

Even if you exclude 9/11, OBL had a lot of blood on his hands.

[Bman]

What mass murderer? -----> (check out his listing on the FBI's most wanted list)

that mass murderer.

[ionlyknowy]

new facts are coming out that it was more than just a spontaneous special ops campaign. Supposedly, four years ago some of the captured terrorists at Guantanamo gave up the code name of the courier to Osama. Then two years later they somehow figured out the couriers real name. Then they found the courier via a phone signal interception of the courier talking with another person that was being watched by the US because of terrorist ties etc. Then the courier was spotted in Pakistan, and that led to where Osama was.

So people will argue that the wars were necessary to capture the terrorists out in the field that eventually ended up at Guantanamo, and that torturing them was justified because all of this eventually led to one or some of them giving up the code name and eventual real name of the courier to Osama. This set the road to finding and killing Osama in motion and arguably made it possible to do so.

Now that doesnt mean that Ron Paul's way wouldnt have worked, and maybe it would have worked sooner. But there is no denying that (if true) the way it went down worked, and every thing the US has been involved in i.e. wars, Guantanamo, torture, etc all ended up in making his capture possible.

The only thing we can argue is that Paul's plan MAY have worked, given that his administration would have been able to obtain sufficient intelligence to perform an eventual special ops type event. Paul needs to clarify how he would have obtained such intelligence a different way other than the way we did do it... war-->capture people-->torture them---> get good info from them---> leads to Osama--> we kill him.

[Brett85]

What's the problem, guys?

I wish we had done this years ago rather than wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

We just showed that only intelligence and a special ops team (letter of marque anyone) is capable of doing what 3 MidEast wars cannot do - take out a mass murderer responsible for innocent deaths

This. It should be pointed out that you're an actual non interventionist rather than a pacifist.

[juleswin]

What's the problem, guys?

I wish we had done this years ago rather than wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

We just showed that only intelligence and a special ops team (letter of marque anyone) is capable of doing what 3 MidEast wars cannot do - take out a mass murderer responsible for innocent deaths

The only problem with that is that the Taliban has on numerous occasions agreed to turn Bin Laden over US but we did not want any of that. Ist they asked for evidence that he did 911 and we refused to give them any and next they said ok just agree to send to a neutral site like the Hague or World court and again we refused. Inquiring mind would like to know why the US so wanted to fight a war for him

[Brett85]

The only problem with that is that the Taliban has on numerous occasions agreed to turn Bin Laden over US but we did not want any of that. Ist they asked for evidence that he did 911 and we refused to give them any and next they said ok just agree to send to a neutral site like the Hague or World court and again we refused. Inquiring mind would like to know why the US so wanted to fight a war for him

When 3,000 of our own people were killed on 9-11, we had to mount a proportional response. Simply asking the Taliban very nicely to turn over Bin Laden and having that requested granted would not have been a proportionate response to what happened on 9-11. I don't support occupying Iraq and Afghanistan like we're doing now, but we had every right to go in killing terrorists immediately after 9-11. Now, I believe that we should continue to do what we did in this situation and use special operation forces to take out individual terrorists. This is a much better and cost effective option than nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[GuerrillaXXI]

OBL was probably responsible for the deaths of quite a few innocent civilians, but he didn't have nearly as much innocent blood on his hands as the US leadership does. There's no comparison at all. We're talking about a few thousands deaths (at most) versus millions of innocent people killed.

The only reason people call OBL a "terrorist" and don't call Clinton, Bush, or Obama the same is that OBL isn't the leader of a powerful country. Far too many people have been conditioned to believe that association with a "friendly" state is the sole determining factor as to whether violence is justified. In my view the approval of the state is absolutely irrelevant to whether violence is morally acceptable.

[Brett85]

OBL was probably responsible for the deaths of quite a few innocent civilians, but he didn't have nearly as much innocent blood on his hands as the US leadership does. There's no comparison at all. We're talking about a few thousands deaths (at most) versus millions of innocent people killed.

The only reason people call OBL a "terrorist" and don't call Clinton, Bush, or Obama the same is that OBL isn't the leader of a powerful country. Far too many people have been conditioned to believe that association with a "friendly" state is the sole determining factor as to whether violence is justified. In my view the approval of the state is absolutely irrelevant to whether violence is morally acceptable.

Posts like that are the reason why I'll never call myself a libertarian even though I support abolishing about 80% of the federal government and legalizing drugs and prostitution. I'll never bash my own country constantly like many here do, calling those I disagree with "terrorists." This kind of rhetoric is Ron's worst liability. Anybody who came here and read this garbage would be turned off from Ron for good.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[GuerrillaXXI]

Posts like that are the reason why I'll never call myself a libertarian even though I support abolishing about 80% of the federal government and legalizing drugs and prostitution. I'll never bash my own country constantly like many here do, calling those I disagree with "terrorists." This kind of rhetoric is Ron's worst liability. Anybody who came here and read this garbage would be turned off from Ron for good.It is a FACT that the US has killed more innocent people over the past couple of decades than Osama Bin Laden. The numbers are all public knowledge. If stating the cold, hard truth is "bashing my own country," then so be it. Maybe if "my country" (read: the ruling class and their supporters) stood for justice rather than "my country, right or wrong," then I wouldn't feel the need to bash it.

America: Love It or Change It

By the way, I never said that anyone I disagree with is a "terrorist." A person would have to take some innocent lives for political purposes before I called him that. Neither does anything I said have much to do with libertarianism. I don't even consider myself a hardcore libertarian except regarding issues of individual freedom.

[Brett85]

Every right to go in killing terrorists? Some of the things you say man... if Osama lived in Sweden would you invade Sweden? England? China? Instead of me listing out every nation in the world.... which countries would you invade and which countries would you not invade if Osama lived there.

If England offered Osama up would you tell England to kiss your ass, you don't have to provide you any evidence, and you will invade?

I never said that we should invade countries and overthrow their governments like the neocons want to do. I do think we had the right to take out the Taliban originally, but we should not have stayed and occupied that country. I've said from the beginning that we should pursue a policy where we take out individual terrorists like we did in the Bin Laden situation. Taking out individual terrorists with special ops forces is a much better strategy than occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and spending trillions of dollars on nation building.

[tropicangela]

OBL was probably responsible for the deaths of quite a few innocent civilians, but he didn't have nearly as much innocent blood on his hands as the US leadership does. There's no comparison at all. We're talking about a few thousands deaths (at most) versus millions of innocent people killed.

The only reason people call OBL a "terrorist" and don't call Clinton, Bush, or Obama the same is that OBL isn't the leader of a powerful country. Far too many people have been conditioned to believe that association with a "friendly" state is the sole determining factor as to whether violence is justified. In my view the approval of the state is absolutely irrelevant to whether violence is morally acceptable.

This

[tropicangela]

I'm not really clear on Ron Paul's stance with handling the blowback. Does he think we should go after individuals who try to terrorize us as a result of our presence in the middle east while also changing our foreign policy to prevent future attacks?

[jmdrake]

What's the problem, guys?

I wish we had done this years ago rather than wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

We just showed that only intelligence and a special ops team (letter of marque anyone) is capable of doing what 3 MidEast wars cannot do - take out a mass murderer responsible for innocent deaths

I agree. There have been several threads on this. And this is a point that Ron Paul needs to hammer home on the debates. I think the official story on 9/11 is pure bunk, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have chosen the least worst option. We need to get ahead of this and spin it our way. The neocons are trying to spin this as "This justifies torture" with absolutely no evidence (and with Donald Rumsfeld flatly contradicting Dick Cheney on this), the Obamabots are, of course, having a field day with this. But neither the Obamabots nor the neocons are talking about pulling the troops out and ending the GWOT. They're talking about expanding it. Turning the tide on this will be a "long hard slog" to quote Donald Bumsfeld.

[Inkblots]

Posts like that are the reason why I'll never call myself a libertarian even though I support abolishing about 80% of the federal government and legalizing drugs and prostitution. I'll never bash my own country constantly like many here do, calling those I disagree with "terrorists." This kind of rhetoric is Ron's worst liability. Anybody who came here and read this garbage would be turned off from Ron for good.

I agree completely.

[Inkblots]

What's the problem, guys?

I wish we had done this years ago rather than wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

We just showed that only intelligence and a special ops team (letter of marque anyone) is capable of doing what 3 MidEast wars cannot do - take out a mass murderer responsible for innocent deaths

You're right; this could be a very valuable talking point for Ron and other people who want to make the point that nation-building and open-ended wars of occupation are not the best way to combat Islamic (or any other type of) terrorism.

[idirtify]

Posts like that are the reason why I'll never call myself a libertarian even though I support abolishing about 80% of the federal government and legalizing drugs and prostitution. I'll never bash my own country constantly like many here do, calling those I disagree with "terrorists." This kind of rhetoric is Ron's worst liability. Anybody who came here and read this garbage would be turned off from Ron for good.

You took the phrases “US leadership” and “Clinton, Bush, or Obama” and changed them into “my own country”. Why commit such a giant strawman distortion? Representatives are not the country. I know you know the basics of our system of government, so what is your explanation? Implying that they are equivalent seems to mean that you are against criticism of any politician.

[idirtify]

I agree completely.

So you agree that criticizing political leaders is equal to “bashing my own country”?

[pcosmar]

Perhaps some folks should learn the meaning of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal".

Here is a hint,
It has NOTHING to do with Military Forces.
It also has nothing to do with deliberate assassination. or "Hit Teams".

wiki has a basic definition,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

[klamath]

I agree. Getting those that are guilty with special ops, is the only way to go. Thought so from the begining. I have no problem with the guilty dying, but I never want to see innocents dying in a blundering war.

[pcosmar]

I agree. Getting those that are guilty with special ops, is the only way to go. Thought so from the begining. I have no problem with the guilty dying, but I never want to see innocents dying in a blundering war.

Guilty?
Of what exactly.
I am sure some Russian invaders also thought so, when he was fighting that invasion.

The FBI investigation could not link him to 9/11 (though I'm sure they were trying)

So just what was he "guilty of" that he deserved to be hunted and murdered?

[klamath]

Guilty?
Of what exactly.
I am sure some Russian invaders also thought so, when he was fighting that invasion.

The FBI investigation could not link him to 9/11 (though I'm sure they were trying)


So just what was he "guilty of" that he deserved to be hunted and murdered?

Not even going to go there with you.

[Lucille]

OliverCooper (http://twitter.com/OliverCooper/status/65004634602881024) Ron Paul was mocked for saying #Osama was protected by Pakistan. He was right. He was mocked for proposing a hit-team. He was right. #obl

[jmdrake]

Perhaps some folks should learn the meaning of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal".

Here is a hint,
It has NOTHING to do with Military Forces.
It also has nothing to do with deliberate assassination. or "Hit Teams".

wiki has a basic definition,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

True. I think the point being made is that a small team could have accomplished this years ago without a big military operation.

[pcosmar]

Not even going to go there with you.

The exact quote from the FBI has been posted several times (not going to look it up again).

And yet the blatant lie (Osama/9/11) is still being promoted here.
Why is that???

But to the point. Letters of Marque does not mean "special ops teams".
It does not involve the military in any way at all.

It has nothing to do with hunting down "enemies of the state".

"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are a way for private people to recoup their losses from a foreign power by attacking and taking profit from shipping flagged by that other country.
Not military,,,private people. And not for revenge or justice, but for profit and due to losses suffered.

Don't talk shit you know nothing about.

[pcosmar]

True. I think the point being made is that a small team could have accomplished this years ago without a big military operation.

I agree, that a small team could have done so. and that would have been a better option to the stupidity we have witnessed.

There is still the matter of justification for doing so.

[Brett85]

Guilty?
Of what exactly.
I am sure some Russian invaders also thought so, when he was fighting that invasion.

The FBI investigation could not link him to 9/11 (though I'm sure they were trying)

So just what was he "guilty of" that he deserved to be hunted and murdered?

Osama Bin Laden admitted to being responsible for the attacks on 9-11. That's enough for me.

[Meatwasp]

Please don't think I am antisemitic cause I am not. I just can't help thinking about those dancing Israelis. What was their purpose and why were they so happy to see all those people getting killed. there is bad people in every race.

[Brett85]

You took the phrases “US leadership” and “Clinton, Bush, or Obama” and changed them into “my own country”. Why commit such a giant strawman distortion? Representatives are not the country. I know you know the basics of our system of government, so what is your explanation? Implying that they are equivalent seems to mean that you are against criticism of any politician.

It's fine for you to disagree with our leaders, but you can do so civilily without calling them "terrorists." Equating our Presidents to terrorists like Bin Laden is ridiculous beyond belief.

[jmdrake]

The exact quote from the FBI has been posted several times (not going to look it up again).

And yet the blatant lie (Osama/9/11) is still being promoted here.
Why is that???

But to the point. Letters of Marque does not mean "special ops teams".
It does not involve the military in any way at all.

It has nothing to do with hunting down "enemies of the state".

"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are a way for private people to recoup their losses from a foreign power by attacking and taking profit from shipping flagged by that other country.
Not military,,,private people. And not for revenge or justice, but for profit and due to losses suffered.

Don't talk shit you know nothing about.

I don't think letters of Marquee and Reprisals preclude taking prisoners. From your link:

Privateers were also required by the terms of their Letters of Marque to obey the laws of war, honor treaty obligations (avoid attacking neutrals) and in particular to treat captives as courteously and kindly as they safely could.[24] If they failed to live up to their obligations the Admiralty Courts could and did revoke the Letter of Marque, refuse to award prize money, forfeit bonds, even award tort (personal injury) damages as against the privateer's officers and crew.[25]

From Ron Paul's bill:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL.

The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

SEC. 3. SECURITY BOND REQUIRED.

No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President under this Act without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.


And you know you won't get any argument from me about the veracity of the government's story on 9/11. But Ron Paul has decided not to run on that. That leaves the "blowback" argument which did not work. He/we have to go with something that will work on an emotional level. If OBL had been taken alive and acquitted (possible in a just world...which doesn't exist) I don't see anything wrong with that.

[pcosmar]

Osama Bin Laden admitted to being responsible for the attacks on 9-11. That's enough for me.

NO, He did not.
Ever.

He was pleased about it. But never at any time claimed to have planed nor ordered it.

I saw the videos (and their translation) also. I also heard the "spin" of Faux Snooze.
The two were nothing similar.

[Brett85]

I agree. Getting those that are guilty with special ops, is the only way to go. Thought so from the begining. I have no problem with the guilty dying, but I never want to see innocents dying in a blundering war.

I agree completely. I'm opposed to occupying countries overseas, but there's no reason why we can't send in special ops forces from time to time to take out individual terrorists. That's simply an example of us defending ourselves in a more cost effective way.

[klamath]

The exact quote from the FBI has been posted several times (not going to look it up again).

And yet the blatant lie (Osama/9/11) is still being promoted here.
Why is that???

But to the point. Letters of Marque does not mean "special ops teams".
It does not involve the military in any way at all.

It has nothing to do with hunting down "enemies of the state".

"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" are a way for private people to recoup their losses from a foreign power by attacking and taking profit from shipping flagged by that other country.
Not military,,,private people. And not for revenge or justice, but for profit and due to losses suffered.

Don't talk shit you know nothing about.

Since you are being a smart a**, I know exactly what a letter of marque is and frankly I think it is worse than Military ops. Paul voted for the operation to go after Bin Laden and this is what I was refering to. Sorry but paying a private person to bungle around and kill people is NO better than a special ops team accountable directly to the president. BlackWater anyone. Operations paid for and done under our name should be fully acountable so they can't say "oh we didn't authorize that bungled operation" of a civilian Ops gone bad trying to collect the money the US taxpayers are offering.

[pcosmar]

And you know you won't get any argument from me about the veracity of the government's story on 9/11. But Ron Paul has decided not to run on that. That leaves the "blowback" argument which did not work. He/we have to go with something that will work on an emotional level. If OBL had been taken alive and acquitted (possible in a just world...which doesn't exist) I don't see anything wrong with that.

I believe also that Ron Proposed this while all the hype and false information was pointing to OBL. And before the FBI investigation found NO Evidence of his involvement.

It was the fact that Ron Paul knew of and even mentioned "Letters of Marque" that impressed me about him.(even more)
I had known of and researched this very little known law some years before.

[jmdrake]

I believe also that Ron Proposed this while all the hype and false information was pointing to OBL. And before the FBI investigation found NO Evidence of his involvement.

It was the fact that Ron Paul knew of and even mentioned "Letters of Marque" that impressed me about him.(even more)
I had known of and researched this very little known law some years before.

The text I posted was from his 2007 bill. I agree that Ron Paul should know the information about OBL was false and probably does. But here's the pickle. Either RP could do nothing and allow the stupid wars to go on without any alternative, or he could point out "if you really want to do this, here's an alternative". At least that's the way I see it. But maybe the point you're making is why Ron Paul didn't mention this at all during his election bid in 2007/2008 and instead with totally with "blowback". Maybe he felt that was a more moral way to go. It wasn't a better vote getter IMO though. :(

[pcosmar]

Since you are being a smart a**,

Phffft,

Task Force 373
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-force-373-secret-afghanistan-taliban

In many cases, the unit has set out to seize a target for internment, but in others it has simply killed them without attempting to capture. The logs reveal that TF 373 has also killed civilian men, women and children and even Afghan police officers who have strayed into its path.
There is your special ops in action.
Talk about bungling murders.

[klamath]

Phffft,

Task Force 373
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-force-373-secret-afghanistan-taliban

There is your special ops in action.
Talk about bungling murders.

Since you can't or won't read, I never said Mil Ops don't bungle, I said they are acountable and the president is acountable. I don't want acountablility for our governments actions removed one more step to a paid private operation.

[jmdrake]

Since you can't or won't read, I never said Mil Ops don't bungle, I said they are acountable and the president is acountable. I don't want acountablility for our governments actions removed one more step to a paid private operation.

Under letters of marque and reprisals non government actors are still held accountable for violating the rules of war.

[klamath]

Under letters of marque and reprisals non government actors are still held accountable for violating the rules of war.

But what I said is it is one more step that they are able to hide. A bungled operation, "Nope wasn't us", sucessful, "Yep that was paid for by us." This IS done with special ops as well so why remove it a step farther away in acountablity.

[GuerrillaXXI]

It's fine for you to disagree with our leaders, but you can do so civilily without calling them "terrorists." Equating our Presidents to terrorists like Bin Laden is ridiculous beyond belief.No, I'll tell you what's ridiculous: this notion that "We're the good guys! America can do no wrong!" Just to give one good example, have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)? Read about it and then tell me what kind of government would even consider doing such a thing.

Regarding what I said earlier:

Is it my facts that you claim are in error? Have US leaders not been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people over the past couple of decades? I'm talking in particular about the US-led sanctions on Iraq in the 90s and the war of choice in Iraq that was fought entirely on the basis of lies and manipulated intelligence.

Or do you just not like it when people point out uncomfortable truths? It's a lot easier to just wave the flag and pretend that we're good and those who oppose us are evil, right?

To me, REAL patriotism doesn't entail subscribing to amoral slogans like "my country, right or wrong" -- or, equivalently, getting outraged whenever anyone dares to suggest that America has done something wrong. It's about wanting one's country to be good as well as great. It's also about a strong belief in America's founding values. It has NOTHING to do with loyalty to the US government or even the majority of the population that supports that government.

[jmdrake]

You don't even have to go that far.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo


No, I'll tell you what's ridiculous: this notion that "We're the good guys! America can do no wrong!" Just to give one good example, have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)? Read about it and then tell me what kind of government would even consider doing such a thing.

Regarding what I said earlier: Is it my facts that you claim are in error? Have US leaders not been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people over the past couple of decades? I'm talking in particular about the US-led sanctions on Iraq in the 90s and the war of choice in Iraq that was fought entirely on the basis of lies and manipulated intelligence. Or do you just not like it when people point out uncomfortable truths? It's a lot easier to just wave the flag and pretend that we're good and those who oppose us are evil, right?

[idirtify]

It's fine for you to disagree with our leaders, but you can do so civilily without calling them "terrorists." Equating our Presidents to terrorists like Bin Laden is ridiculous beyond belief.

Which is the worse mistake; equating terrorist acts with terrorists, or equating political disagreements with bashing the country?

[Theocrat]

What's the problem, guys?

I wish we had done this years ago rather than wasting trillions of dollars and thousands of lives.

We just showed that only intelligence and a special ops team (letter of marque anyone) is capable of doing what 3 MidEast wars cannot do - take out a mass murderer responsible for innocent deaths

If we accept the news that OBL was found and killed, there are still some things to be questioned in the process leading to his demise by that special ops team: the illegal torturing of prisoners in Gitmo which (supposedly) gave us information about the courier leading to OBL; invading Iraq and Afghanistan (unconstitutionally) to find OBL (and other terrorist groups); the choice to kill OBL rather than capture him for further interrogation about other terrorist operations (thus, making him a martyr to other terrorists).

Yes, it shows that we don't need to start wars in order to obtain one target, and it does save our country hundreds of billions of dollars in defense spending, if we used letters of marque and reprisal. However, the means of getting the intelligence to find OBL will now be justified and set as precedent for future campaigns to extend wars and our occupation in any land where we deem a terrorist target or targets need to be taken out.

[pcosmar]

It's fine for you to disagree with our leaders, but you can do so civilily without calling them "terrorists." Equating our Presidents to terrorists like Bin Laden is ridiculous beyond belief.

Look up the definition of terrorism.
Every time "we" park an Aircraft carrier off some coast "we" are practicing terrorism.
When cruse missiles are flown into someones home it is terrorism.

Threaten a "No Fly Zone" That is terrorism.
The riot police in Pittsburgh was an act of terrorism.

Bin Ladin was more a patriot than terrorist in my estimation.
And now he is a martyr (whether we killed him or not) just because of the claim of killing him.

The people in Washington are worse than fools.
:mad:

[Brett85]

Bin Ladin was more a patriot than terrorist in my estimation.

Wow. That's unreal. I think you just outed yourself as a domestic terrorist.

[Brett85]

No, I'll tell you what's ridiculous: this notion that "We're the good guys! America can do no wrong!" Just to give one good example, have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods)? Read about it and then tell me what kind of government would even consider doing such a thing.

Regarding what I said earlier:

Is it my facts that you claim are in error? Have US leaders not been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people over the past couple of decades? I'm talking in particular about the US-led sanctions on Iraq in the 90s and the war of choice in Iraq that was fought entirely on the basis of lies and manipulated intelligence.

Or do you just not like it when people point out uncomfortable truths? It's a lot easier to just wave the flag and pretend that we're good and those who oppose us are evil, right?

To me, REAL patriotism doesn't entail subscribing to amoral slogans like "my country, right or wrong" -- or, equivalently, getting outraged whenever anyone dares to suggest that America has done something wrong. It's about wanting one's country to be good as well as great. It's also about a strong belief in America's founding values. It has NOTHING to do with loyalty to the US government or even the majority of the population that supports that government.

Most of those things we did with good intentions, even though they were misguided policies. We've never intended to kill civilians overseas. The people who killed 3,000 of our people on 9-11 INTENDED to do that. Most of the things that we've done overseas has been done with the intention of "helping people" and "making the world a safer place." Unfortunately, our policies were still wrong headed and ended up backfiring on us.

[pcosmar]

Wow. That's unreal. I think you just outed yourself as a domestic terrorist.
So fuckin' what.

Osama Bin Ladin was never involved in 9/11, The FBI investigated extensively and could not link him.

He fought foreign invasion in the middle east. We trained him and armed him against the Russians. He continued to fight invaders after Russia was kicked out.
He is a Patriot to his people.

The MIAC report has already concluded that I am a Terrorist. I support the Constitution, The 2nd amendment, Christian values, and third party politicians. I want to have a free country again. Hell yes they think I'm a terrorist.

[Brett85]

I support the Constitution, The 2nd amendment, Christian values, and third party politicians. I want to have a free country again. Hell yes they think I'm a terrorist.

I support those things as well, but I don't take the side of our enemies against our country. You can be opposed to our misguided interventionist policies overseas and still support our country and not say complimentary things about those who want to kill us.

[pcosmar]

I support those things as well, but I don't take the side of our enemies against our country. You can be opposed to our misguided interventionist policies overseas and still support our country and not say complimentary things about those who want to kill us.

Don't be so friggin' ignorant. Washington DC is filled with the most corrupt trash on this planet.
The evil done around the world far outweighs a few acts of resistance by ill equipped fighters around the world.

Pull your head out.

[tropicangela]

Ron Paul on "Letters of Marque and Reprisal"


http://youtu.be/YSP9NteApqI