Senate passes bill arming "Syrian rebels" (ISIS/AQ) 78-22

[devil21]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-final-approval-arm-syrian-rebels-isis-fight/story?id=25607472


The Senate passed a stop gap funding measure tonight, which includes authorization for President Obama's plan to train and arm Syrian moderates in the fight against ISIS.

The Senate voted 78-22 on the continuing resolution, which will fund the government and authorizes Title X until December 11.

Many Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the continuing resolution, making this a rare bipartisan showing in the Senate.
........
"I want to thank leaders in Congress for the speed and seriousness" with which they acted on his plan, the president said.
.........
“It’s a long overdue support for the brave Syrians who are fighting on the front lines against the terrorist enemy,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said.

“There is no guarantee of success. ... There is none but there is a guarantee of failure if we do not even try and try we must,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said of arming and training Syrian fighters against ISIS. “Despite my concerns about the underlying bill…I will support this resolution because I think it’s in the best interest of our national security.”

more if click

It's never rare for the zio-owned Senators to become bipartisan chums when it comes to causing more havoc in the Middle East. In fact, it's expected.

Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted no.
Roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00270


(eta: ignore the two posts immediately below. both have been cheerleading for syria intervention for weeks on rpf....just search their post histories on anything ISIS related. the first page of this thread is a good demonstration of how shills work together to derail a thread.)

[69360]

This is a huge mistake.

[Brett85]

This is a huge mistake.

It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. They even did this after the Syrian rebels signed a cease fire deal with ISIS.

[devil21]

^^^^^^^^
Who do you two think you're kidding with those posts???? You've both been cheerleaders for this action, and more, for the last few weeks.

[Christian Liberty]

^^^^^^^^
Who do you two think you're kidding with those posts???? You've both been cheerleaders for this action, and more, for the last few weeks.

I don't know about the other guy, but TC has NOT supported this. He supported airstrikes against ISIS, not supporting the Syrian Rebels.

TC's position is bad enough as it is, there's no need to strawman it and make it worse.

[69360]

No, I think something may need to be done to deal with threats to the US. Threats caused only by the actions of our president. This is not the something. This is an epic mistake.

[devil21]

No, I think something may need to be done to deal with threats to the US. Threats caused only by the actions of our president. This is not the something. This is an epic mistake.

It won't be the end of it and you know it.

[Brett85]

I don't know about the other guy, but TC has NOT supported this. He supported airstrikes against ISIS, not supporting the Syrian Rebels.

Yes, exactly. Devil21 is an unabashed idiot, and I'm not really sure whether it's even worth it to respond to any of his posts.

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, exactly. Devil21 is an unabashed idiot, and I'm not really sure whether it's even worth it to respond to any of his posts.

If he's an unabashed idiot for misrepresenting you, what are you for actually supporting intervention?

I am NOT taking your side here. Never. I value our friendship on these forums, and I don't think its fair to misrepresent your positions, but your positions as actually stated are still pretty bad.

[Christian Liberty]

I neg repped both of you guys.

[devil21]

Y'all are a little too predictable to be very good at subversion. If that's the best shill training my tax money can buy then I want a refund.

[Brett85]

Look, not everyone is going to agree with you that bombing is always immoral and anti-libertarian. A lot of libertarians, including Rand, believing that killing people who want to kill us is a form of self defense. However, I've always been absolutely opposed to arming ISIS, so Devil21 is an outright liar, and I have no problem at all calling him out on it.

[Christian Liberty]

It is not "pacifist" to oppose this intervention, TC. ISIS hasn't actually done anything to the US. We've seen rhetoric and the murder of two journalists in Iraq. That doesn't give the US government the right to intervene. You are blatantly warmongering here, going against libertarian principles, as is Rand Paul. Rand Paul, of course, is a politician, which isn't an excuse that you have.

The "liberty movement" will likely split over this. So much for the better. Of course, your side will falsely accuse Ron Paul of pacifism...

[devil21]

Back to subject matter:

YEAS-78
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Flake (R-AZ)
Franken (D-MN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Kirk (R-IL)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Vitter (R-LA)
Walsh (D-MT)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---22
Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Brown (D-OH)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heller (R-NV)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
Moran (R-KS)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Warren (D-MA)

[Christian Liberty]

Look, not everyone is going to agree with you that bombing is always immoral and anti-libertarian.

Can bombs be dropped without killing civilians? If not, it is certainly anti-libertarian... More importantly, its anti-Christian.


A lot of libertarians, including Rand, believing that killing people who want to kill us is a form of self defense.

Rand is not a libertarian. And if you really think a mere DESIRE on the part of X to kill Y is enough reason for Y to kill X, you are not a libertarian. Rand has NEVER been a libertarian, domestically or on foreign policy. Do you really think there are libertarians for drug prohibition? Heck, libertarians who think Chris Kyle was a "hero"? Come on.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. THat goes for you, Rand, and whatever foolish pawns wind up dropping the bombs...

[Brett85]

It is not "pacifist" to oppose this intervention, TC. ISIS hasn't actually done anything to the US. We've seen rhetoric and the murder of two journalists in Iraq. That doesn't give the US government the right to intervene. You are blatantly warmongering here, going against libertarian principles, as is Rand Paul. Rand Paul, of course, is a politician, which isn't an excuse that you have.

The "liberty movement" will likely split over this. So much for the better. Of course, your side will falsely accuse Ron Paul of pacifism...

Unfortunately, Ron Paul has some pacifist tendencies. He even opposed killing Osama Bin Laden, a guy who was responsible for murdering 3,000 of our citizens. I supported Ron in 2008 and 2012, but I didn't agree with him on every single issue. I agreed with him when it came to things like opposing the Iraq invasion and opposing foreign military bases, but I felt that at times he went into pacifist territory. So I think that Rand has a better grasp of this issue than Ron does. Radical Islam is a threat to your liberty and my liberty, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Christian Liberty]

Unfortunately, Ron Paul has some pacifist tendencies. He even opposed killing Osama Bin Laden, a guy who was responsible for murdering 3,000 of our citizens.

Would it be immoral for a "terrorist" to kill George W. Bush for murdering 100,000 Iraqis?

Bin Laden should have received a trial like anyone else if at all possible.


I supported Ron in 2008 and 2012, but I didn't agree with him on every single issue. I agreed with him when it came to things like opposing the Iraq invasion and opposing foreign military bases, but I felt that at times he went into pacifist territory. So I think that Rand has a better grasp of this issue than Ron does. Radical Islam is a threat to your liberty and my liberty, whether you want to admit it or not.

lol! If it weren't for your posts in the religion forum I'd think you were a troll. This is just a joke.

[mad cow]

On the plus side,the next ISIS beheading video will probably feature American made bayonets and this free advertising might help with our balance of payments situation.

[69360]

Why does everyone have to fit into your labels?

I think Obama was wrong to intervene in the first place. I though it would cause IS to attack the US. It seems I was right, they have stated they want to or will.

So now that the US is under threat of attack, I think something should be done to mitigate that threat. I didn't support the intervention that caused the threat, but I am not naive enough to ignore the threat.

Arming groups that have association with and non-aggression pacts with IS who made the threats is obviously not the way to deal with the situation.

It's perfectly logical to me. If I don't fit some label because of it, so be it.

[Christian Liberty]

What liberty, TC? What freaking liberty? If Radical Islam ever attacked us for our liberty, they won. Raise the freaking white flag and move on.

[Brett85]

Can bombs be dropped without killing civilians? If not, it is certainly anti-libertarian... More importantly, its anti-Christian.

Ok, then it's basically just you and a handful of other people who have the right to call yourselves "libertarians," if you have to be opposed to all military action in all circumstances to be a libertarian.

[aGameOfThrones]

lol arming foreigners while passing bills disarming citizens

[Christian Liberty]

Why does everyone have to fit into your labels?

I think Obama was wrong to intervene in the first place. I though it would cause IS to attack the US. It seems I was right, they have stated they want to or will.

So now that the US is under threat of attack, I think something should be done to mitigate that threat. I didn't support the intervention that caused the threat, but I am not naive enough to ignore the threat.

Arming groups that have association with and non-aggression pacts with IS who made the threats is obviously not the way to deal with the situation.

It's perfectly logical to me. If I don't fit some label because of it, so be it.

Who brought up the labels first? Not me.

Let me put it this way, intervention is just plain wrong.

[69360]

Unfortunately, Ron Paul has some pacifist tendencies. He even opposed killing Osama Bin Laden, a guy who was responsible for murdering 3,000 of our citizens. I supported Ron in 2008 and 2012, but I didn't agree with him on every single issue. I agreed with him when it came to things like opposing the Iraq invasion and opposing foreign military bases, but I felt that at times he went into pacifist territory. So I think that Rand has a better grasp of this issue than Ron does. Radical Islam is a threat to your liberty and my liberty, whether you want to admit it or not.

I thought he only opposed entering Pakistan without the permission of their government. Not killing Bin Laden. He voted for the AUMF to kill Bin Laden.

[Christian Liberty]

Ok, then it's basically just you and a handful of other people who have the right to call yourselves "libertarians," if you have to be opposed to all military action in all circumstances to be a libertarian.

I don't think there are that many libertarians, but when did I say "all circumstances." I think we have the right to defend ourselves against actual, unprovoked attacks. Of course, our foreign policy for the past hundred years makes pretty much everything a gray area at best. But this? With no actual attack? This is blatantly wrong.

You have the right to call yourself whatever you want, but if you can take this position and still be a libertarian, that's not a term that has that much meaning.

How many children has America beheaded since 1973?

[Brett85]

lol! If it weren't for your posts in the religion forum I'd think you were a troll. This is just a joke.

FF, how do you not see a problem with the Islamic religion when you have Muslims from all over the world joining ISIS in Syria and Iraq? There's over 100 Muslims from the U.S fighting for them right now. You don't see Christians running around beheading people and committing acts of terrorism. I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. It's a problem that has to be addressed. As Rand has said, hopefully those Muslims who are peaceful will actually convince the Muslims who believe in Jihad that that's not the right way to go.

[69360]

Who brought up the labels first? Not me.

Let me put it this way, intervention is just plain wrong.

Yes it is, we agree.

I did not want this intervention in Iraq. We were done there, not our problem anymore. But when intervention has already happened, I think we need to be pragmatic. I think ignoring a capable group threatening the US is unwise, even though I did not agree with the intervention that caused the threat.

[Brett85]

I don't think there are that many libertarians, but when did I say "all circumstances." I think we have the right to defend ourselves against actual, unprovoked attacks. Of course, our foreign policy for the past hundred years makes pretty much everything a gray area at best. But this? With no actual attack? This is blatantly wrong.

Your statement was that air strikes are wrong since they inadvertently kill innocent people. If we used air strikes after a terrorist attack on our soil, we would still be killing innocent civilians by accident.

[Brett85]

But this? With no actual attack? This is blatantly wrong.

Were we not attacked on 9-11? Have they not tried to attack us since then? Has this group not said that their goal is to attack us?

[Brett85]

Back to subject matter:

You're the one who started this and got this completely off subject with your unprovoked attack. I simply posted on this thread originally to praise the 22 members who voted against this bill.

[Christian Liberty]

FF, how do you not see a problem with the Islamic religion

Yet another stupid strawman. I see LOTS of problems with the Islamic religion.


when you have Muslims from all over the world joining ISIS in Syria and Iraq? There's over 100 Muslims from the U.S fighting for them right now. You don't see Christians running around beheading people and committing acts of terrorism.

Yeah, "Christians" just have their governments do it for them in greater numbers...

http://www.outsidethecamp.org/atrocities.htm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/laurence-m-vance/hero-or-murderer/

Legal positivism is blinding you just like it does most others here. 98% of people are actually sheep.


I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. It's a problem that has to be addressed. As Rand has said, hopefully those Muslims who are peaceful will actually convince the Muslims who believe in Jihad that that's not the right way to go.

And hopefully those Christians who are peaceful will eventually get the courage to completely separate themselves from fellowship with American "Christians" who support terrorism via the bomb.

Can you not see the double standards here?

I'm on an extremely "conservative" college campus here. I have enough issues defending freedom in real life. I come here for a break from having to do it. I'm really disappointed that I even have to have this conversation here, of all places.

[presence]

how do you not see a problem with the Islamic religion

[]

all terrorists are Muslims


xenophobic much?


There are "Christian" SWAT teams all over the US committing terroristic acts daily.

War on drugs? TERRORISM

Not wearing a seatbelt? Texting while driving? 15 miles over the limit? Jackbooted fucking terrorist army amongst our indoctrinated slave camp asses.

Every drone bombing is a terrorist act.

Every global US military base is a terrorist act.

Vietnam = Terrorism
Overthrow of Libya = Terrorism
Overthrow of Iraq = Terrorism
Funding of the occupation in Gaza = Terrorism

it goes on and on and on and on...



The US, all flags, banners, and media hype of nationalism aside is the greatest terrorist nation that has ever existed.

[alucard13mm]

Senate is a bunch a retards.

[Christian Liberty]

Yes it is, we agree.

I did not want this intervention in Iraq. We were done there, not our problem anymore. But when intervention has already happened, I think we need to be pragmatic. I think ignoring a capable group threatening the US is unwise, even though I did not agree with the intervention that caused the threat.

How does the original aggressor have any moral standing to do anything? Had ISIS attacked us first (like actually attacked us) could they then justify any future actions based on what "we" did in response?

This is why I hate politics. Most people don't realize just how evil the US is. It really is in many ways the Great Satan, however much people may get mad at Iran for saying it. And in order to win in politics, you have to pretend like the US isn't evil.

Your statement was that air strikes are wrong since they inadvertently kill innocent people. If we used air strikes after a terrorist attack on our soil, we would still be killing innocent civilians by accident.

Air strikes aren't a moral tactic.


Were we not attacked on 9-11? Have they not tried to attack us since then? Has this group not said that their goal is to attack us?

What does this have to do with 9/11? Its not even the same group. 9/11 was a criminal act of mass murder. Not something that justifies war.

[Christian Liberty]

xenophobic much?


There are "Christian" SWAT teams all over the US committing terroristic acts daily.

Every drone bombing is a terrorist act.

Every global US military base is a terrorist act.

The US, all flags, banners, and media hype of nationalism aside is the greatest terrorist nation that has ever existed.

THIS! THIS is someone that actually gets it. +rep.

[Brett85]

xenophobic much?


There are "Christian" SWAT teams all over the US committing terroristic acts daily.

Every drone bombing is a terrorist act.

Every global US military base is a terrorist act.

The US, all flags, banners, and media hype of nationalism aside is the greatest terrorist nation that has ever existed.

I think that the drone bombings have generally been counter productive, as the collateral damage that's been caused by the drone bombings have generally helped their recruiting and made us less safe. There also isn't much of a legal basis for the drone strikes. But saying that the drone bombings are an "act of terrorism" and the same as terrorist attacks on our soil is absolutely ridiculous. These people attacked us on 9-11. Even Ron supported some military action to respond to the 9-11 attacks. I agree that it's generally gone too far and that we can't have perpetual drone bombings overseas, but calling it a "terrorist act" is beyond ridiculous.

[Brett85]

What does this have to do with 9/11? Its not even the same group. 9/11 was a criminal act of mass murder. Not something that justifies war.

I have trouble taking you seriously if you don't even believe that military action was justified after the 9-11 attacks. This is exactly what I'm talking about regarding the difference between non interventionism and pacifism. If you have to be opposed to military action even after we've been attacked to call yourself a libertarian, then I'm glad that I don't call myself that.

[Christian Liberty]

I think that the drone bombings have generally been counter productive, as the collateral damage that's been caused by the drone bombings have generally helped their recruiting and made us less safe. There also isn't much of a legal basis for the drone strikes. But saying that the drone bombings are an "act of terrorism" and the same as terrorist attacks on our soil is absolutely ridiculous. These people attacked us on 9-11. Even Ron supported some military action to respond to the 9-11 attacks. I agree that it's generally gone too far and that we can't have perpetual drone bombings overseas, but calling it a "terrorist act" is beyond ridiculous.

How are the drone strikes NOT an act of terrorism?

Going after the specific people who orchastrated 9/11 would have been justified. Full out war, not so much. We should have followed Ron Paul's suggestion to use letters of marque and reprisal.


I have trouble taking you seriously if you don't even believe that military action was justified after the 9-11 attacks. This is exactly what I'm talking about regarding the difference between non interventionism and pacifism. If you have to be opposed to military action even after we've been attacked to call yourself a libertarian, then I'm glad that I don't call myself that.

I think you have to be opposed to knowingly attacking civilians at the least.

[presence]

I have trouble taking you seriously if you don't even believe that military action was justified after the 9-11 attacks. This is exactly what I'm talking about regarding the difference between non interventionism and pacifism. If you have to be opposed to military action even after we've been attacked to call yourself a libertarian, then I'm glad that I don't call myself that.


Perhaps we should rename the DOD the Department of Retribution.

[Brett85]

Perhaps we should rename the DOD the Department of Retribution.

So you're opposed to using military action even after we get attacked?

[Brett85]

How are the drone strikes NOT an act of terrorism?

Going after the specific people who orchastrated 9/11 would have been justified. Full out war, not so much. We should have followed Ron Paul's suggestion to use letters of marque and reprisal.

It's not an act of terrorism because we're not intentionally killing innocent people. The goal of the terrorists is to kill and inflict fear in innocent people. It's just not a valid comparison.

[69360]

How does the original aggressor have any moral standing to do anything? Had ISIS attacked us first (like actually attacked us) could they then justify any future actions based on what "we" did in response?

This is why I hate politics. Most people don't realize just how evil the US is. It really is in many ways the Great Satan, however much people may get mad at Iran for saying it. And in order to win in politics, you have to pretend like the US isn't evil.


What does this have to do with 9/11? Its not even the same group. 9/11 was a criminal act of mass murder. Not something that justifies war.

Sometimes, safety and security is more important to me than morality. It's not often the case, but in a very specific instance like this maybe so. It was wrong to intervene, but it may have to be finished now to keep the US safe.

But lets be honest here, IS is not a particularly moral enemy and doesn't really hold a moral high ground.

IS is a descendent of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was an offshoot of Bin Laden's group. They had a break because AQ thought IS was too extreme.

War is a criminal act when you are the opponent. Victors don't get tried for war crimes.

[Christian Liberty]

It's not an act of terrorism because we're not intentionally killing innocent people. The goal of the terrorists is to kill and inflict fear in innocent people. It's just not a valid comparison.

You mean like this 8 year old?: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/16248-u-s-drones-kill-more-than-30-in-yemen-school-targeted-in-one-attack


Do you support the country that did this, TC?

An accident would be if you're aiming at the guy who breaks into your house, and you miss. The bullet travels into the street and hits a pedestrian who is walking along, who was not in any way hostile. That's an accident. Its still very serious. Its still manslaughter. But not murder. I would grant this.

But when you use drone strikes in other countries, and continue to use them KNOWING innocents will be caught in the crossfire, you are a murderer who deserves to die. And yes, I think such people should be put to death. There's my "pacifism" for you.

Sometimes, safety and security is more important to me than morality. It's not often the case, but in a very specific instance like this maybe so. It was wrong to intervene, but it may have to be finished now to keep the US safe.

But lets be honest here, IS is not a particularly moral enemy and doesn't really hold a moral high ground.

IS is a descendent of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was an offshoot of Bin Laden's group. They had a break because AQ thought IS was too extreme.

War is a criminal act when you are the opponent.

THIS really gets to the core of the matter. It would definitely suck for us if another terrorist attack were to take place in the United States. But that still doesn't give us any high ground. We should, of course, defend our own borders.

ISIS certainly isn't moral. Nor was Saddam, but it was still immoral to attack him.

[Brett85]

I'm not arguing in favor of drone strikes. I'm just arguing that they're not morally equivalent to the 9-11 attacks.

[torchbearer]

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/auto/r/786x0/a/9/a9779_ORIG-JesusFacepalm.jpg
@senate faillords.

[DFF]

So just who are these "moderate rebels?"

It's just a matter of time before we're fighting these guys, just like we're fighting ISIS now.

Our politicians are full-retarded, simple Jack IDIOTS.

http://www.moviequotesandmore.com/image-files/tropic-thunder-quotes-21.jpg

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not arguing in favor of drone strikes. I'm just arguing that they're not morally equivalent to the 9-11 attacks.

Yeah, the drone strikes are honestly worse. At least the 9/11 terrorists didn't start their war.

[Brian4Liberty]

Back to subject matter:

NAYs ---22
Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Begich (D-AK)
Brown (D-OH)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Heller (R-NV)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
Moran (R-KS)
Murphy (D-CT)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Warren (D-MA)

Hmmm. Gillibrand and Warren setting themselves up for a 2016 run against war-monger Hillary?

[juleswin]

So just who are these "moderate rebels?"

It's just a matter of time before we're fighting these guys, just like we're fighting ISIS now.

Our politicians are full-retarded, simple Jack IDIOTS.

http://www.moviequotesandmore.com/image-files/tropic-thunder-quotes-21.jpg

That or they will be fighting each other and making a mess of things like they are doing in Libya. These people are bad news and the people who voted for it are the same ones that would be wondering come next year why the middle east is still on fire.

[juleswin]

Hmmm. Gillibrand and Warren setting themselves up for a 2016 run against war-monger Hillary?

Anyone know if Warren, Gilibrand or even Sanders spoke up with Rand against this horrific bill? I suspect Warren and Sanders are establishment type warmongers who just vote for some good bills to fool their gullible supporters. I would like to hear them speak passionately against this bill.

[orenbus]

Your behavior on this issue has been pretty bad such as promoting false information coming out of the ME.


Then why do you support Rand? My position on ISIS is the same as his. Targeted air strikes while coordinating with the Iraqi and Syrian governments, but don't fund the Syrian rebels. So why the double standard?

This has nothing to do with my support for Rand, although personally I think this air strike strategy is not going to achieve any meaningful long term solution but putting that aside, the issue I have with you is in the way you argued the case for military strikes the weeks leading up to Obama's announcement.

Specifically I'll point to this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459078-ISIS-debate-issues-of-intervention-blowback-war-propaganda-amp-more&p=5638177&viewfull=1#post5638177), where you make allegations that were never verified and talk about them as fact.

I know politicians like to throw out half truths, assumptions and straight out lies in order to further an agenda or a political action, but there is absolutely no reason why we should be doing that on this forum. Isn't it enough to argue a policy direction on its merits without devolving into mire by putting out false and irrepressible information? It really is no different an action than those that tried to make connections between Sadam Hussein and 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, etc., in their minds regardless of what was said it was justified, because the ends justify the means to them. And in recent events in Iraq it seems some felt they had a personal stake, because it was Christians in another land that were being pushed out that we needed to take action and only because they were Christians, as another forum member pointed out they are considered an extension of one's family (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?457706-Should-ISIS-be-an-exception-to-nonintervention&p=5616273&viewfull=1#post5616273), much like some Christians feel Jews in Israel are an extension of their family and the U.S. must defend them forsaking all and even at the cost of our own national security.

This emotional response alone is why I want to live in a country where logic before religion drives our policies and not the other way around, otherwise the holy wars regardless on which side you are on will never end, and I personally don't want to be involved in a holy war and especially one made under false pretense.

### Here is the relevant posts in the thread linked above, this is just one example of the types of posts I've seen you make in the last number of weeks and I urge you to change this behavior. ###


I still disagree with some of Rand's foreign policy positions and will say so. I disagree with him when it comes to sanctions against Iran, disagree with his support for keeping some foreign military bases open, disagree with a tough stance with Russia, I'm opposed to the U.S being in NATO and I doubt that Rand is, etc. But in this particular situation it doesn't seem like military strikes go against libertarian or non interventionist principles. I know you strongly disagree with that, but that's just my view.


Out of curiosity, why in your view do you think this is the exception?


I've explained before that I think this should be an exception because I view military strikes in this situation as being an act of self defense. ISIS has beheaded two Americans and broadcast it to the world, they've openly declared that their goal is to attack America and kill Americans, they have millions of dollars of funding and are expanding across the Middle East, they're beheading children and are the most evil people on the entire planet, and they have hundreds of U.S citizens fighting for them who could easily come back to the U.S on a passport and attack us. This isn't a typical intervention. A typical intervention is "take out a dictator that poses no threat to our national security, put in place our own preferred dictator or President, and watch while that country gets overrun by violent extremists and chaos ensues."


Didn't hear that one, do you have a link that confirms the veracity of that claim? Thanks.


http://pamelageller.com/2014/08/graphic-isis-beheading-children-women-stripping-naked-graphic.html/

Here was my response (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459078-ISIS-debate-issues-of-intervention-blowback-war-propaganda-amp-more&p=5638653&viewfull=1#post5638653) to the link you posted:


Been doing some research on whether there is enough factual evidence to support the claim that "IS has beheaded children" being made by Satya D or Mark Arabo "spokesperson for the Iraqi Chaldean community in San Diego County." I haven't been able to find anything conclusive from a reliable source or what would be considered independent confirmation from legitimate sources. Here are some quotes and links questioning the veracity of the claims, let me know if the questions posed against the claims are wrong and why.


If Arabo was able to get news of such atrocities in San Diego, why has no one else heard stories of this ongoing tragedy?
...
One of the pictures that Catholic Online includes — and that has become ubiquitous on social media — shows a baby with three rifles pointed at his head (see image above). While the image is outrageous, it was not a photo taken of ISIS in northern Iraq.

The photo originally appeared online April 11, 2014 on the Facebook page of a person from Yemen. Numerous people on that page attest that the clothes the child is wearing are obviously Yemeni. A few days later, though, the image started popping up on pro-Syrian Army websites claiming that it was an Armenian child who was taken by Syrian rebels. Whatever the original context for the photo, we know based on the date alone that it was not recently taken in Mosul or northern Iraq.

While it is possible that children are being beheaded by ISIS in Iraq, there is currently no credible evidence to support that claim. We should pray this report turn out to be just rumor and that whatever other crimes are being committed, that God is sparing the children of Iraq from “systematic beheading.”

As Christians, we have a duty to champion the truth. We should avoid spreading unsubstantiated claims and inflaming dread and panic by playing on people’s natural disgust of harm to children. ISIS is an organization that has committed heinous acts of violence and violated the human rights of many of our fellow believers. But we must not partake in the spreading of lies, even if it is against our enemies.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-is-isis-beheading-children-in-iraq



Given the problematic nature of timely and accurate reporting from war-torn areas, the reluctance of inhabitants of those areas to put themselves in harm's way by openly speaking of what they've witnessed, the anecdotal nature of many such accounts, and the potential political motivations for various parties to demonize their opponents by promulgating false or less-than-accurate information, it's difficult at this point to accurately assess to what extent ISIS forces have been executing civilian children, whether they have specifically targeted Christian children (more so than any other non-Muslim or non-Sunni adherents), and how many (if any) of such executions have taken the form of beheadings.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/isis.asp


EDITOR'S NOTE: Claims that ISIS has been beheading children has been largely reported in mainstream and social media. But upon further investigation, CBN News has been unable to confirm the veracity of this specific claim.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/August/ISIS-Swallowing-Iraq-Theyre-Beheading-Children-/

[Brett85]

You bring up a fair point. I guess it's not all that clear whether children have been beheaded by ISIS or not. They may have been, but it's true that I haven't been able to find any conclusive proof that this is the case. I just mentioned it because it was something that had been reported by the media. But in the future I'll try to do more extensive research and provide links to back up what I'm saying, and not say things that aren't backed up by documentation.

[anaconda]

Both freedom loving Oregon Senators voted for war.

[anaconda]

So now all one has to do is dress up in foreigners' clothing, grab a westerner, camcord an atrocity, and claim you are the "enemy." Then you can goad any nation you want into an attack. Effective strategy, especially for intelligence services with a sizable black budget and suitcases full of cash.

[anaconda]

Anyone know if Warren, Gilibrand or even Sanders spoke up with Rand against this horrific bill? I suspect Warren and Sanders are establishment type warmongers who just vote for some good bills to fool their gullible supporters. I would like to hear them speak passionately against this bill.

If memory serves, Sanders led the charge to protect the Federal Reserve against Ron Paul's audit bill, and made sure that a completely watered down version was "reconciled" with the Senate.

[jjdoyle]

lol arming foreigners while passing bills disarming citizens

Good meme.

[fr33]

If not for more people in the sandbox to fight, they'd have to resort back to the red scare. Russia and North Korea. I don't understand how stupid people can be by continuing to sign up for the military.

[Miss Annie]

I will just leave these here :

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140912/syria-rebels-non-aggression-pact-near-damascus

http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/11/vetted-moderate-syria-rebels-commander-were-allied-with-isis/

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/moderate-syrian-rebels-sign-truce-with-isis/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/isis-deal-syria_n_5814128.html

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/obamas-syrian-rebels-allied-isis-terrorists/

Can anyone say aiding and abetting? :rolleyes:

[AngryCanadian]

I will just leave these here :

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140912/syria-rebels-non-aggression-pact-near-damascus

http://news.antiwar.com/2014/09/11/vetted-moderate-syria-rebels-commander-were-allied-with-isis/

http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/moderate-syrian-rebels-sign-truce-with-isis/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/isis-deal-syria_n_5814128.html

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/obamas-syrian-rebels-allied-isis-terrorists/

Can anyone say aiding and abetting? :rolleyes:

According to MSM John McCain Backers and McCain, Syrian Task Force that is not true! :rolleyes:
they claimed that the reports about the FSA/ISIS Truce cant be true based on there account and McCain's VETTED Rebels.

[Miss Annie]

According to MSM John McCain Backers and McCain, Syrian Task Force that is not true! :rolleyes:
they claimed that the reports about the FSA/ISIS Truce cant be true based on there account and McCain's VETTED Rebels.

McCain vetted those rebels just like the media vetted Obama! :p

[T.hill]

Idk if it's suprising or not that Cruz voted against this as well. Personally I don't find Rand's vote all that suprising; even in light of his recent comments, Rand would have only voted for a stand-alone bill with very particular language. Which was incredibly unlikely to happen.

[T.hill]

On another note Senators Risch and Crapo continue their libertarian vote streak.

[idiom]

Thank God Rand voted no.

What does it say that even I was worried he might vote yes?

He is losing control of his messaging is what it says.

[Spikender]

This and the results of the Scotland vote disappoint me.

Crap week.

[idiom]

I'm not arguing in favor of drone strikes. I'm just arguing that they're not morally equivalent to the 9-11 attacks.

9/11 targeted valid military and economic targets. The passengers on the planes were unavoidable collateral damage.

Unless you think that in a war it is immoral to target military and economic command centres?

[Brett85]

Thank God Rand voted no.

What does it say that even I was worried he might vote yes?

He is losing control of his messaging is what it says.

If you were worried he might vote yes, then you simply haven't been paying attention to anything he's been saying. He's always been strongly opposed to arming the Syrian rebels.

[Brett85]

9/11 targeted valid military and economic targets. The passengers on the planes were unavoidable collateral damage.

Unless you think that in a war it is immoral to target military and economic command centres?

Wow. Is that you, Ward Churchill?

[Spikender]

If you were worried he might vote yes, then you simply haven't been paying attention to anything he's been saying. He's always been strongly opposed to arming the Syrian rebels.

I don't always agree with TC and I usually just lurk and stay silent on these forums, but he's right here. Rand Paul has been pretty clear that he believes arming the "moderate" rebels actually helps ISIL since the "moderate" rebels will probably end up handing weapons or money over to them, whether because they were never really "moderate" at all or because they thought they could make a quick buck.

[Working Poor]

This goes to show that it is much more important to look at what repubs and dems agree on than what they disagree on.

[kcchiefs6465]

It's not an act of terrorism because we're not intentionally killing innocent people. The goal of the terrorists is to kill and inflict fear in innocent people. It's just not a valid comparison.
Must spread some rep around.

I really hope you are a shill.

Because let's be honest, if you truly are that goddamn dumb, there is no hope for this country. This thread, and your posts in particular are so full of fail that I'll probably just take a hiatus from this website.

[Influenza]

Yes please. TC has been posting some of the most ignorant things I've seen from the RPF. Sounds like Ann Coulter.

[oyarde]

Senate is a bunch a retards.

I agree.Sadly , I knew at least one of my Senators would vote for this , both did .

[oyarde]

This goes to show that it is much more important to look at what repubs and dems agree on than what they disagree on.

Foreign policy sucks, from the establishment .

[oyarde]

xenophobic much?


There are "Christian" SWAT teams all over the US committing terroristic acts daily.

War on drugs? TERRORISM

Not wearing a seatbelt? Texting while driving? 15 miles over the limit? Jackbooted fucking terrorist army amongst our indoctrinated slave camp asses.

Every drone bombing is a terrorist act.

Every global US military base is a terrorist act.

Vietnam = Terrorism
Overthrow of Libya = Terrorism
Overthrow of Iraq = Terrorism
Funding of the occupation in Gaza = Terrorism

it goes on and on and on and on...



The US, all flags, banners, and media hype of nationalism aside is the greatest terrorist nation that has ever existed.
I somehow doubt SWAT guys or most cops could be Christian .

[Brett85]

Must spread some rep around.

I really hope you are a shill.

Because let's be honest, if you truly are that goddamn dumb, there is no hope for this country. This thread, and your posts in particular are so full of fail that I'll probably just take a hiatus from this website.

Please stop with the hate and personal attacks.

[kcchiefs6465]

Please stop with the hate and personal attacks.
You advocate murdering people because a television pundit told you to. That would be enough to warrant disgust but then you have to take it a step farther. You want to rob me to pay for it. You want my respect? Quit being a coward and go there your goddamn self. How old are you? Why do you need a kid to do your bidding?

And the supposed justification behind this? (I love how you spoke of legalities, that was quite the unfunny joke) Some unaccountable people who were elected by some unaccountable portion of the public, neither of whom are legally responsible for the activities they promote and crimes they commit (as anyone actually acting as your representative would be). Seems to me you and your group of cowards and thieves just promote a system to rob people to pay for what you want done. You can imagine my disgust or virulence considering I'd be the one being robbed.

You are on another level TC. People type page after page for you, you appear to read it, and then you say something so incredibly stupid (which was already addressed multiple times by multiple people) that I can do nothing but shake my head. I am tired of responding to you. I'd rather forget people like you exist and the ignore feature is an annoyance. Please. If you are not paid to produce apathy, pick up a book.

[Brett85]

I'm starting to wonder whether I can even be in the same movement as people who argue that the 9-11 attacks were justified, that the people who died on 9-11 deserved to die, and that the U.S commits acts of terrorism when we use military force to respond to terrorist attacks. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. I even gave a speech at my local caucus for Ron in 2012. I don't agree with every single aspect of his foreign policy, but I probably agree with 95% of his foreign policy. But I don't think that Ron's foreign policy is anywhere even remotely close to the foreign policy of people here who take positions like saying that the 9-11 attacks were justified, the Holocaust never happened, and the USA commits acts of terrorism when we use military force. I'm sorry, I supported Ron and still support liberty candidates like Amash, Rand, and Massie, but you people are just absolutely nuts beyond all belief. I guess I just have to try to remember that you have to separate Ron from his supporters, because there's absolutely a vast difference. I've never heard Ron say anything remotely close to all of the absolute garbage that I read on this forum.

[smokemonsc]

I don't normally post but lurk a lot here....and I just wanted to point out something that hasn't been brought up yet.

It appears to me, based on videos I've seen (both MSM, and non-MSM) that the majority of the people fighting for ISIS were children when 9/11 happened. They are roughly in the same age group as me (late twenties) and would have been 10-15 during 9/11. The fact that the children of that time are now fighting as Islamic extremists should be a huge red flag to people posting here. We should be exploring what drove these children in to the extremists hands so that we can prevent another generation of children from following the same footsteps. I think pursuing this line of thought would prove productive.

-Smoke

[Brett85]

I don't normally post but lurk a lot here....and I just wanted to point out something that hasn't been brought up yet.

It appears to me, based on videos I've seen (both MSM, and non-MSM) that the majority of the people fighting for ISIS were children when 9/11 happened. They are roughly in the same age group as me (late twenties) and would have been 10-15 during 9/11. The fact that the children of that time are now fighting as Islamic extremists should be a huge red flag to people posting here. We should be exploring what drove these children in to the extremists hands so that we can prevent another generation of children from following the same footsteps. I think pursuing this line of thought would prove productive.

-Smoke

And the answer people here will give you is that the U.S government is entirely responsible for that and responsible for every single problem in the world.

[Brett85]

You do realize that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, right? That children were melted by napalm gel, clusterbombs littered the region with anti-personnel like 'mines', that infrastructure needed for public services was sabotaged, that they abducted people in the night, tortured and sometimes murdered them? That they were conducting hundreds upon hundreds of raids a month? That innocent people were killed during these raids?

I think that the Iraq invasion was a terrible idea. I think that all of the U.S intervention that we had going on led to the rise of ISIS, such as the Iraq war, the war in Libya, and arming the so called "Syrian rebels." If my foreign policy had been followed, ISIS wouldn't even be a threat to us today. So what's your point again?

[Brett85]

KCChiefs, what's your point again? I've been a major opponent of the Iraq War for quite some time.

[Christian Liberty]

9/11 targeted valid military and economic targets. The passengers on the planes were unavoidable collateral damage.

Unless you think that in a war it is immoral to target military and economic command centres?

How was the WTC a valid military target? I honestly do not know.

If they had targeted the Pentagon, maybe you could argue that it was justified beyond the collateral damage. But, was WTC a military target? I don't think that it was. I was 6 when this happened though, so I don't really know. I don't have time to research it now.


Must spread some rep around.

I really hope you are a shill.

Because let's be honest, if you truly are that goddamn dumb, there is no hope for this country. This thread, and your posts in particular are so full of fail that I'll probably just take a hiatus from this website.

Just realize that 98% of people are worse...

[Brett85]

I'm still waiting for KCChiefs to take back his false allegation that I supported the Iraq invasion and somehow argued that Iraq attacked us on 9-11. I'm sure he won't do that though. I don't care if people disagree with my positions, but just don't lie about my positions. The Devil guy did the same thing when he falsely accused me of supporting arming the Syrian rebels.

[JK/SEA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63yLEXQAKJQ#t=62

[ExPatPaki]

TC, so you don't consider George Habash a terrorist because he was a Christian?


You could call George Habash, a Palestinian leader who died in Amman on Saturday at the age of 82, the godfather of Middle East terrorism. If you assumed that Palestinian or Arab extremism somehow sprung entirely from Islam — from the puritanical Wahabbi intolerance and so forth — take a close look at Habash's first name. He was a Greek Orthodox Christian, who sang in his church choir as a boy back in the Palestinian town of Lydda. Habash's life tells us a lot about the long Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which seems as intractable as ever, and prompts reflection on the Middle East's seemingly unstoppable whirlwind of violence.

http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1707366,00.html

[Brett85]

TC, so you don't consider George Habash a terrorist because he was a Christian?

http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1707366,00.html

Fair enough. There may be some exceptions. But overall you don't see an actual movement of Christians going around beheading people and committing acts of terrorism.

[ExPatPaki]

Fair enough. There may be some exceptions. But overall you don't see an actual movement of Christians going around beheading people and committing acts of terrorism.

Not yet at least. Give it a few years. Terrorism is cool these days. But why do you consider a freedom fighter like George Habash a terrorist? Do you think the IRA fighters were terrorists? What about Mandela? What about the founding fathers?

I know beheading makes my fellow Ameri-cunts get their panties in a bunch, (because they prefer firing drones at children because it's cleaner) but if IS wasn't beheading, would they really have such a negative reputation.

[Brett85]

And actually, I wouldn't consider George Habash to be a Christian because he was a terrorist.

[Brett85]

Not yet at least. Give it a few years. Terrorism is cool these days. But why do you consider a freedom fighter like George Habash a terrorist? Do you think the IRA fighters were terrorists? What about Mandela? What about the founding fathers?

I know beheading makes my fellow Ameri-cunts get their panties in a bunch, (because they prefer firing drones at children because it's cleaner) but if IS wasn't beheading, would they really have such a negative reputation.

I'm not sure if I really know enough about the IRA fighters to comment. I certainly don't consider our founders to be terrorists.

[ExPatPaki]

And actually, I wouldn't consider George Habash to be a Christian because he was a terrorist.

Well that's your opinion. Most Middle Eastern Christians would disagree with you.

[Brett85]

Well that's your opinion. Most Middle Eastern would disagree with you.

Maybe so. But there's a verse in the Bible which says that no murderer will make it to heaven. Of course there's always a disagreement over what's actually "murder" and what's legitimate self defense.

[ExPatPaki]

Maybe so. But there's a verse in the Bible which says that no murderer will make it to heaven. Of course there's always a disagreement over what's actually "murder" and what's legitimate self defense.

Isn't Jesus gonna murder a bunch of people when he comes back? Doesn't God murder a whole lot of people in that bible of yours? Was God acting in self-defense?

[Brett85]

Isn't Jesus gonna murder a bunch of people when he comes back? Doesn't God murder a whole lot of people in that bible of yours? Was God acting in self-defense?

Since God created us and gave us life, it's perfectly legitimate for him to take our life away from us. Life is a gift from God that none of us actually deserve. None of us deserve to be alive. When God kills us, and he kills all of us eventually because we all die, he's just taking something away from us that we never deserved in the first place. He also gives us the choice to live for all eternity with him in heaven if we accept what Christ did for us on the cross.

[ExPatPaki]

Since God created us and gave us life, it's perfectly legitimate for him to take our life away from us. Life is a gift from God that none of us actually deserve. None of us deserve to be alive. When God kills us, and he kills all of us eventually because we all die, he's just taking something away from us that we never deserved in the first place. He also gives us the choice to live for all eternity with him in heaven if we accept what Christ did for us on the cross.

Seems like a good excuse to murder. So what about Jesus? Who does he get to murder when he arises again?

[Brett85]

Seems like a good excuse to murder. So what about Jesus? Who does he get to murder when he arises again?

There are a lot of different views of eschatology within Christianity, and Christians don't really agree on exactly what will happen when Jesus comes back. But I think that all Christians agree that God is the giver and taker of life, and he has the right to take life away from those whom he has created. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death, and all of us deserve death because we all sin.

[ExPatPaki]

There are a lot of different views of eschatology within Christianity, and Christians don't really agree on exactly what will happen when Jesus comes back. But I think that all Christians agree that God is the giver and taker of life, and he has the right to take life away from those whom he has created. The Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death, and all of us deserve death because we all sin.

So Jesus gets to murder and us mere mortals are just 'terrorists'. Got it. Thanks.

[JK/SEA]

Seems like a good excuse to murder. So what about Jesus? Who does he get to murder when he arises again?


i'm putting all my gold and silver on a GRB to wake everyone up...

[orenbus]

I don't normally post but lurk a lot here....and I just wanted to point out something that hasn't been brought up yet.

It appears to me, based on videos I've seen (both MSM, and non-MSM) that the majority of the people fighting for ISIS were children when 9/11 happened. They are roughly in the same age group as me (late twenties) and would have been 10-15 during 9/11. The fact that the children of that time are now fighting as Islamic extremists should be a huge red flag to people posting here. We should be exploring what drove these children in to the extremists hands so that we can prevent another generation of children from following the same footsteps. I think pursuing this line of thought would prove productive.

-Smoke

+Rep

Those that are 18 now would have been 5 years old on 9/11.

[Christian Liberty]

Is everyone who killed someone in the Iraq War and did not repent not a Christian? If TC wouldn't say yes, I think there is a double standard.

[Brett85]

Is everyone who killed someone in the Iraq War and did not repent not a Christian? If TC wouldn't say yes, I think there is a double standard.

Yes, if a U.S soldier actually went into a home of a civilian and murdered an unarmed innocent person, that would be murder, and I would say that someone who did that and didn't repent isn't a Christian. On the other hand, it's not murder if the other person were armed and firing at them. It would be self defense for our soldiers to defend themselves and kill those who are attempting to kill them.

[Brett85]

And yeah, I get that we were the ones who invaded their land, but most of the people fighting in Iraq weren't actually from Iraq, and they were committing mass atrocities themselves by blowing themselves up in large population centers and killing all kinds of innocent people through these suicide bombs. So it is far more complicated and far less simple than you make it out to be.

[twomp]

And yeah, I get that we were the ones who invaded their land, but most of the people fighting in Iraq weren't actually from Iraq, and they were committing mass atrocities themselves by blowing themselves up in large population centers and killing all kinds of innocent people through these suicide bombs. So it is far more complicated and far less simple than you make it out to be.

More stupid logic about how its okay to kill civilians to save civilians.

[Brett85]

More stupid logic about how its okay to kill civilians to save civilians.

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not arguing that it was a good idea to invade Iraq. I think it was the dumbest war in the history of our country. I'm just arguing that our troops aren't a bunch of murderers. Has Ron Paul ever come out and said that our troops are all a bunch of murderers? If not, doesn't that mean that you disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy? I don't agree with every single aspect of Ron Paul's foreign policy, but I still find that I'm far closer to his foreign policy than you all are. I've never heard the kind of rhetoric from Ron on foreign policy issues that I hear from people here.

[twomp]

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not arguing that it was a good idea to invade Iraq. I think it was the dumbest war in the history of our country. I'm just arguing that our troops aren't a bunch of murderers. Has Ron Paul ever come out and said that our troops are all a bunch of murderers? If not, doesn't that mean that you disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy? I don't agree with every single aspect of Ron Paul's foreign policy, but I still find that I'm far closer to his foreign policy than you all are. I've never heard the kind of rhetoric from Ron on foreign policy issues that I hear from people here.

I don't worship Ron Paul like you do. I don't worship Rand Paul like you do. I do like their philosophy on things but I don't run to them and hear what they think before forming an opinion of my own like you seem to do. You need the television and people to tell you what to think as evidenced by how absolutely petrified of ISIS you are even though you can't really explain why they are so scary without using the weak evidence the television has told you. There have been countless articles posted on these very forums about how ISIS is not a threat. The neighboring countries in the area aren't even half as scared as you are over here thousands of miles away. So please don't tell me Ron Paul would do this and Ron Paul would do that because unlike you, I don't need Ron Paul to tell me how to think.

Now onto your weak arguments about how we are DEFENDING ourselves and how those people are savages killing innocents over there and so your solution to save those innocents is to bomb more innocents in your quest to kill savages. Totally neglecting the fact that you will create more "savages" with your peace and justice bombs.

[Brett85]

Now onto your weak arguments about how we are DEFENDING ourselves and how those people are savages killing innocents over there and so your solution to save those innocents is to bomb more innocents in your quest to kill savages.

I haven't ever really argued that saving the lives of innocent people who are being murdered overseas is a justification for using military force in foreign countries. I'm opposed to humanitarian interventions, because I think that we'll basically just have non stop intervention overseas if we have to intervene every time there's some humanitarian crisis. I just brought up the mass atrocities that ISIS is committing to make the point that I don't view the air strikes against ISIS to be immoral or an act of aggression. Whether or not the air strikes are a good idea is an entirely different matter.

[Brett85]

I don't worship Ron Paul like you do. I don't worship Rand Paul like you do. I do like their philosophy on things but I don't run to them and hear what they think before forming an opinion of my own like you seem to do. You need the television and people to tell you what to think as evidenced by how absolutely petrified of ISIS you are even though you can't really explain why they are so scary without using the weak evidence the television has told you. There have been countless articles posted on these very forums about how ISIS is not a threat. The neighboring countries in the area aren't even half as scared as you are over here thousands of miles away. So please don't tell me Ron Paul would do this and Ron Paul would do that because unlike you, I don't need Ron Paul to tell me how to think.

Fair enough. I just get tired of people telling me that I don't agree with Ron's foreign policy when they themselves don't agree with Ron's foreign policy.

[69360]

Not yet at least. Give it a few years. Terrorism is cool these days. But why do you consider a freedom fighter like George Habash a terrorist? Do you think the IRA fighters were terrorists? What about Mandela? What about the founding fathers?

I know beheading makes my fellow Ameri-cunts get their panties in a bunch, (because they prefer firing drones at children because it's cleaner) but if IS wasn't beheading, would they really have such a negative reputation.

If you want to consider the IRA terrorists, you also have to consider the UDA, UVF, RUC, British army and hell even now the PSNI all terrorists too.

Mandela was a terrorist. The ANC and particularly the MK intentionally killed civilians.

I don't know enough about George Habash to form an opinion.

[Brett85]

It seems kind of sad to me that I get criticized just for taking a different point of view on this, a point of view that even Rand Paul has taken, but yet you have outright domestic terrorists posting here who get no criticism at all.



9/11 targeted valid military and economic targets. The passengers on the planes were unavoidable collateral damage.

Unless you think that in a war it is immoral to target military and economic command centres?

[kcchiefs6465]

I think that the Iraq invasion was a terrible idea. I think that all of the U.S intervention that we had going on led to the rise of ISIS, such as the Iraq war, the war in Libya, and arming the so called "Syrian rebels." If my foreign policy had been followed, ISIS wouldn't even be a threat to us today. So what's your point again?
You know, I have explained this in tens of thousands of words. That is no exaggeration. I have debunked, rebutted and convincingly argued against your narrative for at least a couple of years now. So much so that you resort to extreme hyperbole and misrepresentations of my position. I even recall asking you not to misrepresent my position, you doing just that, and HB calling you out for it. I also recall that when I type a thousand or more words on what "my" point is, you pick one random sentence, and respond with precisely nothing aside from "So you think Hitler should have taken over the world?" fallacies. It's rather annoying, I would not be surprised if you were paid to post, and frankly I cannot convince you to read or educate yourself on the matter. You have to want to do that yourself. And you don't. And you won't. And it doesn't matter regardless because as shocking as this might be to your patriotic zeal, your representatives do not represent you.

You want to know my point in summary? Quit advocating taking people's money, wise up to the propaganda, pick up a book sometime, and for God's sake quit hiding behind teenagers to do your bidding. Is that so much to ask?

I mean year after year after year. "I didn't support the Iraq war".... One, you probably did. Two, you are supporting it now. And three, I mean just how many times can they use the same tired propagandist techniques with people eating it up, hook, line, and sinker? I mean, really. Is there a number where you buffoons will finally start to scratch your head and say, "You know, these aren't humanitarians. I think they just want to take my money and leave me in a state of perpetual fear/dependence."

I could ask what you know about, or rather explain to you, the history and relevance of many of these organizations, their roots tied to American interventionism and their rise to what they are now.

What good would that do you? You dance for Rendon, hee haw like an ass.


KCChiefs, what's your point again? I've been a major opponent of the Iraq War for quite some time.
I think I've explained it quite succinctly. I think you know my point. I suspect you are simply here to offer the "moderate" approach and create apathy. I'm probably wrong on that regard.


I'm still waiting for KCChiefs to take back his false allegation that I supported the Iraq invasion and somehow argued that Iraq attacked us on 9-11. I'm sure he won't do that though. I don't care if people disagree with my positions, but just don't lie about my positions. The Devil guy did the same thing when he falsely accused me of supporting arming the Syrian rebels.
This is amusing coming from the person who quite literally misrepresents what I say every time we speak. I mean, no joke, those who've been here for a while know your MO. I ask you now not to misrepresent my position. Fight the urge. You will in your response. I would guarantee it.

And I never said you supported the first Iraq war. You certainly support continuing it. You call it limited airstrikes but I don't think you know what that means. You advocate theft and murder and have the nerve to even ask for courteous discourse. If you want to know how I really feel, I'd send the lot of you over there. You think they ought be stopped? Go stop them. But you wouldn't. Only kids are qualified to be killers, right?




Just realize that 98% of people are worse...
And it's depressing as all hell. I'll fucking move to the woods before long.

[Brett85]

You know, I have explained this in tens of thousands of words. That is no exaggeration. I have debunked, rebutted and convincingly argued against your narrative for at least a couple of years now.

You disagree with my narrative that the rise of ISIS was caused by the original Iraq invasion, the war in Libya that removed Gaddafi, and arming and training the Syrian rebels? That's strange, because I would think that we would have common ground there and at least agree on that, even though we disagree over whether ISIS is a threat now and whether or not we should launch air strikes against them.

[kcchiefs6465]

You disagree with my narrative that the rise of ISIS was caused by the original Iraq invasion, the war in Libya that removed Gaddafi, and arming and training the Syrian rebels? That's strange, because I would think that we would have common ground there and at least agree on that, even though we disagree over whether ISIS is a threat now and whether or not we should launch air strikes against them.

This is amusing coming from the person who quite literally misrepresents what I say every time we speak. I mean, no joke, those who've been here for a while know your MO. I ask you now not to misrepresent my position. Fight the urge. You will in your response. I would guarantee it.
It took you all of seven minutes.

[Brett85]

It took you all of seven minutes.

My original comment was that the rise of ISIS was caused by the Iraq War, the Libya war, and arming the Syrian rebels. Your response was that you reject my narrative. How exactly am I supposed to interpret your comment? The narrative that I presented that you said you disagreed with was that U.S intervention is responsible for the rise of ISIS.

[kcchiefs6465]

My original comment was that the rise of ISIS was caused by the Iraq War, the Libya war, and arming the Syrian rebels. Your response was that you reject my narrative. How exactly am I supposed to interpret your comment? The narrative that I presented that you said you disagreed with was that U.S intervention is responsible for the rise of ISIS.
Are you a product of paint thinner?


I also recall that when I type a thousand or more words on what "my" point is, you pick one random sentence, and respond with precisely nothing aside from "So you think Hitler should have taken over the world?" fallacies.
This was also applicable to post #110.

It's fucking Groundhog's Day with you.

But since you acknowledge that ISIS is a creation of US interventionism, what precisely do you expect from more interventionism? You think it's going to work this time? You think US intelligence is impeccable? You think the region is going to appreciate it? Do you think yourself wise enough, or anyone wise enough for that matter, to predict the results of yet another multi-billion dollar war campaign?

[Christian Liberty]

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not arguing that it was a good idea to invade Iraq. I think it was the dumbest war in the history of our country. I'm just arguing that our troops aren't a bunch of murderers. Has Ron Paul ever come out and said that our troops are all a bunch of murderers? If not, doesn't that mean that you disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy? I don't agree with every single aspect of Ron Paul's foreign policy, but I still find that I'm far closer to his foreign policy than you all are. I've never heard the kind of rhetoric from Ron on foreign policy issues that I hear from people here.

I'm closer to Laurence Vance on foreign policy issues than Ron Paul. I love Ron Paul and basically see him as the perfect politician. I don't see how any politician could realistically take better positions than Ron Paul did. But I still don't think Ron Paul is perfect.

And by "closer" I would say total agreement to my knowledge.

It seems kind of sad to me that I get criticized just for taking a different point of view on this, a point of view that even Rand Paul has taken, but yet you have outright domestic terrorists posting here who get no criticism at all.

How is that "domestic terrorism"? Doesn't being a domestic terrorist mean actually engaging in domestic terrorism?

[Brett85]

But since you acknowledge that ISIS is a creation of US interventionism, what precisely do you expect from more interventionism? You think it's going to work this time? You think US intelligence is impeccable? You think the region is going to appreciate it? Do you think yourself wise enough, or anyone wise enough for that matter, to predict the results of yet another multi-billion dollar war campaign?

I'm opposed to stupid intervention that makes things worse. The original Iraq invasion was a stupid intervention. We invaded a country that posed absolutely no threat to our national security and overthrew a dictator who was actually an opponent of radical Islam. In Libya, we did the same thing. We overthrew a dictator who was an enemy of radical Islamists, and radical Islamists proceeded to take over the country. In Syria, we armed and trained the Syrian rebels, and there's no such thing as a "moderate rebel" in Syria. They're all extremists. Our government armed and trained terrorists in Syria and is primarily responsible for the terrorist group ISIS.

But they're now a monster that is out of control and a threat to our national security and the world's national security. I'm only in favor of using military action when there's actually a real and legitimate threat to our national security, when refusing to act will make our citizens less safe and less free. I'm opposed to stupid, unnecessary interventions but also support defending our country. This is a group of people who want to kill us and have openly stated their intention is to attack us and kill Americans. I'm in favor of self defense and support using military action in situations where we're acting in legitimate self defense.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm opposed to stupid intervention that makes things worse. The original Iraq invasion was a stupid intervention. We invaded a country that posed absolutely no threat to our national security and overthrew a dictator who was actually an opponent of radical Islam. In Libya, we did the same thing. We overthrew a dictator who was an enemy of radical Islamists, and radical Islamists proceeded to take over the country. In Syria, we armed and trained the Syrian rebels, and there's no such thing as a "moderate rebel" in Syria. They're all extremists. Our government armed and trained terrorists in Syria and is primarily responsible for the terrorist group ISIS.

But they're now a monster that is out of control and a threat to our national security and the world's national security. I'm only in favor of using military action when there's actually a real and legitimate threat to our national security, when refusing to act will make our citizens less safe and less free. I'm opposed to stupid, unnecessary interventions but also support defending our country. This is a group of people who want to kill us and have openly stated their intention is to attack us and kill Americans. I'm in favor of self defense and support using military action in situations where we're acting in legitimate self defense.
And of course the logical response to the litany of interventions becoming cluster fucks is to allow the same people to plan and execute another one.

Because, you know, it's not as if they have ever used the media, pimping narratives to foreign news outlets for them to be recycled back home, to exaggerate a threat and whip Americans into a war frenzy. I mean it's not like there's ever ulterior motivations aside from the ones offered on Fox News by 'humanitarian, peace spreaders.' It isn't even as if interventions from the past have had consequences that even the most "in tune" (inept, rather) intelligence agencies were taken by surprise. I mean it's not like it costs billions of dollars, the country is borrowing money from foreign entities or debasing a currency. Because if it was, obviously everyone would be opposed to it, right?

[Brett85]

I'm not confident that our government can handle the threat of ISIS appropriately, especially since we're still doing incredibly stupid things like continuing to fund the Syrian rebels. (ISIS) The main point I've been making is that I don't think it's immoral in any way to kill people who are entirely evil like ISIS. And I agree with Rand's strategy on ISIS, which is to work with Assad to take them out, and I would trust Rand if he were President and trust his strategy to defeat ISIS. I don't trust Obama and believe that his strategy will fail miserably.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm not confident that our government can handle the threat of ISIS appropriately, especially since we're still doing incredibly stupid things like continuing to fund the Syrian rebels. (ISIS) The main point I've been making is that I don't think it's immoral in any way to kill people who are entirely evil like ISIS. And I agree with Rand's strategy on ISIS, which is to work with Assad to take them out, and I would trust Rand if he were President and trust his strategy to defeat ISIS. I don't trust Obama and believe that his strategy will fail miserably.
I do not know of who this "we" you are referring to is.

Them funding Syrian rebels is like the fifth dumbest, counterproductive to American interests thing, they are doing right now. But you know, to save freedom they must take from all to employ an counterproductive class of society. To protect 'us' (as ISIS poses precisely zero of a threat to me) they must kick hornets nests and create more jihadist sympathizers. To save American lives they must send Americans to be cannon fodder.

I feel like I'm living in a Twilight Zone. Black is white. Up is down. What a Brave Old World.

[orenbus]

So now the pentagon is saying training for the "moderate" Syrian rebels won't begin for another 3-5 months and it will take a year to train the first 5,000 confirming earlier reports that this is going to be a multi-year extended campaign.

[kcchiefs6465]

So now the pentagon is saying training for the "moderate" Syrian rebels won't begin for another 3-5 months and it will take a year to train the first 5,000 confirming earlier reports that this is going to be a multi-year extended campaign.
Well that is just shocking.

[AngryCanadian]

So now the pentagon is saying training for the "moderate" Syrian rebels won't begin for another 3-5 months and it will take a year to train the first 5,000 confirming earlier reports that this is going to be a multi-year extended campaign.

They already admitted that in 2012, where that vote was opposed that the training already is occurring in the regime state of Jordan. Notice how Jordan has being rather quiet these few past months?

Remember the claims of Syrian refuges going into Jordan? well those could have easily be the FSA fighters whom would and are now the ISIS.

[chudrockz]

Yes, if a U.S soldier actually went into a home of a civilian and murdered an unarmed innocent person, that would be murder, and I would say that someone who did that and didn't repent isn't a Christian. On the other hand, it's not murder if the other person were armed and firing at them. It would be self defense for our soldiers to defend themselves and kill those who are attempting to kill them.

I see. So, if I enter your house uninvited and you catch me in the act of beating and raping your wife, and you shoot at me, it's self defense for me to shoot back?

[presence]

http://www.exposingtruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/wars0.jpg