Should we be scared of ISIS?

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9-Hthx1wko

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea3jaxb2o2Y

[orenbus]

This woman says ISIS is in West Virginia.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDXawIDGLh4

[DamianTV]

Boogity boogity.

[69360]

Scared? No. Aware yes.

I just read today one of the Somalis from Lewiston Maine died fighting for IS.

Somebody like this with a western passport could move freely and do a lot of damage here.

[presence]

I'm more scared of what its going to do to our federal debt.

[navy-vet]

I believe they could very well become a very clear and present threat in the future. Obama stirring them up provides the motive and the stand down at the border the opportunity. And the billion plus in USD they allegedly have in their treasury, the means...

I just think it might be a bit unwise to classify them as a benign threat at this point. Reminds me of the same attitude that was held by the majority of Americans in regards to the threat of the Japanese, as they assembled their machine of war.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The ISIS seems so fake. One day, 800 Syrian rebel fighters invade Iraq, and next thing they're this huge worldwide threat. Reports say they provide all sorts of services in the Middle East (sewage, electricity, etc.) That sprung up over night? Where were the stories about this group a few months ago?

Then, days after Britain and Germany announce they won't get involved fighting this group, they behead a British journalist, and now Britain just has to join in (basing a foreign policy around one person...smart.)

Whole thing feels choreographed.

(Nice job OP on making the poll public, so no one can/will make a serious 'yes' vote without fear of bullying.)

[heavenlyboy34]

Fear is a mind-killer. That's why the regime scare mongers us so often. Be alert and aware, but do not let them cause you to fear.

[heavenlyboy34]

The ISIS feels so fake. One day, 800 Syrian rebel fighters invade Iraq, and next thing they're this huge worldwide threat. Reports say they provide all sorts of services in the Middle East (sewage, electricity, etc.) That sprung up over night? Where was the stories about this group a few months ago?

Then, days after Britain and Germany announce they won't get involved fighting this group, they behead a British journalist, and now Britain just has join in (basing a foreign policy around one person...smart.)

Whole thing feels choreographed.

This^^ And the dialogue seems to be written by a total hack. :P

[navy-vet]

I see....yeah, you guys could be right. They have been eager to get Assad and there's a lot of money being made....
Guess I'm getting too old and naive to make a call on such matters anymore.

[navy-vet]

I'm still blinded by the trees.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm listening to this crap out of the corner of my ear because 60 Minutes is the carry over program on my TV. Listening to the metrosexual reporting the story in his drama queen tone.

47 years of 60 Minutes? The longest and biggest bunch of pantywaist crap to ever hit the airwaves.

[JK/SEA]

well, we have one who thinks we should be scared, so i think we better start promoting a draft.....

[green73]

well, we have one who thinks we should be scared, so i think we better start promoting a draft.....

Just some Brit. Liberty has been dead for so long there that common socialists tend to think they're libertarians.

[ctiger2]

McShame says they're good guys, so I'm not worried.

[jjdoyle]

I believe they could very well become a very clear and present threat in the future. Obama stirring them up provides the motive and the stand down at the border the opportunity. And the billion plus in USD they allegedly have in their treasury, the means...

I just think it might be a bit unwise to classify them as a benign threat at this point. Reminds me of the same attitude that was held by the majority of Americans in regards to the threat of the Japanese, as they assembled their machine of war.

Well, there is evidence we had warnings then of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and we now have the NSA, CIA, FBI, TSA, Border Patrol, National Guard, Coast Guard, and the plethora of other federal departments (http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/) like OSHA that ISIS (ISIL) would have to get through first.
I am not concerned one bit about ISIS, ISIL, or whatever the new fear name is that I'm supposed to be afraid of. I think my federal government and local governments are more of a direct threat to me and my family, than what I would say is the equivalent of Tusken Raiders in the Middle East.

[navy-vet]

Just some Brit. Liberty has been dead for so long there that common socialists tend to think they're libertarians.
Nope, that was me...:)

[tod evans]

These are the only terrorists I've seen.......


3119

[FloralScent]

Well, there is evidence we had warnings then of the attack on Pearl Harbor...

My dad always said the fact there were no carriers at Pearl during the attack was a dead giveaway we knew it was coming. He and the soldiers in his unit in Vietnam were convinced of this.

[enhanced_deficit]

Syria, Iran, mideast Christians and other people of mideast should be concerned.
But Americans should stand with Israel and be more concerned about US War on ISIS:

Israel ‘Concerned’ over US War On ISIS (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459855-Cat-out-of-bag-Israel-%E2%80%98Concerned%E2%80%99-over-US-War-On-ISIS&)

Poll: A question for those who think Obama team helped create ISIS Jihadi group
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?457520-A-question-for-those-who-think-Obama-team-helped-create-ISIS-Jihadi-group&)



"ISIS Was Created By The Americans & Israelis" Iraqis Protest US Airstrikes In Iraq


Nay sayers, CNN skeptics etc had said same thing about RM 1.0 .

ISIS = RM 2.0

(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459503-ISIS-Revolution-Muslim-2-0&)http://www.r-islam.com/en/images/stories/joseph%20cohen.jpg (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459503-ISIS-Revolution-Muslim-2-0&)


(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459503-ISIS-Revolution-Muslim-2-0&)http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6eonppuEMEo/S4ZCab9kUYI/AAAAAAAAJps/SbrVmezFraA/s400/shahadayu3.jpg (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?459503-ISIS-Revolution-Muslim-2-0&)

[oyarde]

Should I be scared ?No .Would I feel differently if I lived next to them ? Probably . I would start building my own Army.

[green73]

Nope, that was me...:)

Huh?

[Spikender]

"We" nothing. I have bigger concerns than ISIS right now, especially when it comes to our own situation here at home that is directly affecting me.

[navy-vet]

Huh?
sorry....my bad

[Danke]

What a stupid thread. ISIS wouldn't stand a chance in armed America. Me and Billybob are more worried about the foreign government WRT the States currently occupying the U.S.

[Danke]

This woman says ISIS is in West Virginia.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDXawIDGLh4

Oh, fuck, women soldiers!!

http://www.marieclaire.com/cm/marieclaire/images/ZE/mcx1007FESoldiers001-medium-new.jpg WTF is that video you posted?

Evangelist Anita Fuentes promoting herself and her YouTube.

[twomp]

Scared? No. Aware yes.

I just read today one of the Somalis from Lewiston Maine died fighting for IS.

Somebody like this with a western passport could move freely and do a lot of damage here.

You must really think our country is weak if you think ONE person with ONE passport can somehow "do a lot of damage here." Hell, a couple of school kids can do more damage with their dad's guns. Do you think we should remove all our guns because of it?

[qh4dotcom]

If you are going to be scared of ISIS can you please be scared of the armed criminals running around your neighborhood? They are just as dangerous.

If you live in a small town, population 100...are you that gullible to believe ISIS is going to show up there?

Oh, and can you please also be scared of getting in a car...car accidents have killed more Americans than ISIS.

and let's not forget, cops have killed / injured more Americasn than ISIS

[qh4dotcom]

You must really think our country is weak if you think ONE person with ONE passport can somehow "do a lot of damage here." Hell, a couple of school kids can do more damage with their dad's guns. Do you think we should remove all our guns because of it?

Agreed...but don't forget Timothy McVeigh.

[osan]

No.

[osan]

I'm more scared of what its going to do to our federal debt.

That should be the biggest concern.

Forget the debt. It is irrelevant at this point.

[freejack]

I'm scared of our response to ISIS.

[orenbus]

WTF is that video you posted?

I don't know, just watched the first 10 minutes and was switching back and forth between cracking up laughing and jaw dropping in shock at the randomness, thought I'd share.

[pcosmar]

Agreed...but don't forget Timothy McVeigh.

Timothy Mcveigh was a Government agent. A government soldier.

He was no militia.. He was not part of the Patriot Movement,, though he attempted to infiltrate it. He was an actor.

He was a government soldier following orders. (including his jailhouse interviews)

[presence]

Flames of War - IS (ISIS) Propaganda full length (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?460209-Flames-of-War-IS-%28ISIS%29-Propaganda-full-length)

[navy-vet]

Timothy Mcveigh was a Government agent. A government soldier.

He was no militia.. He was not part of the Patriot Movement,, though he attempted to infiltrate it. He was an actor.

He was a government soldier following orders. (including his jailhouse interviews)

Do you think he was under the control of the reptilian overlord's?

[navy-vet]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/esp_icke118.htm
Is this what you believe pcosmar?

[nobody's_hero]

I'd be more scared of the [insert radical group] we train to go after ISIS.

Like, I could easily see our government arming the Syrian rebels to go after ISIS and then 5 years from now the rebels are pissed off and start killing Americans with our own weapons. That's typically the pattern in the middle east.

Remember when Saddam was a bad man? Now he seems mild compared to what we're seeing.

[Lucille]

Jan Helfeld has been busy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXDaqO7wL7I&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ

Amb. Bolton admits ISIS not imminent threat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjbCGQNn2fY&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ

Has ISIS attacked America?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEPqWNZASdA&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ

Jennifer Bowman on ISIS threat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uff5eK1dYrI&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ

[Acala]

. Reminds me of the same attitude that was held by the majority of Americans in regards to the threat of the Japanese, as they assembled their machine of war.

Oh for Pete's sake. In the ramp up to WWII, Japan was an industrial giant. They had steel mills. They had ship yards. They made aircraft and submarines and vehicles and artillery and guns and ammunition. ISIS couldn't make a pot to piss in. How can you seriously compare the two?

In the modern world it is not possible to have a serious offensive army without substantial industrial capacity backing it up. As an army, it is logistically impossible for ISIS to be anything other than a local player. Now it might generate some terrorists, but you aren't going to stop them with bombing. You will just make more of them.

[pcosmar]

Do you think he was under the control of the reptilian overlord's?

I think he was under the direction of those concerned with the growing Patriot movement.

Reptilians? No,, not really. Though Satan did appear as a serpent. And those that control this world do so at Satan's bidding.

[Miss Annie]

The ONLY reason we should be scared of ISIS is because of the open invitation they currently have to our country via our open borders and the idiots running this country that are covertly ( or think they are ) arming them.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Timothy Mcveigh was a Government agent. A government soldier.

He was no militia.. He was not part of the Patriot Movement,, though he attempted to infiltrate it. He was an actor.

He was a government soldier following orders. (including his jailhouse interviews)

Wow, that's quite the loyal soldier: To let himself be jailed for years and executed for a crime he knows he didn't commit.

Or will you tell me it was a body double whom was executed? :rolleyes:

[jllundqu]

Is Switzerland scared of ISIS?

Answer: NO

Ask yourself why and you will learn how stupid our foriegn policy is.

No one is rushing to fly planes into buildings in Switzerland and other neutral countries for a reason...

[navy-vet]

Oh for Pete's sake. In the ramp up to WWII, Japan was an industrial giant. They had steel mills. They had ship yards. They made aircraft and submarines and vehicles and artillery and guns and ammunition. ISIS couldn't make a pot to piss in. How can you seriously compare the two?

In the modern world it is not possible to have a serious offensive army without substantial industrial capacity backing it up. As an army, it is logistically impossible for ISIS to be anything other than a local player. Now it might generate some terrorists, but you aren't going to stop them with bombing. You will just make more of them.
At the time I wrote that, I considered the alleged possession of over a billion dollars in hard US currency, as well as the three and a half million a day that ISIS / ISIL was getting from the sale of oil, to be a sufficient amount of funds to perhaps, buy a pot to piss in...
Like a WMD from some source like NK .

[Miss Annie]

Is Switzerland scared of ISIS?

Answer: NO

Ask yourself why and you will learn how stupid our foriegn policy is.

No one is rushing to fly planes into buildings in Switzerland and other neutral countries for a reason...

That's right, because it wasn't Switzerland who went in and "liberated" all of the radicalized terrorist groups who were being kept in check by "harsh" dictators. :rolleyes:

[Christian Liberty]

The ONLY reason we should be scared of ISIS is because of the open invitation they currently have to our country via our open borders and the idiots running this country that are covertly ( or think they are ) arming them.

This is probably true, actually. But that makes me scared of the US government more so than ISIS.

[Miss Annie]

This is probably true, actually. But that makes me scared of the US government more so than ISIS.

You should be. They are one in the same....... US = Muslim Brotherhood = ISIS / Al Qaeda / Boko Harem / al Nusra / in suits. They were put in by the Saudis years ago and have been using our government resources to accomplish their goals in the Middle East. Ever wonder why Bush let the Saudis fly away after 9/11?

[pcosmar]

Wow, that's quite the loyal soldier: To let himself be jailed for years and executed for a crime he knows he didn't commit.

Or will you tell me it was a body double whom was executed? :rolleyes:

Perhaps a "true believer"... perhaps living comfortably in Bora Bora. (or somewhere out of sight)

I honestly don't know that anyone was actually executed.. There was a theater performance.

He certainly was no mastermind. He did not place the charges inside the Federal Building. He may have driven the truck.
And while all the focus was on him,, many others walked away unscathed.

Tim McVeigh was run off from several groups he tried to join. He tried to attach himself,, but was widely rejected.
The media still tied him into them though.

[Christian Liberty]

You should be. They are one in the same....... US = Muslim Brotherhood = ISIS / Al Qaeda / Boko Harem / al Nusra / in suits. They were put in by the Saudis years ago and have been using our government resources to accomplish their goals in the Middle East. Ever wonder why Bush let the Saudis fly away after 9/11?

I'm not aware of all of the details, but I know full well that the US government likes to play both sides of every war. Because "we just have to do something" (or that's how they have to sell it to the idiots). I oppose all intervention on philosophical principle, but I definitely agree that secular dictators like Saddam and Assad were/are preferable to the Islamic radicals that are replacing them. Even still, I'm not worried that ISIS is ever going to get strong enough to really attack the US. If there's another terrorist attack, it will be because the US government allowed it to happen, whether through idiocy or malevolence. And, there's simply no way ISIS is actually going to invade the United States, they can't even take over Iraq and Syria...

[Danke]

Wow, that's quite the loyal soldier: To let himself be jailed for years and executed for a crime he knows he didn't commit.

Or will you tell me it was a body double whom was executed? :rolleyes:

So you personally watched the execution and later verified the body was dead?

[Acala]

At the time I wrote that, I considered the alleged possession of over a billion dollars in hard US currency, as well as the three and a half million a day that ISIS / ISIL was getting from the sale of oil, to be a sufficient amount of funds to perhaps, buy a pot to piss in...
Like a WMD from some source like NK .

As I said, a handful of terrorists might launch an attack. That is nothing at all like Japan at the outset of WWII. Nothing in common whatsoever. In fact the comparison is silly. And, in any event, all the bombing runs in the world are not going to stop a handful of terrorists.

And even if ISIS had some massive stash of cash, who do you think is going to sell them the aircraft, ships and vehicles needed for a real armed force, and the constant supply of parts, fuel, ammo, and training needed to run it?

Do you have an example from real history, and not Fox news fantasy, in which a group of people who don't really even have a country, let alone an industrial economy backing them, have ever launched a significant war of conquest at anytime since the American Civil War?

[Acala]

At the time I wrote that, I considered the alleged possession of over a billion dollars in hard US currency, as well as the three and a half million a day that ISIS / ISIL was getting from the sale of oil, to be a sufficient amount of funds to perhaps, buy a pot to piss in...
Like a WMD from some source like NK .

So the risk you are talking about is not an army like Japan was building. What you are talking about is a single act of terrorism with a nuke. I'll concede that is a threat. Not a big one, but none-zero.

So which of the following strategies is the better one to deal with that threat:

1. Drop a bunch more bombs on suspected enemy encampments and positions (you can't blow up factories or supply lines since they have none), kill a bunch of people (including lots of innocents) but leave many hundreds of thousands behind that still have nothing to lose and hate us even more than before and can still get the WMDs you are worried about; or

2. Get the hell out, and let someone ELSE be the obstacle to their local ambitions such that any WMDs that come on the scene will be used on those local enemies and not us.

[trey4sports]

Every night before I go to sleep I check under my bed for Isis

[Miss Annie]

Every night before I go to sleep I check under my bed for Isis

I don't check for ISIS, just only to make sure the powder is dry

[Brett85]

We shouldn't be scared of them, just vigilant. It's not good when the American people get scared, because they are then willing to give up all of their liberties in exchange for a false promise of security. But at the same time, they can't simply be ignored.

[Miss Annie]

We shouldn't be scared of them, just vigilant. It's not good when the American people get scared, because they are then willing to give up all of their liberties in exchange for a false promise of security. But at the same time, they can't simply be ignored.

THIS! So THIS! We need to get out the idiots that are feeding them and allowing them in - and trying to take our means to defend ourselves against them. PERIOD!

[Acala]

We shouldn't be scared of them, just vigilant. It's not good when the American people get scared, because they are then willing to give up all of their liberties in exchange for a false promise of security. But at the same time, they can't simply be ignored.

I could ignore them if my government would limit itself to what it is supposed to be doing and stop with the world policing.

[Miss Annie]

I could ignore them if my government would limit itself to what it is supposed to be doing and stop with the world policing.

The government is NOT world policing. "World policing" is its "cover". It is carrying the water of foreign entities who do not have America's interests at heart.... period.

[Brett85]

THIS! So THIS! We need to get out the idiots that are feeding them and allowing them in - and trying to take our means to defend ourselves against them. PERIOD!

Yes, they'll become much more of a threat if the Democrats succeed in stripping the American people of their right to keep and bear arms. They could take over America if the American people are ever disarmed.

[Acala]

The government is NOT world policing. "World policing" is its "cover". It is carrying the water of foreign entities who do not have America's interests at heart.... period.

I don't disagree. It is crony-capitalism sold to the people as world policing.

[Miss Annie]

I don't disagree. It is crony-capitalism sold to the people as world policing.

This government has been infiltrated by foreign interests. I do not discount the crony capitalism, but the foreign interests are actually a higher threat, because whether or not we want to acknowledge it, they are using us to fight "their" holy war.

[Acala]

This government has been infiltrated by foreign interests. I do not discount the crony capitalism, but the foreign interests are actually a higher threat, because whether or not we want to acknowledge it, they are using us to fight "their" holy war.

When you start talking about Obama as a muslim infiltrator you can go on without me.

[Miss Annie]

When you start talking about Obama as a muslim infiltrator you can go on without me.

Oh yea? Why is that? You forgot a few key elements. You can't stereotype all Muslims together they do not all have the same agenda / beliefs.
Obama is not JUST a muslim infiltrator - he is a muslim "brotherhood" infiltrator. Very different. He has Sunni / Salafi / Wahhabist alliances. Does it totally escape you that we are always supporting the Sunni side? Does it escape you that we are destroying the Sunni enemies? Does it escape you that we are destroying the Muslim minorities?
Did what happened in Egypt totally escape you? Did you not notice that Egypt has designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization and tried and convicted all of the members that tried to topple Egypt and turn it into another Libya?

[navy-vet]

As I said, a handful of terrorists might launch an attack. That is nothing at all like Japan at the outset of WWII. Nothing in common whatsoever. In fact the comparison is silly. And, in any event, all the bombing runs in the world are not going to stop a handful of terrorists.

And even if ISIS had some massive stash of cash, who do you think is going to sell them the aircraft, ships and vehicles needed for a real armed force, and the constant supply of parts, fuel, ammo, and training needed to run it?

Do you have an example from real history, and not Fox news fantasy, in which a group of people who don't really even have a country, let alone an industrial economy backing them, have ever launched a significant war of conquest at anytime since the American Civil War?

On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individuals, without a country, brought the greatest empire the world had ever seen to it's knees, and initiating it's fall.

[Miss Annie]

Oh yea? Why is that? You forgot a few key elements. You can't stereotype all Muslims together they do not all have the same agenda / beliefs.
Obama is not JUST a muslim infiltrator - he is a muslim "brotherhood" infiltrator. Very different. He has Sunni / Salafi / Wahhabist alliances. Does it totally escape you that we are always supporting the Sunni side? Does it escape you that we are destroying the Sunni enemies? Does it escape you that we are destroying the Muslim minorities?
Did what happened in Egypt totally escape you? Did you not notice that Egypt has designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization and tried and convicted all of the members that tried to topple Egypt and turn it into another Libya?

And just to clarify..... I am not saying that this is all about Obama either. We have been carrying Saudi water a whole hell of a lot longer than that. Bushes, Clintons, etc...

[navy-vet]

So the risk you are talking about is not an army like Japan was building. What you are talking about is a single act of terrorism with a nuke. I'll concede that is a threat. Not a big one, but none-zero.

So which of the following strategies is the better one to deal with that threat:

1. Drop a bunch more bombs on suspected enemy encampments and positions (you can't blow up factories or supply lines since they have none), kill a bunch of people (including lots of innocents) but leave many hundreds of thousands behind that still have nothing to lose and hate us even more than before and can still get the WMDs you are worried about; or

2. Get the hell out, and let someone ELSE be the obstacle to their local ambitions such that any WMDs that come on the scene will be used on those local enemies and not us.
To be candid with you sir, I admit that I recently, favored the arming of our allies the Kurds, as well as perhaps, the fleeing Christians. I also advocated the aerial dropping of water and rations to the people trapped on that mountain. Why? Because I am a Christian, and an American, and I feel that we are responsible in large part for their predicament.

I had in my younger days taken the Hippocratic oath (1960 rev.), the US armed forces oath, the Boy Scout Oath. and finally, made a personal promise to my God. And I continue to honor and acknowledge, all of these pledges as seriously today as I did when I made them.


I do not wish to impose these beliefs on you or anyone else, but wholeheartedly welcome any who happen to share or honor them.


In regards to your question,I think that we have surpassed the point where our continued involvement in those affairs are conducive to any benefit for anyone involved. Time to bring the show home and become vigilant, for the blow-back is likely to follow.

[GunnyFreedom]

Honestly there is no way to actually know if these people are an actual threat. If they were, then the evidence of it would be classified. I don't really trust this, or the last three administrations to tell me the truth about anything, so I have nothing concrete to make a judgement from. If it turns out that they are a legitimate threat, I know how to eliminate that threat Constitutionally, and short of war.

[navy-vet]

Honestly there is no way to actually know if these people are an actual threat. If they were, then the evidence of it would be classified. I don't really trust this, or the last three administrations to tell me the truth about anything, so I have nothing concrete to make a judgement from. If it turns out that they are a legitimate threat, I know how to eliminate that threat Constitutionally, and short of war.
Do tell. How would you eliminate the threat without warfare?
Assuming they are a threat that is.

[navy-vet]

And just to clarify..... I am not saying that this is all about Obama either. We have been carrying Saudi water a whole hell of a lot longer than that. Bushes, Clintons, etc...
hear hear Miss Annie!

[Natural Citizen]

Do tell. How would you eliminate the threat without warfare?
Assuming they are a threat that is.


I was just reading this gag... Blackwater founder: We could have fought ISIS if Obama hadn't 'crushed my old business' (http://rt.com/usa/189684-blackwater-private-army-isis/)


Erik Prince said in front of the conservative group Maverick PAC

Maverick PAC. What are they just pulling PACs out of their rear ends for every special interest that craves a voice now? Sheesh.

[GunnyFreedom]

Do tell. How would you eliminate the threat without warfare?
Assuming they are a threat that is.

Jeffersonian Doctrine Marque and Reprisal. A battalion of MARSOC, a Congressional liaison officer in charge of a bank afloat, and a billion dollars or so. Marque will bring in lower and midlevel operators, while MARSOC on Reprisal works on the royal flush. Hop in, throw out a completely unreasonable amount of cash, and while the privateers are all clamoring desperately for it use Special Forces Marines to bag the top leadership across the region. To start with. That's not even all of the broad strokes.

[Dr.3D]

This government has been infiltrated by foreign interests. I do not discount the crony capitalism, but the foreign interests are actually a higher threat, because whether or not we want to acknowledge it, they are using us to fight "their" holy war.
And they are using us to provide weapons to their comrades to fight "their" holy war.

[navy-vet]

I was just reading this gag... Blackwater founder: We could have fought ISIS if Obama hadn't 'crushed my old business' (http://rt.com/usa/189684-blackwater-private-army-isis/)



Maverick PAC. What are they just pulling PACs out of their rear ends for every special interest that craves a voice now? Sheesh.
haha your timing is impeccable, O'Reilly just announced that he proposes a world police force that I have no doubt general wantabe Erik would gladly commandeer, for the right price that is....and a world wide autonomous carte blanche.

[orenbus]

Rudy Giuliani Says Officials And MSM Are "Exaggerating" The ISIS Threat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQjYJzbAFcI

[navy-vet]

Jeffersonian Doctrine Marque and Reprisal. A battalion of MARSOC, a Congressional liaison officer in charge of a bank afloat, and a billion dollars or so. Marque will bring in lower and midlevel operators, while MARSOC on Reprisal works on the royal flush. Hop in, throw out a completely unreasonable amount of cash, and while the privateers are all clamoring desperately for it use Special Forces Marines to bag the top leadership across the region. To start with. That's not even all of the broad strokes.
Wow, that's so far above my pay grade that I am sorry I asked. Anarchy unleashed?

[Natural Citizen]

haha your timing is impeccable, O'Reilly just announced that he proposes a world police force that I have no doubt general wantabe Erik would gladly commandeer, for the right price that is....and a world wide autonomous carte blanche.

Yeah, Bill is a real Maverick alright. I haven't watched his program in well over a year or so now. Maybe even two. Thanks for the update.

[navy-vet]

Yeah, Bill is a real Maverick alright. I haven't watched his program in well over a year or so now. Maybe even two. Thanks for the update.
I just happened to be surfing and I heard a professor he had on talking about a mercenary army to go after ISIS so I stopped and lo and behold....

[twomp]

At the time I wrote that, I considered the alleged possession of over a billion dollars in hard US currency, as well as the three and a half million a day that ISIS / ISIL was getting from the sale of oil, to be a sufficient amount of funds to perhaps, buy a pot to piss in...
Like a WMD from some source like NK .


And you know this how? How do you know how much money they are getting per day in oil sales? Do they use electronic transactions or cash? How are they delivering all this oil without U.S. satellites detecting it? They are a terrorist organization who is surrounded on all sides by their supposed "enemies." Do you really mean to tell the United States has the ability to slap embargos on Iraq and Iran and stop them from selling oil yet a terrorist organization can simply sell oil and no one knows how? But at the same time, they know it's 3.5 million per day? Some evidence please instead of this fear mongering that you are spreading because the TV told you.

[navy-vet]

And you know this how? How do you know how much money they are getting per day in oil sales? Do they use electronic transactions or cash? How are they delivering all this oil without U.S. satellites detecting it? They are a terrorist organization who is surrounded on all sides by their supposed "enemies." Do you really mean to tell the United States has the ability to slap embargos on Iraq and Iran and stop them from selling oil yet a terrorist organization can simply sell oil and no one knows how? But at the same time, they know it's 3.5 million per day? Some evidence please instead of this fear mongering that you are spreading because the TV told you.
Perhaps the word "alleged" has some how alluded you?:rolleyes:

[kcchiefs6465]

Jeffersonian Doctrine Marque and Reprisal. A battalion of MARSOC, a Congressional liaison officer in charge of a bank afloat, and a billion dollars or so. Marque will bring in lower and midlevel operators, while MARSOC on Reprisal works on the royal flush. Hop in, throw out a completely unreasonable amount of cash, and while the privateers are all clamoring desperately for it use Special Forces Marines to bag the top leadership across the region. To start with. That's not even all of the broad strokes.
They've been doing [practically] precisely that.

What it's led to is random people who happen to look like a particular bountied man (who is often no more than a gnat in the scheme of things, regardless) being captured, tortured and executed in the street with the hopes of a payout. Simply to mention one of the horrors of the policy. (how many deck of cards do we need?)

JSOC has rather normalized and established an assassination campaign the likes of which America had not seen before.

[navy-vet]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/ among many others...
A black market or underground economy is the market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_(economics)) in which goods or services are traded illegally. The key distinction of a black market trade is that the transaction itself is illegal. The goods or services may or may not themselves be illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraband) to own, or to trade through other, legal channels. Because the transactions are illegal, the market itself is forced to operate outside the formal economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_sector), supported by the established state power. Common motives for operating in black markets are to trade contraband, avoid taxes, or skirt price controls. Typically the totality of such activity is referred to with the definite article as a complement to the official economies, by market for such goods and services, e.g. "the black market in bush meat".
The black market is distinct from the grey market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_market), in which commodities are distributed through channels which, while legal, are unofficial, unauthorized, or unintended by the original manufacturer, and the white market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_market).
The black market is considered a subset of the informal economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_economy), of which 1.8 billion people worldwide are employed.:D
This by the way is for "twomps" enlightenment.

[kcchiefs6465]

At the time I wrote that, I considered the alleged possession of over a billion dollars in hard US currency, as well as the three and a half million a day that ISIS / ISIL was getting from the sale of oil, to be a sufficient amount of funds to perhaps, buy a pot to piss in...
Like a WMD from some source like NK .
Scary stuff.

[navy-vet]

Scary stuff.
Yes it certainly is, and hopefully it never comes to fruition. Regardless however, it is but another reason to get the hell out of there and leave them be. Oh, and continue our vigilance on the home front, of course.

[Lucille]

Wow, that's so far above my pay grade that I am sorry I asked. Anarchy unleashed?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

Thank you, Gunny. I think RPF is the only place mentioning it. It's Constitutional, and would be the smart way to go, so I guess it's a non-starter.

[Miss Annie]

And you know this how? How do you know how much money they are getting per day in oil sales? Do they use electronic transactions or cash? How are they delivering all this oil without U.S. satellites detecting it? They are a terrorist organization who is surrounded on all sides by their supposed "enemies." Do you really mean to tell the United States has the ability to slap embargos on Iraq and Iran and stop them from selling oil yet a terrorist organization can simply sell oil and no one knows how? But at the same time, they know it's 3.5 million per day? Some evidence please instead of this fear mongering that you are spreading because the TV told you.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/isis-makes-million-day-selling-oil-analysts/story?id=24814359

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/12559-isis-begins-selling-crude-oil-from-iraqs-ajeel-oil-field

http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/07/5856/isis-3-million-day-selling-oil-analysts/#!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b6_1409831004

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-12/where-isis-makes-its-money

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/05/EU-Buys-ISIS-Oil-Ambassador

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes it certainly is, and hopefully it's not a fact. Regardless however, it is but another reason to get the hell out of there and leave them be. Oh, and continue our vigilance on the home front.
I will remain under the blanket (monsters can't see you if you're under a blanket) until we get confirmation one way or the other. Keep us posted.

[anaconda]

I saw an ISIS under my bed.

[navy-vet]

I saw an ISIS under my bed.
“There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.”


― Lao Tzu (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2622245.Lao_Tzu)

...unless of course maybe not even being aware that you have one.

-me

[Dr.3D]

I saw an ISIS under my bed.
My Dobermans would like to find ISIS under my bed. :D

[69360]

I just happened to be surfing and I heard a professor he had on talking about a mercenary army to go after ISIS so I stopped and lo and behold....


Eric Prince was interviewed the other day. He said Blackwater/Xe/Acedemi could take out IS no problem. Despite my reservations about how they operate, I'm inclined to believe him.

[GunnyFreedom]

They've been doing [practically] precisely that.

What it's led to is random people who happen to look like a particular bountied man (who is often no more than a gnat in the scheme of things, regardless) being captured, tortured and executed in the street with the hopes of a payout. Simply to mention one of the horrors of the policy. (how many deck of cards do we need?)

JSOC has rather normalized and established an assassination campaign the likes of which America had not seen before.

It hasn't happened with proper Congressional Marque and Reprisal. Just like undeclared wars always go wrong in a hurry, so do undeclared marques and reprisals.

[GunnyFreedom]

“There is no greater danger than underestimating your opponent.”


― Lao Tzu (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2622245.Lao_Tzu)

...unless of course maybe not even being aware that you have one.

-me

Wouldn't that actually be a form of underestimating your opponent?
"Category zero - not an enemy" seems like underestimation in totality.

[kcchiefs6465]

It hasn't happened with proper Congressional Marque and Reprisal. Just like undeclared wars always go wrong in a hurry, so do undeclared marques and reprisals.
What does it being 'proper' have to do with anything?

As if the CIA and DIA etc. would suddenly get their HUMINT correct.

As if you could just kill your way to peace.

There are an estimated 30,000 ISIS fighters. More joining daily. Probably a third or less are dedicated but regardless, it is an unfeasible option. I am certain you aware of the deck of cards that never ended.

For what, too? A couple of rather questionable beheadings of men? Men who knew the dangers of traveling to that region? To 'save' the Yazidi?

I'm getting rather apathetic and tired of explaining time after time the issues with these foreign policy proposals. Your's is better than most for whatever that's worth. It "almost" worked in Afghanistan, as in, didn't fucking work at all (whether it was officially titled and 'authorized' being irrelevant to the point of murdering people based on whimsical intelligence reports).

I don't want to pay for it. That's just a minor inconvenience, I assume?

[navy-vet]

Eric Prince was interviewed the other day. He said Blackwater/Xe/Acedemi could take out IS no problem. Despite my reservations about how they operate, I'm inclined to believe him.
I personally have no doubt that he could. I had a good friend who worked with them as a driver / medic in the division that moved VIP's around in Iraq. He died of cancer a couple years ago which he claimed he got from depleted uranium castings or something. Anyway, he told me the team he was on was incredibly efficient and brutal. They were all former special forces and CIA spooks. They were lightening fast and instilled shock and fear everywhere that they went. And they boasted that they never lost a client.

If I'm not mistaken, they (Blackwater or Xe) are the same asshats who went in and disarmed the law abiding American citizens in N.O. during the Katrina fiasco. That's probably how the feds circumvented the second amendment I bet. My friend wasn't working with them here in the states as far as I know. At least he never mentioned it and I never thought to ask him.

[GunnyFreedom]

What does it being 'proper' have to do with anything?

How about the difference between WW2 and Korea/Vietnam?


As if the CIA and DIA etc. would suddenly get their HUMINT correct.

If all of this were above ground and public, like, say if it had Congressional Letters, then the CIA would be a lot more conscious about frelling up because it won't get buried like when it's all kept secret.


As if you could just kill your way to peace.

All of the killing/torture crap that is going on, is going on because it is underground in the black market. Above ground in the sunlight there would be a lot less killing. Killing a potential intelligence asset makes no sense in any universe.


There are an estimated 30,000 ISIS fighters. More joining daily. Probably a third or less are dedicated but regardless, it is an unfeasible option. I am certain you aware of the deck of cards that never ended.

I totally disagree. 212 years ago, 14 Marines held down a city of 60,000 until they begged for mercy. Do it right we can eradicate ISIS in 10 weeks.


For what, too? A couple of rather questionable beheadings of men?

I'm not the one claiming that they are a threat. I merely state that if they WERE a threat, they could be addressed effectively and Constitutionally short of war. When asked, I explained how.


Men who knew the dangers of traveling to that region? To 'save' the Yazidi?

I'm getting rather apathetic and tired of explaining time after time the issues with these foreign policy proposals.

Do you always assume that people discussing best strategies in the event of a presumed threat, are somehow automatically in favor of whatever screwball intervention-of-the-day this administration has cooked up?


Your's is better than most for whatever that's worth. It "almost" worked in Afghanistan, as in, didn't fucking work at all (whether it was officially titled and 'authorized' being irrelevant to the point of murdering people based on whimsical intelligence reports).

The last time we did this was in 1803. In an area that would later become known as "Libya." I have heard of no Letters of Marque and Reprisal issued since then, and I have certainly heard of no Reprisal Task Forces being formed amongst the Marines. The primary reason there are killings and torture and such, is because they are not doing what I am suggesting.


I don't want to pay for it. That's just a minor inconvenience, I assume?

Paying for a billion in Marque, once, is one hell of a lot better than paying a trillion per war, three times in a row.

[kcchiefs6465]

I will respond when I get home from work. There are a couple things I'd disagree with.

[pcosmar]

Eric Prince was interviewed the other day. He said Blackwater/Xe/Acedemi could take out IS no problem. Despite my reservations about how they operate, I'm inclined to believe him.

Shit,, they likely know some of them personally. (as in; trained them)

[pcosmar]

Paying for a billion in Marque, once, is one hell of a lot better than paying a trillion per war, three times in a row.

Say what?
Are you referring to Letters of Marque and Reprisal? (again)
Do you even understand the concept?

You do not pay anyone for letters of Marque.. The holder of the Letter may hire Mercs.. But not the Government that issues them.
And it absolutely is not any military,, and money exchanged or there is absolutely no money paid by the Government.

Letters of Marque are for a Private individual (that can prove a specific loss) and allows them to recoup that loss. (legalized piracy)

There is a lot of confusion since RP mentioned this old Law of the Sea. And a lot of misunderstanding of what exactly it is (and is not).

[GunnyFreedom]

Say what?
Are you referring to Letters of Marque and Reprisal? (again)
Do you even understand the concept?

You do not pay anyone for letters of Marque.. The holder of the Letter may hire Mercs.. But not the Government that issues them.
And it absolutely is not any military,, and money exchanged or there is absolutely no money paid by the Government.

Letters of Marque are for a Private individual (that can prove a specific loss) and allows them to recoup that loss. (legalized piracy)

There is a lot of confusion since RP mentioned this old Law of the Sea. And a lot of misunderstanding of what exactly it is (and is not).

Pretty sure I studied in pretty great depth Thomas Jefferson and the actions of the US Marines in the First Barbary War. Among other things, a Congressional liaison officer used marque funds to hire a local mercenary army to hold the Capitol city of Derna under siege. That's probably not what you were thinking of under 'Marque' either eh?

[fr33]

I'm not afraid of them at all.

They are not a physical threat to me. I give loved ones advice not to move to places like NYC or other heavily populated areas where a terrorist act is most likely to happen. Not following that advice might have some consequences. All crimes are more likely to happen in those places.

They could possibly threaten the economy that I'm forced to participate in since the empire has interwoven us all together. But they don't pose as much of a threat to the economy when compared with the slavemasters in DC.

If you want to live in an open and free society, then you must understand that shit can happen. It happens even more often in this unfree society we find ourselves in due to things like blowback.

[pcosmar]

Pretty sure I studied in pretty great depth Thomas Jefferson and the actions of the US Marines in the First Barbary War. Among other things, a Congressional liaison officer used marque funds to hire a local mercenary army to hold the Capitol city of Derna under siege. That's probably not what you were thinking of under 'Marque' either eh?

Not by international Laws of the Sea.

And the legitimate use of the Navy is to protect shipping.. But that is under the Flag of the Nation.

Marque and Reprisal is,, Piracy,, but piracy sanctioned by one Nation against others.

Hunting Pirates is the job of the Navy. and though I agree with TJ's use against the Barbary Pirates,, he was walking a fine line,, and his Act of War was mitigated by diplomacy. (and yes,, the invasion was an act of War)

[navy-vet]

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

Thank you, Gunny. I think RPF is the only place mentioning it. It's Constitutional, and would be the smart way to go, so I guess it's a non-starter.
And I, thank you both for the heads up here. I had heard of this years ago, but had forgotten, I now recall it as being an ancillary part of the "War Powers Clause", but I thought it had been amended out after the piracy troubles concluded back in the 19th century....

[anaconda]

ISIS is ZERO threat to the U.S.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not by international Laws of the Sea.

Our Constitution does not bind us to the international laws of the sea, it binds us to the Law of Nations.


And the legitimate use of the Navy is to protect shipping.. But that is under the Flag of the Nation.

Marque and Reprisal is,, Piracy,, but piracy sanctioned by one Nation against others.

Marque and Reprisal is Constitutionally sanctioned martial action against non-state entities, whether they be pirates or terrorists is irrelevant.


Hunting Pirates is the job of the Navy. and though I agree with TJ's use against the Barbary Pirates,, he was walking a fine line,, and his Act of War was mitigated by diplomacy. (and yes,, the invasion was an act of War)

You can't commit war against anything but a nation. You can't go to war against a substance, a plant, a tactic, or even a group of people. There are other terms for that, like "attempted eradication," but they are not war. WAR is between two nations. IS, despite their delusion of grandeur name, is NOT a state, they are not a nation, so there cannot be 'war' with IS, not can war be declared.

IS is a Non-State entity, against which the Framers created a specific defense in Marque and Reprisal.

Rather than waxing mockingly how I don't comprehend the doctrine of Marque and Reprisal, you should spend the time coming up with jokes instead gaining a deeper understanding of the doctrine. :)

[Christian Liberty]

How about the difference between WW2 and Korea/Vietnam?

I agree with most of what you've said (and I can put my voluntarism aside long enough to work with the constitutional arguments) but I think this is just wrong. WWII was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than either Korea or Vietnam all the way around. Less pointless, yes, but far more dead.

[Acala]

On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individuals, without a country, brought the greatest empire the world had ever seen to it's knees, and initiating it's fall.

Absolutely false. On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individual criminals destroyed two crappy old buildings and killed about as many people as die in car accidents in an average two months. Hardly the destruction of an empire. Our own government has put us on our knees and is destroying our liberty, and we were WELL on the way to that end long before 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse for the REAL enemy to tighten the noose.

[pcosmar]

Marque and Reprisal is Constitutionally sanctioned martial action against non-state entities, whether they be pirates or terrorists is irrelevant.



It is constitutionally sanctioned piracy.
Marque and Reprisal is piracy.. just "legalized" piracy.

http://thelawdictionary.org/marque-and-reprisal-letters-of/

These words, "marque" and "reprisal," are frequently used as synonymous, but, taken In their strict etymological sense, the latter signifies a "taking in return ;" the former, the passing the frontiers (marches) in order to such taking. Letters of marque and reprisal are grantable, by the law of nations, whenever the subjects of one state are oppressed and injured by those of another, and justice is denied by that state to which the oppressor belongs; and the party to whom these letters are granted may then seize the bodies or the goods of the subjects of the state to which the offender belongs, until satisfaction be made, wherever they happen to be found. Reprisals are to be granted only in case of a clear and open denial of justice. At the present day, in consequence partly of treaties and partly of the practice of nations, the making of reprisals is confined to the seizure of commercial property on the high seas by public cruisers, or by private cruisers specially authorized thereto.


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


The phrase referred to "a licen[c]e granted by a sovereign to a subject, authorizing him to make reprisals on the subjects of a hostile state for injuries alleged to have been done to him by the enemy's army."

I first came across it,, while studying and researching in the prison Law library in the 80s. It is almost unheard of,, and has not been used since the War of 1812.
I was surprised when Ron mentioned it,, because I had heard no one speak of this obscure law ever before.
I had actually considered filing for it,, in a more mercenary time.

[GunnyFreedom]

It is constitutionally sanctioned piracy.
Marque and Reprisal is piracy.. just "legalized" piracy.

http://thelawdictionary.org/marque-and-reprisal-letters-of/


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


I first came across it,, while studying and researching in the prison Law library in the 80s. It is almost unheard of,, and has not been used since the War of 1812.
I was surprised when Ron mentioned it,, because I had heard no one speak of this obscure law ever before.
I had actually considered filing for it,, in a more mercenary time.

I'll take the actions of President Thomas Jefferson over the opinion of some dusty law student who spent too long getting indoctrinated. :) I suspect that President Thomas Jefferson knew more about how America is suppose to run than Junior Compiler for a law dictionary, but hey, that's just my opinion lol :)

[Christian Liberty]

I'll take the actions of President Thomas Jefferson over the opinion of some dusty law student who spent too long getting indoctrinated. :) I suspect that President Thomas Jefferson knew more about how America is suppose to run than Junior Compiler for a law dictionary, but hey, that's just my opinion lol :)

TO my understanding Jefferson did stretch the constitution a few times while in office. I still like him but he wasn't perfect.

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree with most of what you've said (and I can put my voluntarism aside long enough to work with the constitutional arguments) but I think this is just wrong. WWII was SIGNIFICANTLY worse than either Korea or Vietnam all the way around. Less pointless, yes, but far more dead.

Well, there were a lot more dead for starters because our enemies were a lot more deadly. Of course, the US did our own share of Really Horrible Things (tm) in the war, but the point that will not be lost on most voters is that we won WW2.

[orenbus]

Absolutely false. On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individual criminals destroyed two crappy old buildings and killed about as many people as die in car accidents in an average two months. Hardly the destruction of an empire. Our own government has put us on our knees and is destroying our liberty, and we were WELL on the way to that end long before 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse for the REAL enemy to tighten the noose.

Whoa whoa whoa, have to disagree with you there, they were not crappy old buildings. 28 years isn't considered old in human standards and definitely not in building standards. I agree with your overall point though, this was not a destruction of an empire.

[GunnyFreedom]

TO my understanding Jefferson did stretch the constitution a few times while in office. I still like him but he wasn't perfect.

Sure, the Louisiana Purchase was not actually authorized by the Constitution. Jefferson had wanted to amend the Constitution first, but the deadline for the sale was approaching too quickly to make that practicable. Faced with the same situation I would have first gone to the state governors and legislatures and found out their willingness to amend the Constitution for the purchase, and if everything was overwhelmingly green, given there was not enough time to do the amendment first, do the purchase first and then finalize the Amendment. It would have been 'wrong' but less wrong than what Jefferson did with the Louisiana Purchase. His instincts were right, of course, that it was a good purchase. he should have found a better way that was less violative of the Constitution, however.

[orenbus]

Well, there were a lot more dead for starters because our enemies were a lot more deadly. Of course, the US did our own share of Really Horrible Things (tm) in the war, but the point that will not be lost on most voters is that we won WW2.

Gunny just as a side question, may or may not pertain to your conversation, have you ever seen the movie "By the dawn's early light"?

[Christian Liberty]

Well, there were a lot more dead for starters because our enemies were a lot more deadly. Of course, the US did our own share of Really Horrible Things (tm) in the war, but the point that will not be lost on most voters is that we won WW2.

That's really my point. The war was evil vs evil, not good vs evil. I can understand using it for political reasons, but while we're among the philosophically like minded, there is no way that was a just war, at least not as it was fought.

[GunnyFreedom]

TO my understanding Jefferson did stretch the constitution a few times while in office. I still like him but he wasn't perfect.

Jefferson had people complaining about Constitutional adherence WHILE he was instituting those policies. What's telling to me is that he had people complaining about the Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase while it was impending, even though it was almost universally considered to be a beneficial purchase. However, there is almost nothing contemporary with his administration, regarding the Constitutionality of his application of M&R in the Barbary "war." A big part of my conclusion that the Jeffersonian Doctrine of Marque and Reprisal (as demonstrated against the Barbary Pirates) is in line with the original intent of the Framers, is the deafening silence whereby nobody ever managed to complain about it. During an era when the actual Framers still lived. If that was not Madison's intent when he drafted that section of the Constitution, then why didn't Madison step up and say "this is wrong?" They weren't afraid to call other stuff wrong, but not this one? I don't buy it.

I believe that the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R is fully in line with original intent, as witnessed by the total acceptance of the originators themselves.

Also, these other ideas (from elsewhere) that M&R is 'just' legalized piracy; that premise does not even remotely resemble the siege of Derna in Tripoli, which we have already established as a proper example of M&R. That fact simply does not fit the premise of "bounty only" systems. There is Marque, sure, but there is also Reprisal. M&R is way more than just bounties for heads.

Another notion from elsewhere, that M&R is only fit to fight piracy... What do you think terrorism is? Terrorism IS piracy. Ideological piracy. It's the right tool for the job.

Provided that 'the job' is not so much articulated myth and vapors, of course.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny just as a side question, may or may not pertain to your conversation, have you ever seen the movie "By the dawn's early light"?

I had not, but I just read a pretty detailed synopsis.

[Christian Liberty]

Jefferson had people complaining about Constitutional adherence WHILE he was instituting those policies. What's telling to me is that he had people complaining about the Constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase while it was impending, even though it was almost universally considered to be a beneficial purchase. However, there is almost nothing contemporary with his administration, regarding the Constitutionality of his application of M&R in the Barbary "war." A big part of my conclusion that the Jeffersonian Doctrine of Marque and Reprisal (as demonstrated against the Barbary Pirates) is in line with the original intent of the Framers, is the deafening silence whereby nobody ever managed to complain about it. During an era when the actual Framers still lived. If that was not Madison's intent when he drafted that section of the Constitution, then why didn't Madison step up and say "this is wrong?" They weren't afraid to call other stuff wrong, but not this one? I don't buy it.

I believe that the Jeffersonian Doctrine M&R is fully in line with original intent, as witnessed by the total acceptance of the originators themselves.

Also, these other ideas (from elsewhere) that M&R is 'just' legalized piracy; that premise does not even remotely resemble the siege of Derna in Tripoli, which we have already established as a proper example of M&R. That fact simply does not fit the premise of "bounty only" systems. There is Marque, sure, but there is also Reprisal. M&R is way more than just bounties for heads.

Another notion from elsewhere, that M&R is only fit to fight piracy... What do you think terrorism is? Terrorism IS piracy. Ideological piracy. It's the right tool for the job.

Provided that 'the job' is not so much articulated myth and vapors, of course.

Oh, I totally agree. And I don't know enough about M & R and its history to really dig into it, but what you are saying sounds correct. My point was just that it isn't automatically constitutional just because Jefferson did it. That nobody complained is a stronger argument.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's really my point. The war was evil vs evil, not good vs evil. I can understand using it for political reasons, but while we're among the philosophically like minded, there is no way that was a just war, at least not as it was fought.

One of the majormost purposes of this site, is to effect political change. That is the primary reason why I am here. I am here to change the way America does business, so that goal will govern my language and labors. I do understand that grows wearisome to some people.

[orenbus]

I had not, but I just read a pretty detailed synopsis.

It was an HBO movie, definitely worth a watch if your interested. At one point during the movie a new president has to be chosen following the presidential line of succession and the first question he asks his military adviser while being evacuated on a Boeing E4 is "are we winning the war?" Was just reminded of that because of what you were talking about regarding the importance of winning a war vs. not, constitutional war, and the cost of human life. Don't want to get into a deep discussion about this, but I think there can be different view points depending on the specific scenario and what could result in a legitimate yet Pyrrhic victory.

[Acala]

Whoa whoa whoa, have to disagree with you there, they were not crappy old buildings. 28 years isn't considered old in human standards and definitely not in building standards. I agree with your overall point though, this was not a destruction of an empire.

Hehehehe. Okay. My rhetoric got away from me.

[navy-vet]

Absolutely false. On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individual criminals destroyed two crappy old buildings and killed about as many people as die in car accidents in an average two months. Hardly the destruction of an empire. Our own government has put us on our knees and is destroying our liberty, and we were WELL on the way to that end long before 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse for the REAL enemy to tighten the noose.
I was speaking metaphorically (i.e. the implementation of the "Patriot Act"). In retrospect, I see that I should have used the word "accelerating" instead of "initiating" to more clearly express my point. I don't really disagree with you though...
How could I? You are a fellow woodworker and I was into Hesse in my younger days.
I just never left the life of a Samana I guess.

[robert68]

Well, there were a lot more dead for starters because our enemies were a lot more deadly. Of course, the US did our own share of Really Horrible Things (tm) in the war, but the point that will not be lost on most voters is that we won WW2.

...



Who Really Won World War II? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2001/06/michael-e-kreca/who-really-won-world-war-ii/)
...
The winner of W.W. II, tragically, was in reality not the Allies but instead the theory and practice of the large-scale coercive collectivist state, be it in the form of Communism or the large-scale welfare/warfare states of various types and the consequent rise of a violent, unstable, impoverished Third World addicted to the benefits of the same as cavalierly dispensed by the meddlesome mandarins of the First World.
...

[navy-vet]

:)

[anaconda]

Absolutely false. On September 11th, 2001, a handful of individual criminals destroyed two crappy old buildings and killed about as many people as die in car accidents in an average two months. Hardly the destruction of an empire. Our own government has put us on our knees and is destroying our liberty, and we were WELL on the way to that end long before 9/11. 9/11 was an excuse for the REAL enemy to tighten the noose.

Excellent synopsis.

[pcosmar]

LOL
@ those that are scared.

3 of them now.

[Miss Annie]

LOL
@ those that are scared.

3 of them now.

Who is scared? There is a mighty big difference between being scared and being awake. I am just wide friggin awake. God hath not given us the spirit of fear my friend.

[Acala]

Who is scared? There is a mighty big difference between being scared and being awake. I am just wide friggin awake. God hath not given us the spirit of fear my friend.

I think he was referring to those who voted in the poll that we should be scared.

[pcosmar]

Who is scared?


The Yes votes

And yes,, I am awake and aware.

ISIS is not a threat to me at all,, in any conceivable future.

[kcchiefs6465]

How about the difference between WW2 and Korea/Vietnam?
There was a very significant difference between those wars. Are you willing to concede to vitrifying Tikrit and Mosul to neutralize this threat?

I know you are speaking on Constitutional grounds but to be clear, FDR goaded the Japanese to attack.

What difference does "Constitutionally" make if the majority of Americans haven't even read the Constitution, could not understand the Constitution if they did read it, and if Congress would vote as they see fit regardless with predictable explanatory gimmicks and slogans?



If all of this were above ground and public, like, say if it had Congressional Letters, then the CIA would be a lot more conscious about frelling up because it won't get buried like when it's all kept secret.
You hold too much faith in Congress. I imagine most but a few in Congress would even be able to hold a conversation with you regarding the Constitution (or most any other matter for that regard) but what does that prove? I could paraphrase Ron Paul and say that the Congress represents the minds of people but I will refrain. In truth they represent their own interests largely, and secondly seek to take from some to give to others. I have little faith they could do a lick of good on a sunny day. Lest they pick weeds or cut grass.



All of the killing/torture crap that is going on, is going on because it is underground in the black market. Above ground in the sunlight there would be a lot less killing. Killing a potential intelligence asset makes no sense in any universe.
One, well over nine-tenths of Congress are corrupt to the core. They are uneducated, largely, and they are swindlers. They are modern day confidence men who've established themselves into the position they are in.

Two, just as a quick example (as it is early) the FBI murdered that man in Florida.

Their intelligence is off routinely.

They bombed that mediator, that wedding, that funeral.

It isn't as if Congress sits down and votes and all of a sudden their intelligence is impeccable. They make mistakes all the time.

And they execute potential intelligence assets too. 'Unsavories' who cannot be allowed to say what they know but who public opinion has turned against (if even that... who truly knows why they do what they do in many of these cases?).



I totally disagree. 212 years ago, 14 Marines held down a city of 60,000 until they begged for mercy. Do it right we can eradicate ISIS in 10 weeks.
You are delusional and/or biased.

Fallujah, what, eight weeks? What were the means of that battle?

Several different cities? US intelligence being anything but? The radicalization or causation of sympathetic tendencies of those innocent whose families will be killed in such a scenario?

10 weeks is a joke. They can carpet bomb til the next blue moon, boots on the ground, but ten weeks? What's the Ambassador's say on it?



I'm not the one claiming that they are a threat. I merely state that if they WERE a threat, they could be addressed effectively and Constitutionally short of war. When asked, I explained how.
They are not a threat, then?



Do you always assume that people discussing best strategies in the event of a presumed threat, are somehow automatically in favor of whatever screwball intervention-of-the-day this administration has cooked up?
When the seemingly overwhelming majority of the public supposedly feels one way or another, perhaps. Several here have described such views in various flavors. To be honest though I usually just speak in generalities for those who may be reading. I address several aspects in the hopes that someone reads and changes their opinion. It's not always or even usually always directed towards the person I am responding. I do not mean to offend, but the war mongering tax ticks are annoying to such a degree that sometimes it shows through.



The last time we did this was in 1803. In an area that would later become known as "Libya." I have heard of no Letters of Marque and Reprisal issued since then, and I have certainly heard of no Reprisal Task Forces being formed amongst the Marines. The primary reason there are killings and torture and such, is because they are not doing what I am suggesting.

Primary reason there is torture by whom? (who, whom[?])



Paying for a billion in Marque, once, is one hell of a lot better than paying a trillion per war, three times in a row.
Paying the mugger the Grant in your wallet is better than having your home burglarized. What is your point?

I apologize it took so long to respond. Been running on fumes lately.

[Ronin Truth]

Nah, Set, Osiris and Horus are the really scary ones to look out for. ;) :D

[GunnyFreedom]

There was a very significant difference between those wars. Are you willing to concede to vitrifying Tikrit and Mosul to neutralize this threat?

If you had actually read the thread, you will have noticed that I still do not concede that IS is a threat to begin with. What I said was that we have no way of knowing whether or not is IS or isn't a threat, whatever we would require to make that determination is classified where we can't get to it, and I do not trust this (or the previous 3 at least) administrations to tell me the truth. However, making the assumption that they ARE a threat, I know how to defeat them at 1/100 the cost of a status quo war/invasion/occupation/control like we've been doing, with almost no collateral damage or provocation to blowback.


I know you are speaking on Constitutional grounds but to be clear, FDR goaded the Japanese to attack.

What difference does "Constitutionally" make if the majority of Americans haven't even read the Constitution, could not understand the Constitution if they did read it, and if Congress would vote as they see fit regardless with predictable explanatory gimmicks and slogans?

The effectiveness of the methods described in the Constitution, do not rely on public comprehension to be effective.


You hold too much faith in Congress.

Perhaps you are replying to the wrong post? I have ZERO faith in Congress. I just happen to know from experience that sunlight is the best disinfectant. You want to keep these atrocities reigned in? The best way to do that is to operate in the open rather than in secret. It's not about Congress, it's about some random Sergeant who knows if he does something off, it will be all over the 5 o'clock news. So he thinks twice vs if the whole thing were being done in secret only where nobody would ever find out.


I imagine most but a few in Congress would even be able to hold a conversation with you regarding the Constitution (or most any other matter for that regard) but what does that prove? I could paraphrase Ron Paul and say that the Congress represents the minds of people but I will refrain. In truth they represent their own interests largely, and secondly seek to take from some to give to others. I have little faith they could do a lick of good on a sunny day. Lest they pick weeds or cut grass.

One, well over nine-tenths of Congress are corrupt to the core. They are uneducated, largely, and they are swindlers. They are modern day confidence men who've established themselves into the position they are in.

Two, just as a quick example (as it is early) the FBI murdered that man in Florida.

Their intelligence is off routinely.

Which is why it would be absolutely critical under this model, to 1) make an exceedingly exceptional effort in every case to capture targets ALIVE, and 2) do everything humanly possible to determine those who are only tangentially caught up in the web and release them unharmed ASAP. This would accomplish two things, first, it would dramatically reduce the resistance to capture from people who are not directly involved, and second the ACTUAL IS operatives would self-identify by going deeper underground.


They bombed that mediator, that wedding, that funeral.

It isn't as if Congress sits down and votes and all of a sudden their intelligence is impeccable. They make mistakes all the time.

I'm not sure that bombing groups of people is an appropriate method to accomplish the objective of capturing named persons alive from a list. M&R is a completely different mission, with completely different objectives than Invade & Occupy.


And they execute potential intelligence assets too. 'Unsavories' who cannot be allowed to say what they know but who public opinion has turned against (if even that... who truly knows why they do what they do in many of these cases?).

You are delusional and/or biased.

No, I am telling you a truth that you have not grasped yet.


Fallujah, what, eight weeks? What were the means of that battle?

Different mission, different force requirements. The manpower needed to "capture three named men, preferably alive" is a lot different than the manpower needed to "Invade, reduce, occupy, and control" a whole city. You are talking 13 men vs 1300 men already, and that's just an overly simplified sketch of the problem.


Several different cities? US intelligence being anything but? The radicalization or causation of sympathetic tendencies of those innocent whose families will be killed in such a scenario?

So far the only one talking about status quo military campaigns with bombing etc, is you. I can see perhaps some limited infrastructure targeting being effective in some kinds of capture operations, given a few very highly specific circumstances, maybe, but for the process I describe to be effective it will look nothing like what we've done for the last 30 years. So arguing against what we've done for the last 30 years has no bearing whatever on what I am describing.


10 weeks is a joke. They can carpet bomb til the next blue moon, boots on the ground, but ten weeks? What's the Ambassador's say on it?


They are not a threat, then?

I never said they were. If you had read the conversation you are responding to, you would probably have seen that. :) I said "It's impossible for us to know one way or the other." I don't really suspect they are, "but IF they are I know how to eliminate the threat effectively, Constitutionally, and cheaply compared to what we've been doing.


When the seemingly overwhelming majority of the public supposedly feels one way or another, perhaps. Several here have described such views in various flavors. To be honest though I usually just speak in generalities for those who may be reading. I address several aspects in the hopes that someone reads and changes their opinion. It's not always or even usually always directed towards the person I am responding. I do not mean to offend, but the war mongering tax ticks are annoying to such a degree that sometimes it shows through.

You have not offended me. If I'm honest I am a bit annoyed at the way you presumed my ignorance on subjects that I have been absorbed in for decades and you have simply googled for an hour or so, and then dug in your heels on arguments where it turned out you have not spent even that effort to inform yourself in the first place, and then expressed all of these presumptions as if they were fact, but annoyed is a lot less grievous than offended, so I was overlooking it. :)


Primary reason there is torture by whom? (who, whom[?])

Nobody is saying bad things won't happen even under M&R, what I am saying is that M&R removes some of the necessity and much of the opportunity for such bad things to happen, therefore they will happen to at least something of a lesser extent than they would in our status quo "invade and occupy" model. I do not believe that it is possible for mankind to bring serious mass force on force operations without some atrocious something getting involved somewhere.


Paying the mugger the Grant in your wallet is better than having your home burglarized. What is your point?

It's more like paying a lawyer $15,000 to sue a guy into oblivion rather than paying $150,000 to hire a hit man and take him out.


I apologize it took so long to respond. Been running on fumes lately.

Story of my life lol :D

[kcchiefs6465]

If you had actually read the thread, you will have noticed that I still do not concede that IS is a threat to begin with. What I said was that we have no way of knowing whether or not is IS or isn't a threat, whatever we would require to make that determination is classified where we can't get to it, and I do not trust this (or the previous 3 at least) administrations to tell me the truth. However, making the assumption that they ARE a threat, I know how to defeat them at 1/100 the cost of a status quo war/invasion/occupation/control like we've been doing, with almost no collateral damage or provocation to blowback.
I had read the thread. Some couple of days ago. And with regards to my understanding there also comes this: They, that is to say, the people actually controlling the United States' policy and representing themselves behind all of the blind rhetoric give not a fuck about the so called mass's opinion short of walking a tightrope to prevent open and mass rebellion. 'We' say no? Well time is on their side and propaganda has been studied (and mastered). Mostly people are driven by fear and other selfish motivations. It isn't hard to play to certain themes and manufacture 'consent.' Now me merely pointing that out, I obviously am not directing that towards you. I believe you can see that but perhaps often through simple text one's point is hard to distinctly comprehend.... or that it may appear a different way than one is intending it to.

I would dispute your "almost no collateral damage" (and you have conceded that there would be some), and I would dispute your "[almost no] provocation to blowback" as simply being there is causing quite a bit (to wit, many of these groups' rises from rags to riches, so to speak, into becoming the powerhouses they are). Though to simply refer to your method, the power vacuums created, the inability to foresee which group will ultimately take the place of these particular jihadists.... it's a powder keg.

I don't need intelligence briefings to tell me what is common sense. Your quip of "hours of Googling" is particularly insulting as I've spent some hundreds of hours on the subject. What I've read, I do not believe you have read. What you I have read (as an analyst) I doubt I have read. Regardless I am well versed in the ineptness of government and would quite frankly regard their 'intelligence', that is to say the United States', to be largely erroneous even as billions are spent in that regard.

There are practically countless reasons why that is.

To name but a few, the people there have an incentive to feed disinformation, the information is extracted from means that necessarily produce disinformation (to wit: torture), the intelligence agencies are bloated, rivalries between agencies run high and the mere size and scope of their intelligence gathering operations produces quite a bit of wasting of resources.

Do not read more into what I am typing. I am not accusing you of supporting such policies and I am quite sure you know what I am talking about.



The effectiveness of the methods described in the Constitution, do not rely on public comprehension to be effective.
Do they rely on the various Congressional leech's comprehension of the Constitution to be effective?

You realize that not only have they not done what you propose that they will never do what you propose? (nor will they do what I propose, if that makes you feel any better)



Perhaps you are replying to the wrong post?
I am not.


I have ZERO faith in Congress.
Nor do I.



I just happen to know from experience that sunlight is the best disinfectant.
The people will cheer each Fourth and Eleventh regardless of what is brought to light, the media will bury the truth, and even if they didn't, what's a few eggs to a nationalistic omelet?

Lest I forget to remind you that American citizens are murdered practically daily on camera and the reaction is one of, "Well, they must have done something wrong." 'They' (the American public) by and large give not one fuck about foreigners. Madeline Albright brought a bit to the sunlight. Hardly but the few have read Bybee's memo. It's already in the sunlight. People couldn't give a fuck to actually educate themselves on the matter.


You want to keep these atrocities reigned in? The best way to do that is to operate in the open rather than in secret.
They openly assassinate American citizens. They openly torture. They openly strike targets around the globe. 'The people' openly do not care.

I am minded to cite a baby being maimed in middle America by a flash bang grenade and the subsequent response (or by and large lack thereof). Not to mention the countless people murdered on camera with the only response being that they probably deserved it.

You are assuming Americans are as aware as you. They aren't. And so long as Carlton does the Carlton this week, they couldn't give a fuck less one way or the other. Whether it is open or secret.


It's not about Congress, it's about some random Sergeant who knows if he does something off, it will be all over the 5 o'clock news. So he thinks twice vs if the whole thing were being done in secret only where nobody would ever find out.
I just do not have the patience to link story after story.

Maybe they'll offer another goat sacrifice to appease the countrymen? Maybe they'll refrain from mistakenly bombing Pakistani troops if only they knew the world would find out? Maybe they'll not fly out the servicemen and spooks who murder people in the respective countries they are stationed in if only, if only, it was in the light.

That is not to say that they act differently knowing that the public is watching, it is to say that the public by and large does not care, would not care, and regardless, it would be written off as another cost of doing war. Even here I'd be offered the tired cliche of, "War is hell." (by people who've never been to war and would cringe [naturally] at the sight of a disfigured child.)



Which is why it would be absolutely critical under this model, to 1) make an exceedingly exceptional effort in every case to capture targets ALIVE, and 2) do everything humanly possible to determine those who are only tangentially caught up in the web and release them unharmed ASAP. This would accomplish two things, first, it would dramatically reduce the resistance to capture from people who are not directly involved, and second the ACTUAL IS operatives would self-identify by going deeper underground.
They can't even release the innocent from Guantanamo. The farmer trapped in a basement in Mogadishu etc. has far less of a chance. They couldn't (or wouldn't) even capture Bin Laden alive. The farmer picking up his rifle to defend his land is just as likely to be subjected to such a fate.

As to IS (or whateverthefuck the media calls them tomorrow) going deeper underground, perhaps they just don't want to be intentionally identified by their land disputing neighbor as a threat? Perhaps their own government doesn't like their speech and rather than risking rendition, or assassination, they'd rather not deal with any of it?

Another deck of cards to another deck of cards. From what I can tell even the grunts started to realize what it was (that is, a never ending kill list which in the process of attempting to play through created as many or more enemies as they were killing).



I'm not sure that bombing groups of people is an appropriate method to accomplish the objective of capturing named persons alive from a list. M&R is a completely different mission, with completely different objectives than Invade & Occupy.
But the people who actually propose, push for, and develop the war plans do not give a fuck about the nuances of Marque and Reprisal versus assassination lists. Start off as going for Bin Laden, and they'll find their way to Libya.

Capturing most of them alive is simply unfeasible as well. You are talking about people who know what they'll be faced with. They by and large aren't going to be captured alive.



No, I am telling you a truth that you have not grasped yet.
I'm sure that's what it must be.



Different mission, different force requirements. The manpower needed to "capture three named men, preferably alive" is a lot different than the manpower needed to "Invade, reduce, occupy, and control" a whole city. You are talking 13 men vs 1300 men already, and that's just an overly simplified sketch of the problem.
Must I type pages to specifically address the entirety of the cluster fuck that has been created or has my some 20,000+ words on the matter over the last three years been enough? I get tired, you know? It's like week after week I am left rebutting the same arguments, framed in different ways by different people, who all would expect me to jump through hoops to rebut their rephrased disastrous proposals. You are proposing an overly simplified sketch of a "solution."

You are offering nothing short of the same authority as they have... if not on face value but in understanding that an inch is a mile and that they will do what they will do.



So far the only one talking about status quo military campaigns with bombing etc, is you. I can see perhaps some limited infrastructure targeting being effective in some kinds of capture operations, given a few very highly specific circumstances, maybe, but for the process I describe to be effective it will look [I]nothing like what we've done for the last 30 years.
The last thirty years, huh?


So arguing against what we've done for the last 30 years has no bearing whatever on what I am describing.
It has quite a bit of bearing on what you are describing.

Unless we are living in a time where actions have no consequences, the people even know what M&R is and that the usurpers do not continually chip away at the respective freedom of all.



I never said they were. If you had read the conversation you are responding to, you would probably have seen that. :) I said "It's impossible for us to know one way or the other."
Sure it is. :rolleyes: (See, I'm as apt as using smiley faces as even the best debater)


I don't really suspect they are, "but IF they are I know how to eliminate the threat effectively, Constitutionally, and cheaply compared to what we've been doing.
I implore you to randomly ask people to read the Preamble of the Constitution and ask them to provide a brief summary of what it says. Lest I wasn't clear, the vast majority wouldn't have a clue.

So: Fuck the Constitution. "Cheaply" is a collectivist misnomer. And "effectively" is a joke. They cannot effectively deliver mail. How long did OBL have a bounty for? What of those that still do? They 'effectively' lost Bin Laden in the mountainside and proceeded to 'effectively' bomb an unrelated country. The people 'effectively' supported as much and the war criminals who orchestrated the campaign based on lies 'effectively' got away with it.

I like the, "compared to what we've been doing," by the way. That's rich.

"Compared to what we've been doing" robbing all to pay for the gasoline to throw on a fire isn't such a bad idea.



You have not offended me. If I'm honest I am a bit annoyed at the way you presumed my ignorance on subjects that I have been absorbed in for decades and you have simply googled for an hour or so, and then dug in your heels on arguments where it turned out you have not spent even that effort to inform yourself in the first place, and then expressed all of these presumptions as if they were fact, but annoyed is a lot less grievous than offended, so I was overlooking it. :)
Googled for an hour, huh?



Nobody is saying bad things won't happen even under M&R, what I am saying is that M&R removes some of the necessity and much of the opportunity for such bad things to happen, therefore they will happen to at least something of a lesser extent than they would in our status quo "invade and occupy" model. I do not believe that it is possible for mankind to bring serious mass force on force operations without some atrocious something getting involved somewhere.
The lesser of two evils, then?



It's more like paying a lawyer $15,000 to sue a guy into oblivion rather than paying $150,000 to hire a hit man and take him out.
Except in the end, isn't the 'lawyer' going to take them out?

So in essence it would be to say you are simply shopping around for a cheaper hitman to execute people on often faulty intelligence but that it is okay because some half of Congress at some time, elected by some nameless people and unaccountable in the strictest sense of the word, authorized it with [or without] the backing of a public who spends more time watching reality television shows and sports than they do following politics and of whom have by and large not even read the Constitution nor would they understand what it is referring to if they did actually read it?



Story of my life lol :D
Same. If it isn't one thing it's another.

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRqxLFKKMQQ

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrJIg8ewvLA

[anaconda]

Rosie O'Donnell appears to be the only grownup in the room.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Rosie O'Donnell appears to be the only grownup in the room.GESUS, The View... talk about Dumbing-Down America, what a bunch of morons.

Here's the real coverage from 'THE VIEW"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8-RGQUAdno

[dude58677]

I voted no because if they were that much of a threat then Obama would be confident enough to ask Congress for declaration.

[anaconda]

GESUS, The View... talk about Dumbing-Down America, what a bunch of morons.


Rosie O'Donnell took the red pill. She's in my shortlist of admirable celebrities. I can only wish that 99.9% of Americans possessed her insights.

[fr33]

Rosie O'Donnell took the red pill. She's in my shortlist of admirable celebrities. I can only wish that 99.9% of Americans possessed her insights.

Can you give examples of why you think that? I really don't want to research and watch videos of her to find out.

[anaconda]

Can you give examples of why you think that? I really don't want to research and watch videos of her to find out.

Here's one for starters (BTW all 7 minutes are crucial):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KXq6PPvVBM

[TheTexan]

Should we be scared of ISIS? Well, they beheaded someone, on youtube, while wearing BLACK and saying threatening things. So ya, I'm pretty sure we should be scared of them.

[osan]

Should we be scared of ISIS? Well, they beheaded someone, on youtube, while wearing BLACK and saying threatening things. So ya, I'm pretty sure we should be scared of them.


Darth Vader did pretty much the same... only on the big screen. Shall we send troops?

[jmdrake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea3jaxb2o2Y

Really this is a loaded question. ISIS wouldn't be a threat if not for the U.S. efforts to topple Assad. ISIS was funded either directly or indirectly by U.S. and Saudi "intelligence". Cut off those funds and the ISIS threat will die off.

That said, I can't see anyone forcing me to dig my own grave. I mean, if you're going to shoot me anyway, you might as well shoot me while I'm swinging a shovel at your head.