• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House admits it can't kill Americans with drones in US

sangha said:
Why stop there?

Maybe Rand should filibuster every appt to the military on the grounds that the constitutionally delegated powers might be abused POTUS?
Click to expand...

Maybe
 
sangha said:
So if there's a terrorist attack in progress and a drone can stop it, you're on record as thinking the attack should not be stopped.
Click to expand...

NO, absolutely not. And that is NOT the question that was asked, nor was it what was answered. It is however, the strawman set up to deflect.

No one is saying that if another attack were to happen, or be in progress that the United States couldn't act, even if it included US innocent citizens. However, the scenario we are talking about here is about US citizens that the President, or his cabinet (including the CIA) deems "imminent threats" on US soil....That's dangerous...The SPLC calls the Tea Party a hate group, and clearly uses the "terrorist" label loosely. Do you see that giving the president to summarily execute US citizens, could feasibly turn into a President taking out his political enemies?
 
TML said:
Sorry, but I chose to place faith in the Constitution rather than in a President who claims that he, and any future president, will definitely be as virtuous as he assures us he is.

As it is, congress gave away its Constitutional power under the War Powers Act, which was rationalized by the same rhetoric you gave saying “Yes, this is a lot of power, but it is the price paid in order to have the capability of a rapid and effective response to a military threat.”. By this, it is no coincidence that the country is in a state of perpetual undeclared wars, ever since post WWII, up to today’s war against a tactic (terrorism).

“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belong to one category” – “Terrorism is the best political weapon, for nothing drives people harder than the fear of sudden death” – Adolf Hitler

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined, from abroad.” – James Madison
Click to expand...

Sorry, but even Jefferson was not averse to making war against foreign combatants without seeking Congressional approval. That they, the Barbary Pirates, were attacking us was all the authority he needed. If we are attacked or if a nation declares war on us then we are at war whether Congress thinks so or not. A military response need not wait for deliberation.

The War Powers Act was an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority to the President, very much like the infamous enabling act and similar acts by the Venezuelan legislature more recently. Never has this nation gotten so close to tyranny as under FDR and Wilson. I don't know of any examples where the War Powers Act has been evoked to justify military action since WWII.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was an attempt by Congress to limit the President's authority to conduct war. It was unconstitutional, and Presidents have generally ignored it.
 
I don't see the statement as an admission so much as a scoffing at the terminally paranoid for fretting that they ever wanted to.
 
American said:
Using an anti-tank missile is absurd when you think about it.
Click to expand...

Really,absurd, you think so? Why then did the JSOC and CIA use two predator drones that fired AGM-114 Hellfire missiles to take out Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011 in fact they were siting in a cafe not traveling in armored vehicles. Last year four AGM-114 hellfire missiles were launched from a Predator drone at a compound in North Waziristan killing 15 muslim jihadist including Abu Yahya al-Libi.
 
LowDown said:
Sorry, but even Jefferson was not averse to making war against foreign combatants without seeking Congressional approval. That they, the Barbary Pirates, were attacking us was all the authority he needed. If we are attacked or if a nation declares war on us then we are at war whether Congress thinks so or not. A military response need not wait for deliberation.

The War Powers Act was an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority to the President, very much like the infamous enabling act and similar acts by the Venezuelan legislature more recently. Never has this nation gotten so close to tyranny as under FDR and Wilson. I don't know of any examples where the War Powers Act has been evoked to justify military action since WWII.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was an attempt by Congress to limit the President's authority to conduct war. It was unconstitutional, and Presidents have generally ignored it.
Click to expand...

I believe you’re shifting the scenario from the topic of discussion, just as sangha was, from the specifics of targeting American citizens on American soil, to an ambiguously imaginary reference to being 'attacked'. The Barbary war took place not on American soil, against American citizens, it took place abroad in defense of American citizens, and was limited to true defense. It was short lived and ended with the Treaty of Tripoli.

I agree the War Powers Act of 1941 was unconstitutional, but I do not agree that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was unconstitutional (which was a limit to those powers unconstitutionally afforded by the War Powers Act). The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, even over-riding a presidential veto, and the fact that it has been ignored by Presidents who claim it to be unconstitutional doesn’t make it so.

You say that you know of no example where the War Powers Act has been “evoked” to justify military action since WWII, but our history is rife with such examples, including President Reagan ingnoring the Resolution in 1981 in order to send military forces to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Which is to say nothing of the undeclared war such as Korea, Vietnam, etc.

No one argues that the Presidents rightful role is to repel attacks against the United States, but as we can see, all such conflicts were not even specifically in defense of the United States, as they took place overseas for political ambitions and hegemonic imperialist policies. A President should not be able to commit military forces into a situation which might provoke war, especially overseas, and never against American citizens at home.
 
Last edited:
SgtRock said:
Really,absurd, you think so? Why then did the JSOC and CIA use two predator drones that fired AGM-114 Hellfire missiles to take out Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011 in fact they were siting in a cafe not traveling in armored vehicles. Last year four AGM-114 hellfire missiles were launched from a Predator drone at a compound in North Waziristan killing 15 muslim jihadist including Abu Yahya al-Libi.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is absurd (especially as they sat in a cafe, with innocent people), and a clear violation of the constitutional powers afforded to the President, and a violation of the Article 3 Section 3 Clause 1 & 2
 
TML said:
I believe you’re shifting the scenario from the topic of discussion, just as sangha was, from the specifics of targeting American citizens on American soil, to an ambiguously imaginary reference to being 'attacked'. The Barbary war took place not on American soil, against American citizens, it took place abroad in defense of American citizens, and was limited to true defense. It was short lived and ended with the Treaty of Tripoli.

I agree the War Powers Act of 1941 was unconstitutional, but I do not agree that the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was unconstitutional (which was a limit to those powers unconstitutionally afforded by the War Powers Act). The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, even over-riding a presidential veto, and the fact that it has been ignored by Presidents who claim it to be unconstitutional doesn’t make it so.

You say that you know of no example where the War Powers Act has been “evoked” to justify military action since WWII, but our history is rife with such examples, including President Reagan ingnoring the Resolution in 1981 in order to send military forces to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Which is to say nothing of the undeclared war such as Korea, Vietnam, etc.

No one argues that the Presidents rightful role is to repel attacks against the United States, but as we can see, all such conflicts were not even specifically in defense of the United States, as they took place overseas for political ambitions and hegemonic imperialist policies. A President should not be able to commit military forces into a situation which might provoke war, especially overseas, and never against American citizens at home.
Click to expand...

The War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional because it overstepped Congress' authority to restrict the President's war making powers. Specifically, it sets a time limit on how long a military action can run and it requires reporting by the President to Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to restrict the President's war time authority that way. Regardless of what Congress may think is a national emergency, if a state of war exists between the US and some group of foreign combatants (a state of war which exists because they are determined to make war on us) then the appropriate military response, it's type, tone, duration, and every other particular, including whether or not a state of war in fact exists, is determined by the President and the President alone. Congress may not dictate these details to the President. All that Congress can do if it disapproves is cut off funds.

As to targeting Americans, if an American joins with a group of foreign combatants at war with the US then that person is also at war with us and his disposition becomes a military matter to be determined by the President. Combatants can be dealt with a number of ways -- by sniper, howitzer, drone strike, what have you. Often they are taken out at a distance and by surprise. Or they may be captured and detained for interrogation, depending on the military's needs. This has always been the way war is conducted. It is not a result of Obama overreaching his authority.
 
LowDown said:
The War Powers Resolution was unconstitutional because it overstepped Congress' authority to restrict the President's war making powers. Specifically, it sets a time limit on how long a military action can run and it requires reporting by the President to Congress. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to restrict the President's war time authority that way. Regardless of what Congress may think is a national emergency, if a state of war exists between the US and some group of foreign combatants (a state of war which exists because they are determined to make war on us) then the appropriate military response, it's type, tone, duration, and every other particular, including whether or not a state of war in fact exists, is determined by the President and the President alone. Congress may not dictate these details to the President. All that Congress can do if it disapproves is cut off funds.
Click to expand...

The error in your claim is that, as even you agreed, the War Powers Act which gave that power to the president in the first place was unconstitutional, thus, the resolution was to remedy that over extension of power, and because it was meant to return the power unconstitutionally afforded to the President, and back to Congress, the resolution was therefore pursuant to the Constitution and valid only in the face of the War Powers Act. Had the War Powers Act never existed, then yes, the Resolution would be unconstitutional... indeed, in fact, it would have never even been needed.

LowDown said:
As to targeting Americans, if an American joins with a group of foreign combatants at war with the US then that person is also at war with us and his disposition becomes a military matter to be determined by the President. Combatants can be dealt with a number of ways -- by sniper, howitzer, drone strike, what have you. Often they are taken out at a distance and by surprise. Or they may be captured and detained for interrogation, depending on the military's needs. This has always been the way war is conducted. It is not a result of Obama overreaching his authority.
Click to expand...

Then I will, as above, point you to Article 3 Section 3.
 
TML said:
The error in your claim is that, as even you agreed, the War Powers Act which gave that power to the president in the first place was unconstitutional, thus, the resolution was to remedy that over extension of power, and because it was meant to return the power unconstitutionally afforded to the President, and back to Congress, the resolution was therefore pursuant to the Constitution and valid only in the face of the War Powers Act. Had the War Powers Act never existed, then yes, the Resolution would be unconstitutional... indeed, in fact, it would have never even been needed.
Click to expand...

The War Powers Act erred in the other way, ceding authority that should have remained in Congress, authority to restructure spending and federal departments, to the President. Presidents have not used that authority since FDR in WWII as far as I know.

Then I will, as above, point you to Article 3 Section 3.
Click to expand...

Ok, here it is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that if foreign combatants are detained then they need not be criminally charged. They are simply detained and then usually are repatriated when hostilities cease. There are things which they might be charged with, though, including, in the case of a former American citizen, treason.

The point is, though, that disposition is entirely up to the President and his ideas about what is in the best interests of the country. He may appoint a tribunal to try a detainee, he might decide to have him tried in civil courts, or he might have that person summarily executed. In the interests of fair play and because of American sensibilities and values, the latter solution is probably not going to be used much, and certainly not without secrecy.

Hence we have a situation in which the President finds it preferable to kill terrorists outright rather than capture them and have to deal with the repercussions of having a detainee on their hands. The Obama administration hasn't come up with a way to deal with these people that doesn't completely vindicate George Bush's way of doing it, which was to just hold them indefinitely at GITMO, and they don't like how using tribunals looks. It's entirely within the President's prerogative to splash water in terrorists' faces or kill them with a missile, whatever he decides is best. Such is war.
 
LowDown said:
The War Powers Act erred in the other way, ceding authority that should have remained in Congress, authority to restructure spending and federal departments, to the President. Presidents have not used that authority since FDR in WWII as far as I know.
Click to expand...

In effect, it afforded the President war making powers without a declaration of war. Which is why we haven’t had a declaration of war since WWII

LowDown said:
My understanding is that if foreign combatants are detained then they need not be criminally charged. They are simply detained and then usually are repatriated when hostilities cease. There are things which they might be charged with, though, including, in the case of a former American citizen, treason.

The point is, though, that disposition is entirely up to the President and his ideas about what is in the best interests of the country. He may appoint a tribunal to try a detainee, he might decide to have him tried in civil courts, or he might have that person summarily executed. In the interests of fair play and because of American sensibilities and values, the latter solution is probably not going to be used much, and certainly not without secrecy.

Hence we have a situation in which the President finds it preferable to kill terrorists outright rather than capture them and have to deal with the repercussions of having a detainee on their hands. The Obama administration hasn't come up with a way to deal with these people that doesn't completely vindicate George Bush's way of doing it, which was to just hold them indefinitely at GITMO, and they don't like how using tribunals looks. It's entirely within the President's prerogative to splash water in terrorists' faces or kill them with a missile, whatever he decides is best. Such is war.
Click to expand...

Yet, no war has been rightly declared. Acceptance of an undeclared so-called war against a tactic (terrorism), in which the whole world is considered a battlefield, is invalid in every way. You seem to be supporting the idea that it’s ok for the President to convict, and subsequently kill, an American citizen abroad (or even on American soil?) accused of treason, even if they just sitting in a café not engaged in combat, merely because it’s politically easier than disposition of detainees. This is inconsistent with the rule of law, Article 3 Section 3, and quite frankly, unacceptable arbitrary action.
 
Last edited:
The authorities (FBI, ATF, DHS, USMS) don't need the Presidents approval to use whatever force they deem necessary to capture, arrest or detain a suspect of a terrorist group affiliation or even someone suspected of criminal activity. Soon most LEO will probably start using drone technology for aerial surveillance and lethal delivery systems. There are any number of scenarios the gov can use as an excuse to eliminate someone.

I applaud Rand for his attempt to stop gov overreach but if his purpose was to prevent the FEDs from targeting citizens with summary execution, without due process it was more of a show than any real accomplishment by making a politician promise.
 
TML said:
In effect, it afforded the President war making powers without a declaration of war. Which is why we haven’t had a declaration of war since WWII



Yet, no war has been rightly declared. Acceptance of an undeclared so-called war against a tactic (terrorism), in which the whole world is considered a battlefield, is invalid in every way. You seem to be supporting the idea that it’s ok for the President to convict, and subsequently kill, an American citizen abroad (or even on American soil?) accused of treason, even if they just sitting in a café not engaged in combat, merely because it’s politically easier than disposition of detainees. This is inconsistent with the rule of law, Article 3 Section 3, and quite frankly, unacceptable arbitrary action.
Click to expand...

If the USA is attacked, that is to say, if there is an act of war against the USA, then a state of war exists. It is difficult to think of circumstances under which the President would fail to act regardless of what Congress did. I suppose Congress could refuse to fund the defense effort if it was hell bent on not mounting a defense.

The Constitution vests the President with the powers of Commander in Chief of the armed forces and places no limits on those powers beyond having to go to Congress for funding. Article 3 Section 3 does not in any way prevent the President from using his authority in war making, including in dealing with foreign combatants who used to be American citizens. Unless such a person is criminally charged he is not to be convicted as a criminal or a traitor but rather is a combatant and will not be hung but rather sent back to his adopted country or some such when hostilities have ceased.
 
We, shouldn't even be having this debate.

The real question that needs to be addressed is why there are drones and what are their purpose?

Anyone who believes it's for our own "protection" is misguided. Protection from whom exactly? These weapons exist to destroy you and preserve government superiority over the people.

Our government isn't a government made up by the people for the people - our government is a gang and their only concern is self-preservation. The notion the government is benevolent is a joke, especially when they're flying armed drones over our heads.
 
TML said:
Yes, that is absurd (especially as they sat in a cafe, with innocent people), and a clear violation of the constitutional powers afforded to the President, and a violation of the Article 3 Section 3 Clause 1 & 2
Click to expand...

Collateral damage is a fact of war. The Allies could not have defeated Hitler and the Axis of powers or Tojo without inflicting a certain amount of unfortunate collateral damage. When politicians bind the hands of the military the result is Afghanistan. Almost 12 years later and the Taliban is biding their time instead of taking a dirt nap.
 
TML said:
The error in your claim is that, as even you agreed, the War Powers Act which gave that power to the president in the first place was unconstitutional, thus, the resolution was to remedy that over extension of power, and because it was meant to return the power unconstitutionally afforded to the President, and back to Congress, the resolution was therefore pursuant to the Constitution and valid only in the face of the War Powers Act. Had the War Powers Act never existed, then yes, the Resolution would be unconstitutional... indeed, in fact, it would have never even been needed.



Then I will, as above, point you to Article 3 Section 3.
Click to expand...

I will point you to US Code - Section 1481: Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions.
a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States. or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18
 
LowDown said:
If the USA is attacked, that is to say, if there is an act of war against the USA, then a state of war exists. It is difficult to think of circumstances under which the President would fail to act regardless of what Congress did. I suppose Congress could refuse to fund the defense effort if it was hell bent on not mounting a defense.

The Constitution vests the President with the powers of Commander in Chief of the armed forces and places no limits on those powers beyond having to go to Congress for funding. Article 3 Section 3 does not in any way prevent the President from using his authority in war making, including in dealing with foreign combatants who used to be American citizens. Unless such a person is criminally charged he is not to be convicted as a criminal or a traitor but rather is a combatant and will not be hung but rather sent back to his adopted country or some such when hostilities have ceased.
Click to expand...

I agree to the Presidents power to repel sudden attacks, but to cite Article II, Section 2, claiming that the Constitution places no limits on this power beyond having to go to Congress for funding, ignores Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11 which vests the power to declare war with the Congress. That means that outside of reacting to a real, sudden, attack the President does not have the authority to initiate hostilities (which would include preventive assassination against accused plotters, real or imagined) perpetually without a declaration of war from Congress. The President does not have the power to convict, and subsequently kill, an American citizen abroad (or even on American soil) accused (especially if not accused) of treason, if they just sitting in a café not engaged in active combat.

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.” – James Madison

“There can hardly be room for doubt that the framers of the constitution, when they vested in Congress the power to declare war, never imagined that they were leaving it to the executive to use the military and naval forces of the United States all over the world for the purpose of actually coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to his own notions of the fitness of things, as long as he refrained from calling his action war or persisted in calling it peace.” - John Bassett Moore

The topic of discussion regards the targeting of American citizens, on American soil and what constitutes such a person considered to be in combat.
 
SgtRock said:
Collateral damage is a fact of war. The Allies could not have defeated Hitler and the Axis of powers or Tojo without inflicting a certain amount of unfortunate collateral damage. When politicians bind the hands of the military the result is Afghanistan. Almost 12 years later and the Taliban is biding their time instead of taking a dirt nap.
Click to expand...

But we are not at war, nor has war been clearly declared, except rhetorically against a tactic (terrorism). Under the auspices of such war the United States is coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to the Presidents own notions to treat the world as a battlefield. I hardly think the perpetual war in Afghanistan is due to binding the hands of Congress who has the power to declare war, and more because of imperialist hegemony policies. After all… we are the ones who trained the Taliban and armed them in order to once fight against Russia.
 
Last edited:
SgtRock said:
I will point you to US Code - Section 1481: Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions.
a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States. or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18
Click to expand...

Article 3 Section 3 defines treason and is the only place where the standards for conviction are put forth in the Constitution itself before that section of code is applicable.
 
TML said:
But we are not at war, nor has war been clearly declared, except rhetorically against a tactic (terrorism). Under the auspices of such war the United States is coercing other nations, occupying their territory, and killing their soldiers and citizens, all according to the Presidents own notions to treat the world as a battlefield. I hardly think the perpetual war in Afghanistan is due to binding the hands of Congress who has the power to declare war, and more because of imperialist hegemony policies. After all… we are the ones who trained the Taliban and armed them in order to once fight against Russia.
Click to expand...

How soon we forget. We are to blame, right? Our chickens have come home to roost, right? Another of the blame America first crowd has joined DP. Welcome to the forum, I think. I do agree that terrorism is a tactic like blitzkrieg , I have been saying that for years. I believe we should call our enemy by their true identity, Islamist or Islamic extremist or Islamic jihadist. We are at war with Islamic extremism. In fact Islamic extremist including al Qaeda but not limited to al Qaeda declared war on the US and the rest of the western world in order to force us to conform to Islam, be subjugated, or be killed. And to establish a global Islamic Caliphate.
 
Last edited:
SgtRock said:
How soon we forget. We are to blame, right? Our chickens have come home to roost, right? Another of the blame America first crowd has joined DP. Welcome to the forum, I think. I do agree that terrorism is a tactic like blitzkrieg , I have been saying that for years. I believe we should call our enemy by their true identity, Islamist or Islamic extremist or Islamic jihadist. We are at war with Islamic extremism. In fact Islamic extremist including al Qaeda but not limited to al Qaeda declared war on the US and the rest of the western world in order to force us to conform to Islam, be subjugated, or be killed. And to establish a global Islamic Caliphate.
Click to expand...

While this goes extremely off the OP topic of discussion, I will respond; it’s not about blaming America first; it’s about understanding history, human nature, and the relation between cause and effect from an objective standpoint.

Understand that claiming a religious group, in fact an entire religion, as our enemy is as vague - and as foolish - as claiming our enemy is terrorism. By that measure, any Muslim throughout the world, whether they actually have a country or not, are viewed insensibly as a possible terrorist/enemy.

The western world has held imperialist policies within the Middle East for more than half a century – long before any Muslim uttered the words Jihad – and they have ultimately, and expectantly, called these policies oppressive. We can look at the history of Iran for a very good example of this. Had the United States not ousted the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 in order to put the oppressive Shaw back in power, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 would never have happened, and Iran would not be under a theocracy today.
Now look at today as we oust secular governments, arming those same Islamists we claim we are at war with, only to have them turn their guns on us – Exhibit A: Lybia and Syira. These ideas of declaring war on us in order to conform us, subjugate us, or kill us, are the product of fear mongering at its finest and a lack of understanding ones claimed enemy. These are arbitrary views similar to the Crusaders who are religious zealots themselves, when the answer to the conflict is to simply leave them the hell alone.

To attempt bringing this back to some semblance of the topic…. “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” – James Madison. This was rather prophetic wisdom, as we now contemplate the Constitutional legality, and morality, of targeting American citizens on American soil, citing the prevention of a terrorist attack by Islamic extremist shadow bogeymen behind every blade of grass.

It’s time to end this paranoid nonsense

P.S. Thank you for welcoming me to the site, I think ;)
 
Last edited:
TML said:
While this goes extremely off the OP topic of discussion, I will respond; it’s not about blaming America first; it’s about understanding history, human nature, and the relation between cause and effect from an objective standpoint.

Understand that claiming a religious group, in fact an entire religion, as our enemy is as vague - and as foolish - as claiming our enemy is terrorism. By that measure, any Muslim throughout the world, whether they actually have a country or not, are viewed insensibly as a possible terrorist/enemy.

The western world has held imperialist policies within the Middle East for more than half a century – long before any Muslim uttered the words Jihad – and they have ultimately, and expectantly, called these policies oppressive. We can look at the history of Iran for a very good example of this. Had the United States not ousted the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 in order to put the oppressive Shaw back in power, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 would never have happened, and Iran would not be under a theocracy today.
Now look at today as we oust secular governments, arming those same Islamists we claim we are at war with, only to have them turn their guns on us – Exhibit A: Lybia and Syira. These ideas of declaring war on us in order to conform us, subjugate us, or kill us, are the product of fear mongering at its finest and a lack of understanding ones claimed enemy. These are arbitrary views similar to the Crusaders who are religious zealots themselves, when the answer to the conflict is to simply leave them the hell alone.

To attempt bringing this back to some semblance of the topic…. “If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” – James Madison. This was rather prophetic wisdom, as we now contemplate the Constitutional legality, and morality, of targeting American citizens on American soil, citing the prevention of a terrorist attack by Islamic extremist shadow bogeymen behind every blade of grass.

It’s time to end this paranoid nonsense

P.S. Thank you for welcoming me to the site, I think ;)
Click to expand...

I am a fool. I have been so wrong, it is America who brought the wrath of the freedom fighters. They are attempting to fight back against oppressive imperialist aggression. Fighting for Allah and his Messenger Muhammad, peace be upon him. Bush ordered the heroic soldiers of Allah to fly commercial aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon. Bush did this of course under the supervision of the puppet masters the filthy Jews, apes and pigs everyone of them. Bush did this so he would have an excuse to invade Iraq. Thank you TML for helping me to see the light. All these years I have misunderstood the jihadist, I mean Allah's freedom fighters. They truly are fighting for a just cause. When they say, and they do say (ask me to post documented proof and I will) that if we (the west or anyone for that matter) do not convert to Islam that they will kill us I am misunderstanding them (the freedom fighters). I should not take them at their word. They really want to coexist in peace with us and the other religious peoples of the world. I am so thankful that you have joined DP and that you with all your exalted wisdom have set me straight. Now I understand why all those people had to die on 9-11. It was all part of Allah's plan to force us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq so his freedom fighters could die for his cause. After all dying as a soldier while fighting for Allah is the way to honor.
 
Last edited:
tererun said:
yes, there was more of a point for him to address the death star question than to answer the republicans. There is nothing the guy can say that would make the right wing happy. Even if he resigned they would complain about something. You got your answer and it was no. rand paul pissed away his time over a statement that was pretty obvious. Actually i guess he didn't pee for 13 hours supposedly, but you get the jist of it. really, you got the exact answer you wanted from a stunt that delayed a senate appointment for no reason at all aside from spoiled brat politics and you are still not happy? It just shows how petty this all is and that you don't even care about the issues you claim to. this is just about complaining about obama. What is worse is it is not even a good reason to complain, and there are many actual good reasons to complain.
Click to expand...

I think this would have not gotten a response at all had it not been for Paul's filibuster. He said his filibuster was to bring attention to the issue. I guess he did. We can only hope due process of law for Americans, at least on our soil, survives for a while longer. I do, however, believe it is a travesty that our president will bring foreigners here to stand trial in our courts, yet will order a hit on an American citizen even in a country where we are not at war.
 
SgtRock said:
I am a fool. I have been so wrong, it is America who brought the wrath of the freedom fighters. They are attempting to fight back against oppressive imperialist aggression. Fighting for Allah and his Messenger Muhammad, peace be upon him. Bush ordered the heroic soldiers of Allah to fly commercial aircraft into the WTC and Pentagon. Bush did this of course under the supervision of the puppet masters the filthy Jews, apes and pigs everyone of them. Bush did this so he would have an excuse to invade Iraq. Thank you TML for helping me to see the light. All these years I have misunderstood the jihadist, I mean Allah's freedom fighters. They truly are fighting for a just cause. When they say, and they do say (ask me to post documented proof and I will) that if we (the west or anyone for that matter) do not convert to Islam that they will kill us I am misunderstanding them (the freedom fighters). I should not take them at their word. They really want to coexist in peace with us and the other religious peoples of the world. I am so thankful that you have joined DP and that you with all your exalted wisdom have set me straight. Now I understand why all those people had to die on 9-11. It was all part of Allah's plan to force us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq so his freedom fighters could die for his cause. After all dying as a soldier while fighting for Allah is the way to honor.
Click to expand...

Seen any black helicopters outside your windows lately? That is about as paranoid a post as I have ever seen on the internet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom