A comment I made about Chris Kyle on Facebook

[Brett85]

Then why not simply declare war on Afghanistan?

Because we weren't really going in there to overthrow a foreign government, but to capture Osama Bin Laden. Or at least that's what I think we should've done. The Constitutional question gets tricky when we're talking about non state actors. I think Gunny Freedom had some good suggestions for how letters of marque and reprisal can be used to respond to terrorists who attack us and how the letters can also include military personnel.

[pcosmar]

Because we weren't really going in there to overthrow a foreign government, but to capture Osama Bin Laden. .

Yes,, we were going there to overthrow the government. And no,, it was not to capture Osama Bin Laden.
The Government was willing to turn him over. The government there had offered him to the US several times. and prior to 9/11.
And the FBI could find no evidence that he had anything to do with it,, beyond being pleased that it happened.

Bin Laden was the boggieman for the cover story.

[Brett85]

Yes,, we were going there to overthrow the government. And no,, it was not to capture Osama Bin Laden.
The Government was willing to turn him over. The government there had offered him to the US several times. and prior to 9/11.
And the FBI could find no evidence that he had anything to do with it,, beyond being pleased that it happened.

Bin Laden was the boggieman for the cover story.

What do you think should've been our response to the 9/11 attacks? Do you think there should've been any military response or at least some response involving letters of marque and reprisal?

[otherone]

What do you think should've been our response to the 9/11 attacks? Do you think there should've been any military response or at least some response involving letters of marque and reprisal?

If Afghanistan was willing to turn over the perpetrators, then why would any other action be needed?

[Brett85]

If Afghanistan was willing to turn over the perpetrators, then why would any other action be needed?

I don't necessarily think it's the case that they were. Everything I've read suggests that they refused to give up Osama Bin Laden when we asked them to turn him over.

[Bryan]

Is slander something that's allowed here? If so, why?

No, it's not. Everyone please see the guidelines (link in my sig) and keep things civil.

There are also additional details on the guidelines for the Peace Through Religion forum here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-lack-thereof

Thank you.

[erowe1]

I don't necessarily think it's the case that they were. Everything I've read suggests that they refused to give up Osama Bin Laden when we asked them to turn him over.

After you read this, that will no longer be the case.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...tan.terrorism5

[jmdrake]

My position isn't really even "middle of the road." My position is basically the same as Ron and Rand Paul's. It's just that some of the views here go much farther than even what our liberty candidates support.

Actually Ron Paul regretted his Afghanistan vote. His "position" was letters of marque and reprisal. That means basically putting a bounty on OBL's head and letting whoever go after him. As I stated earlier, and you apparently missed (or ignored) prior to 9/11 the CIA had Osama Bin Laden in their sites multiple times. And freaking CNN interviewed Osama Bin Laden! Note that this was after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa and OBL being a wanted man by the FBI. Now, if congress had passed letters of marque and reprisal and then the operators sent in by a private company to capture or kill OBL wouldn't have bothered calling Washington for permission. (That's why the CIA couldn't kill OBL).

No, we can't respond with military force if it's a domestic terrorist attack. I didn't advocate using military force after the Boston Bombings. But 9/11 was different because we were attacked by foreign agents. We went into Afghanistan to try to kill Osama Bin Laden, who was the master mind behind the attacks. That was justified. When it became a problem was when the war in Afghanistan went from a mission to hunt down terrorists and kill them to a long term nation building mission . I'm certainly not in favor of what's called "the war in Afghanistan" today. The current war in Afghanistan isn't even related to the original reason why we went in there.

Why do you put the Boston Bombing in a separate category when one of the bombers traveled back and forth to Chetznya and was likely involved in international terrorism? And ultimately here's the point that you are missing. You can't support military action and not support everything that goes with it. Part of modern warfare is the sniper. And the job of the sniper is to kill anybody that is a threat. It's easier to carry out that job if you hate the threat. So, whenever you decide that military action is "appropriate" you are asking for the creation of the Chris Kyles of the world. It would be one thing if Chris Kyle bragged about killing unarmed women and children, but that's not what he did. (Except maybe post Katrina...but supposedly he was lying about that.) What you're wanting is a killer who will do a job but be "nice" about it.

And again, if CNN could find and interview Osama Bin Laden without invading Afghanistan, why could the U.S. find and kill Osama Bin Laden without invading Afghanistan?

[jmdrake]

After you read this, that will no longer be the case.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...tan.terrorism5

Thank you for posting that! You know it's interesting. Usually when one country has a fugitive the other country wants there is an extradition hearing. In other words country A says to country B "Provide evidence of this person's guilt and we will turn him over to you." That's exactly what the Taliban did.

[jmdrake]

Am I the only one that remembers how World War I started? A Serbian terrorist murdered the royal couple of Austria. That would be like if some Iranian terrorist killed the U.S. president and first lady. Austria demanded Serbia turn over the terrorist. Serbia refused. Austria declared war on Serbia. Before all was said and done, France, Britain and the U.S. declared war on Austria and its allies (German, the Ottomon Empire etc) all fighting on behalf of a country that refused to turn over a terrorist!

As a result of this "justified military action" against a "foreign agent of terrorism" somewhere between 15 to 18 million people died. All of this over the deaths of two people?

Now WW I is an extreme example of human stupidity. And in contrast far more people died in initial 9/11 attack and far less people died overall. But still, how is creating a situation where far more innocent people are going to die from your response than died from the attack justified? Oh there's always the fallback "Well I don't agree how it went this time" but...when's the last time war went well? And again, Osama Bin could have been killed without an invasion.

[Brett85]

And ultimately here's the point that you are missing. You can't support military action and not support everything that goes with it. Part of modern warfare is the sniper. And the job of the sniper is to kill anybody that is a threat. It's easier to carry out that job if you hate the threat. So, whenever you decide that military action is "appropriate" you are asking for the creation of the Chris Kyles of the world. It would be one thing if Chris Kyle bragged about killing unarmed women and children, but that's not what he did. (Except maybe post Katrina...but supposedly he was lying about that.) What you're wanting is a killer who will do a job but be "nice" about it.

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not against snipers. Snipers are useful in war. I'm just against the Iraq War. And if you see no difference at all between going into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden and invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then ask yourself why people like Ron, Rand, Amash, and other libertarians all supported going into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden but opposed invading Iraq.

[Brett85]

And in regards to the other issue, when we asked the Taliban to turn over Osama Bin Laden, they were making all kinds of demands of us that we rightly weren't going to go along with. We had just lost 3,000 of our people who died in cold blood. If the Taliban had simply handed him over to us, there would've been no war with them.

[erowe1]

And in regards to the other issue, when we asked the Taliban to turn over Osama Bin Laden, they were making all kinds of demands of us that we rightly weren't going to go along with.

Such as?

[jmdrake]

You seem to be missing the point. I'm not against snipers. Snipers are useful in war. I'm just against the Iraq War.

So....had Chris Kyle been deployed to Afghanistan and everything else was the same, would you still criticize Chris Kyle for hating the women and children he was killing who are a threat to his buddies?

And if you see no difference at all between going into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden and invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then ask yourself why people like Ron, Rand, Amash, and other libertarians all supported going into Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden but opposed invading Iraq.

Okay. I don't want to be mean. But....are you simply incapable of processing information that goes against your worldview? I just told you that Ron regretted that vote and his real position was letters of marque and reprisal. Why do you ignore facts?

Please do not reply until you have informed yourself on this subject.

http://www.independentamericanparty....-and-reprisal/

[jmdrake]

And in regards to the other issue, when we asked the Taliban to turn over Osama Bin Laden, they were making all kinds of demands of us that we rightly weren't going to go along with. We had just lost 3,000 of our people who died in cold blood. If the Taliban had simply handed him over to us, there would've been no war with them.

So following international law and demanding an extradition proceeding is now an "unreasonable demand"? Seriously? The Taliban were far more reasonable than the Serbians prior to World War I. How do you feel about that "justified military action?"

[paleocon1]

What do you think should've been our response to the 9/11 attacks? Do you think there should've been any military response or at least some response involving letters of marque and reprisal?

Given that the 911 Attacks were a black op by USA traitors with almost certain assist by Mossad, War should have been declared against Israel after their fifth column had been exposed and liquidated within America.

[paleocon1]

Am I the only one that remembers how World War I started? A Serbian terrorist murdered the royal couple of Austria. That would be like if some Iranian terrorist killed the U.S. president and first lady. Austria demanded Serbia turn over the terrorist. Serbia refused. Austria declared war on Serbia. Before all was said and done, France, Britain and the U.S. declared war on Austria and its allies (German, the Ottomon Empire etc) all fighting on behalf of a country that refused to turn over a terrorist!

As a result of this "justified military action" against a "foreign agent of terrorism" somewhere between 15 to 18 million people died. All of this over the deaths of two people?

Now WW I is an extreme example of human stupidity. And in contrast far more people died in initial 9/11 attack and far less people died overall. But still, how is creating a situation where far more innocent people are going to die from your response than died from the attack justified? Oh there's always the fallback "Well I don't agree how it went this time" but...when's the last time war went well? And again, Osama Bin could have been killed without an invasion.

You are suggesting perhaps that the proper Austrian response would have been to execute hits against the Serbian royal family? Personally if we must go to war I favor an approach which always places those with the most to gain most squarely in the crosshairs.

[pcosmar]

What do you think should've been our response to the 9/11 attacks?

Get out of the Middle East.
Perhaps apologies and reparations for crimes of the past.

[paleocon1]

Because we weren't really going in there to overthrow a foreign government, but to capture Osama Bin Laden. ..........l.

Ever wonder why a USA foreign service agent paid a visit to Osama in a Qatar hospital just days before 911?

[jmdrake]

You are suggesting perhaps that the proper Austrian response would have been to execute hits against the Serbian royal family? Personally if we must go to war I favor an approach which always places those with the most to gain most squarely in the crosshairs.

Well that would certainly have been preferable to tens of millions of people dead. A "snatch and grab" (and/or kill) operation against the terrorist in question would be my first choice. Anything other than a full scale invasion.

[paleocon1]

What about when we used military action after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and when we used military action immediately after the 9/11 attacks?

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct result of extensive economic warfare by the USA against Japan. We got attacked because FDR very deliberately provoked an attack. As to 911? That was rather obviously a black op by Traitors within our own government likely acting in concert with Israel.

[Ender]

They should use military action against Sweden if Sweden refused to cooperate in the investigation. We went into Afghanistan to get Osama Bin Laden, who was the master mind behind the attacks. Because the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden, we had to take out the Taliban in order to get to Bin Laden. It wasn't a matter of "invading the country" of Afghanistan as some people falsely claim, but just doing what was necessary to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, who was the master mind behind the attacks.

Uhhhhhh...... NO.

The Taliban agreed to turn OBL over IF Bush would agree to have him tried in a neutral country. While they were trying to negotiate with Bush, the US attacked.

AND- Bin Laden was never proven to be the culprit- he even denied it himself, which was not his way. Plus, even if he had been the mastermind, what right did the US have to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

Add to all of this that no one really knows who carried out those attacks; TPTB seem to have either had prior knowledge or to have been involved.

[Brett85]

I made a mistake by making this thread go way off topic. That was my fault. My intent when starting this thread wasn't to get into a debate about whether we should've used military action after 9/11 in Afghanistan. We've already debated this issue over and over anyway. But if people want to keep debating that issue then create another thread and I'll respond sometime after the Super Bowl is over.

[jmdrake]

I made a mistake by making this thread go way off topic. That was my fault. My intent when starting this thread wasn't to get into a debate about whether we should've used military action after 9/11 in Afghanistan. We've already debated this issue over and over anyway. But if people want to keep debating that issue then create another thread and I'll respond sometime after the Super Bowl is over.

Actually I think the thread going "off topic" (if it actually went off topic) made it more interesting and informative. Really, is the problem with Chris Kyle, besides his pathological lying (thankfully he lied about murdering looters post Katrina), that he made peace with killing women and children seeking to harm his buddies by hating the women and children as "savages" or is the problem the war he got deployed to, which was not his choice? The FB post you linked to from Chuck Baldwin took the opposite tact that you did. Rather than criticizing Kyle, he criticized the war itself.

Now back to Afghanistan. I was (and still am I suppose) miffed at my neighbor for saying and thinking that the only thing wrong with some navy SEALs not killing an innocent man and child to keep that man and child from giving away their position is "They would be crucified by the liberal media." But is the SEAL who kills two innocent people up close and personally in order to safely complete his mission any worse than an air jock who's bomb kills 20 innocent people in "collateral damage?" There is an "intent" issue of course, but beyond that, dead is dead. Before we put fighting men in position where they may have to kill innocent people or "guilty" people who might not have even hated America before we invaded their country, we should think long and hard about whether a military solution is the best option.

[jmdrake]

Uhhhhhh...... NO.

The Taliban agreed to turn OBL over IF Bush would agree to have him tried in a neutral country. While they were trying to negotiate with Bush, the US attacked.

AND- Bin Laden was never proven to be the culprit- he even denied it himself, which was not his way. Plus, even if he had been the mastermind, what right did the US have to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

Add to all of this that no one really knows who carried out those attacks; TPTB seem to have either had prior knowledge or to have been involved.

I'm glad to see more and more people in this movement coming to this obvious conclusion and/or being willing to speak out openly about that.

[Brett85]

Actually I think the thread going "off topic" (if it actually went off topic) made it more interesting and informative. Really, is the problem with Chris Kyle, besides his pathological lying (thankfully he lied about murdering looters post Katrina), that he made peace with killing women and children seeking to harm his buddies by hating the women and children as "savages" or is the problem the war he got deployed to, which was not his choice? The FB post you linked to from Chuck Baldwin took the opposite tact that you did. Rather than criticizing Kyle, he criticized the war itself.

Now back to Afghanistan. I was (and still am I suppose) miffed at my neighbor for saying and thinking that the only thing wrong with some navy SEALs not killing an innocent man and child to keep that man and child from giving away their position is "They would be crucified by the liberal media." But is the SEAL who kills two innocent people up close and personally in order to safely complete his mission any worse than an air jock who's bomb kills 20 innocent people in "collateral damage?" There is an "intent" issue of course, but beyond that, dead is dead. Before we put fighting men in position where they may have to kill innocent people or "guilty" people who might not have even hated America before we invaded their country, we should think long and hard about whether a military solution is the best option.

Yeah, you make some good points. It's something to think about. I still stand by my original comments that we have no choice but to respond with military force when we get attacked. I think that's simply an example of self defense and a defensive war. Now, I think you can make the argument that it could've been done in a more surgical way. Perhaps sending in a special ops team to target Bin Laden and other Al-Quaeda terrorists in that region would've been a better option, or targeting Bin Laden and other members of Al Quaeda with drone strikes might've been a viable option. (I'm not opposed to drone strikes as a concept but just believe that it's gone on for too long. I don't support the concept of perpetual war. But I think it would've been justified immediately in the after math of 9/11.) I'm not necessarily arguing that going into Afghanistan after 9/11 was the only course of action we could've taken or even the best course of action, but just that we as a country have a responsibility to defend our citizens and fight back when we get attacked.

[otherone]

I still stand by my original comments that we have no choice but to respond with military force when we get attacked.

So a bunch of Timothy Mcvey types take it upon themselves to blow up the Iranian Parliament building and you feel it is Iran's responsibility to hold American citizens responsible with military force?

[jmdrake]

Yeah, you make some good points. It's something to think about. I still stand by my original comments that we have no choice but to respond with military force when we get attacked. I think that's simply an example of self defense and a defensive war. Now, I think you can make the argument that it could've been done in a more surgical way. Perhaps sending in a special ops team to target Bin Laden and other Al-Quaeda terrorists in that region would've been a better option, or targeting Bin Laden and other members of Al Quaeda with drone strikes might've been a viable option. (I'm not opposed to drone strikes as a concept but just believe that it's gone on for too long. I don't support the concept of perpetual war. But I think it would've been justified immediately in the after math of 9/11.) I'm not necessarily arguing that going into Afghanistan after 9/11 was the only course of action we could've taken or even the best course of action, but just that we as a country have a responsibility to defend our citizens and fight back when we get attacked.

Question. Did you watch the video I posted of Ron Paul talking about letters of marquee and reprisal? Did you understand it? I'm not saying that as a dig. It took me years to get it. The simple fact is that there are ways to respond to threats without using the military. I'm not talking "surgical strike" or any of that. Ron Paul made the point about the Iranian hostage crisis. Jimmy Carter tried a "surgical strike" and failed. Ross Perot used a free market approach and succeeded. Again, if Peter Bergen of CNN was able to get close enough to Osama Bin Laden to video interview him, a privateer could have gotten close enough to Osama Bin Laden to kill him and collect a 1 billion dollar reward. According to Michael Scheuer and Lt. Col. Anthony Schaefer (and others) we had multiple chances to get Osama Bin Laden before and after 9/11 and the operations where hampered or outright stopped by the politicians in Washington. That can't happen with letters of marquee and reprisal. The bounty hunter wouldn't call back to Washington DC for permission to shoot. The only way to cancel the operation would be to cancel the bounty, and if that happened the American people would be on notice as to where the DC politicians stood on the issue. When your only tool is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail. It's time to start investing in, or at least investigating, other tools and to move beyond the false idea that a military response is the only way to deal with an attack.

[jmdrake]

So a bunch of Timothy Mcvey types take it upon themselves to blow up the Iranian Parliament building and you feel it is Iran's responsibility to hold American citizens responsible with military force?

Apparently so. And the Germans and Austrians were justified in starting World War I according to this logic and the U.S. supported terrorism. (Actually that's not far from the truth).

[Brett85]

Question. Did you watch the video I posted of Ron Paul talking about letters of marquee and reprisal? Did you understand it? I'm not saying that as a dig. It took me years to get it. The simple fact is that there are ways to respond to threats without using the military. I'm not talking "surgical strike" or any of that.

No, I need to watch it. I think Gunny Freedom has always argued that Letters of Marque and Reprisal can include the military as well. I wouldn't have a problem with letters of marque and reprisal as long as they include the military. But I don't really see how an untrained private individual could ever do the job as well as a trained member of the military.