It is in some ways far more terrifying to have these type of individuals around and even the REMOTE possibility that they will implement any of their "solutions", rather than the threat ISIS poses to us.

For example, the one individual who thought it was getting to the point (which is absolutely mind-blowing since this person has a better chance of knowing a victim of one of the many gun-massacre assholes, rather than any ISIS encounter) were we needed to re-use the VERY badly implemented and all-around bad idea internment of Japanese U.S. Citizens during WWII. But, like Trump and all of his gaffs and mistakes, he's doubling down and telling everyone that this is definitely something that needs to be looked at.

I'm actually amazed these people can walk through their house at night while it's dark! The amount of phobia and absolute paranoia is amazing. It is RAMPANT amongst the republican candidates; you simply don't hear the same "type" of rhetoric from the left (not yet, anyway).

ISIS is winning without EVER setting a foot on U.S. soil and even if they HAVE, they STILL have achieved more in some ways than Al Queda did. Al Queda was only the boogyman in the closet after 9/11 (except to those of us paying attention and knew damn well who it was on that day because they already tried it once) was carried out and time went by (after all it needed to be "confirmed"; THEN they were terrifying...).

ISIS could commit to ONE crime and the amount of absolute hysteria on our news cycle and amongst our own people will probably make sure we see to it that an NEW federal organization is created to protect whatever they target; if they target a Hostess factory, we'll have a federal agency in one year to protect our precious and vital Twinkies from the harm that may come to them...

This is the craziness John is speaking of. I have NO idea what to do to make Americans dial it down to five rather than eleven for every negative event to happen, including the way they think they need to react to said event.

Hopefully, we have leaders that can react to these events in a much more balanced approach (like, well, Obama).

Why should I get angry at a donkey? Or is Al Queda scraping the bottom of the barrel now?

I don't see what the deal is quite honestly. We don't wait for due process if a citizen takes a bunch of hostages or goes on a killing spree. If we see the opportunity to end the threat, we end the threat

If it is reasonable to attempt a capture this american actively working with Al Queda, then cool, but I'm guessing that it isn't a realistic plan so I just don't see what the issue is here.

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

@lantern53 Where were Bush's apologies? Didn't he say that history would be the judge hence no need to apologise? Also, the government is not some mythical separate entity from 'the people". America is the bastion of democracy, don't you agree? How are we to separate the actions of its people from its government? Democracy, especially one as purportedly strong as your own, implies consent if not endorsement.

@bcglorf The first point just restates what I said which I think we both agree on.

The second point about Pakistan has been over simplified to the point of misdirection. There are 3 domains of power in Pakistan; the ISI (Intelligence), the military and the government. The ISI largely controls the madrassahs and although there is a huge amount of violence in Pakistan at the moment (something you won't hear about in Western news broadcasts) the main area of contention there is about Kashmir. It has little if nothing to do with the USA. In fact the USA aids the Pakistan cause by their alliance with Pakistan in an attempt to oppose Chinese backed India. Further, charities does not automatically mean state-based endorsement. Its quite a stretch.

Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one. Sure maybe a few in Kabul got wind of it but as a nation they are still pretty much in the dark about the whole thing. Some more, Turkey (secular yes but muslim by demos), Azer Baijan, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzogoznia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Somalia.... I'm sure there were lots of other countries that had spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11... France, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venuzuela, Russia, Guatemala, Vietnam, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Serbia.

To paint any display of celebration with the brush of enemy eliminates any nuance or desire for understanding complex issues for the sake of post hoc raltionalisation of ones own immediate intuitions. Does the Westboro Baptist Church mean that America is no better than any of the Muslim nations you list? Of course not. To say as much as absurd. To see brown people doing the same is merely convenient.

The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda. You admit as much. If the AL Qaeda aim is indeed about Pakistan and India (which I think you may be very confused about Al-Qaeda and its Pakistani brethren, two very separate entities with almost no commonality bar what we grant them). Al Qaeda in the Bin Laden days cared nothing for Pakistan. It was almost entirely focused on Saudi Arabia and only went to Afghanistan as a sort of Boys Own adventure club. They were the laughing stock of the Mujahaddin.

Really? So if Iran had a military base in the US would it just be about the threat to the US governments power or would there be a principle of non-interference, autonomy and, I hate to say it, national pride at stake?

Besides, it is now impossible to differentiate Al Queda from the exclusive entity it was pre-911 to the inclusive, against-the-West-and-you're-in animal it has become. Until 2003-4 it had no stance on Israel until it needed to recruit more people and used it as propaganda to get more people on board. With Saudi Arabia it had very achievable and pragmatic demands pre-911- get US forces out. In 2007 all but 20-40 troops exited. I feel that even with the complete withdrawal AQ would still find something else to protest in order to warrant their actions.

If the guy was genuinely a member of Al Queda; was actively recruiting new members and planning attacks; but was out of reach of the American court system, what do you do?

Is Al-Awlaki's life more valuable the than the lives of those he plotted to kill?

If an American citizen joined the Nazi high command in WW2, would it be unfair to target him?

Schahill also makes the claim that democrats would be angry if Bush had done this, but if you look back, democrat rage was largely aimed at the war in Iraq. If anything, democrats were angry that Bush wasn't doing enough with regards to Al Queda.

As much as I like Chris Hedges, I think he is wrong on Al Awlaki, considering that a) AA was a top ranking Al Queda leader who planned attacks on innocent civilians, b) Yemen refused to extradite him and c) Yemen refused to allow a land capture. Killing him was much preferable to allowing him to kill innocents, and because of Yemen's refusal to cooperate, it was the best option on the table. Most of the people who complain about this issue leave out the context.

Yes, if you don't support gay marriage, you are, by definition, anti-gay. (I have never heard of any gay person who doesn't like straight people getting married. Have you???)

You're correct that homosexuals aren't defined by their ability to marry one another. They, like all humans, are defined in part by their rights, of which marriage is one.

You're correct, Chik Fil-A didn't donate to anti-gay campaigns. They donated to the anti-gay organizations that run them. Same difference, as far as I'm concerned, but if you want to split hairs...

As our country is more closely aligned with fascism inasmuch as government is "gay married" to the corporations, then where/how corporations spend their money is of increasing importance to the consumers who are, in essence, voting to support issues with their dollars.

Your analogy of the birthday present is not the same thing, because I, unlike a corporation, do not have political power like they do. If the present was $50 Million, and it was donated to Al Qaeda, then yes, you would have supported terrorism with your "gift."

Anyone who says the following is clearly running an anti-gay agenda:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about."

Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A Pres. and COO, The Ken Coleman Show, June 16th.


... even though he clearly has little understanding of how marriage was originally defined in the Bible (which commands that brothers-in-law marry widows, or that rapists marry the women they rape) as if that even mattered!.


>> ^Edgeman2112:

>> ^Trancecoach:
You're right. The fact that they do things for married couples doesn't mean that they're anti-gay. The fact that they donate large bundles of money to anti-gay campaigns, on the other hand, does mean that they support anti-gay policies.
Did you not watch the video??>> ^Edgeman2112:
This is reaaaaaaaaaaaallly stretching it. Just because they do things for married couples doesn't mean they hate gays. I side with the chicken people on this one because they're a victim of gross generalization.


Yes I watched the video, but you are the one who fell for the sensationalism.
Let's be rational and fair here. If you don't support gay marriage, does that automatically label you as anti-gay? F-ck no it doesn't. If gay people don't like straight people getting married, does that make they're anti-straight? F-ck no it doesn't. It's a ludicrous generalization.
Each group of people isn't defined by their ability to marry one another. This is the mistake complainers are often guilty of making.
And no, they didn't make donations to anti-gay campaigns. They made donations to the organizations. What they then do with that money is not Chic Fil A's business. If I give you 50$ for a birthday present, then you donate that to Al-Queda, the media will portray me as supporting terrorism.
I don't like to jump to conclusions based on things I hear on the internet, and I do love that spicy chicken sandwich with a half and half sweet tea and waffle fries.

>> ^Trancecoach:

You're right. The fact that they do things for married couples doesn't mean that they're anti-gay. The fact that they donate large bundles of money to anti-gay campaigns, on the other hand, does mean that they support anti-gay policies.
Did you not watch the video??>> ^Edgeman2112:
This is reaaaaaaaaaaaallly stretching it. Just because they do things for married couples doesn't mean they hate gays. I side with the chicken people on this one because they're a victim of gross generalization.



Yes I watched the video, but you are the one who fell for the sensationalism.

Let's be rational and fair here. If you don't support gay marriage, does that automatically label you as anti-gay? F-ck no it doesn't. If gay people don't like straight people getting married, does that make they're anti-straight? F-ck no it doesn't. It's a ludicrous generalization.

Each group of people isn't defined by their ability to marry one another. This is the mistake complainers are often guilty of making.

And no, they didn't make donations to anti-gay campaigns. They made donations to the organizations. What they then do with that money is not Chic Fil A's business. If I give you 50$ for a birthday present, then you donate that to Al-Queda, the media will portray me as supporting terrorism.

I don't like to jump to conclusions based on things I hear on the internet, and I do love that spicy chicken sandwich with a half and half sweet tea and waffle fries.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TSA, terrorist, al queda, airport, violation, battery, chicago, child, toddler' to 'TSA, terrorist, al qaeda, airport, violation, battery, chicago, child, toddler' - edited by lucky760

>> ^criticalthud:

"Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

I'm the one who used the name Al Qaeda. The AUMF says this:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Not incidentally, that is also the AUMF for the war in Afghanistan as well.

>> ^SDGundamX:

The most important and relevant part of that case is that the courts decided that, although Bush had the presidential authority to name any American citizen an "enemy combatant," the American enemy combatant also had the right to challenge that status in court.

In the Jose Pedilla case, they arrested him when he came onto American soil, and then held him without trial on the basis that he was a prisoner of war, and not a criminal.

In the court battles that ensued, the courts decided that Jose Pedilla could challenge whether he was in fact a prisoner of war in court.

That does not mean that the government has to try all enemy combatants before killing them.

It means that people who get taken prisoner under some sort of wartime doctrine have the right to a day in court to challenge their status as being a participant in war.

>> ^SDGundamX:
He was not killed on a battlefield during combat (which would have been a legal killing)--he was quite clearly assassinated by his own government and without due process.

What's the definition of "battlefield" and "during combat"? Are soldiers in war never legally allowed to attack first? And what's the battlefield mean when we're talking about a non-state entity engaging in guerrilla warfare from strongholds located in many countries?

Again, I say all this not because I think it's right, but because it's where we're at now.

Obama didn't create this legal precedent. Obama isn't violating the law by using this to go after terrorists. I wish Obama was fighting it rather than using it, but wishing doesn't make it so any more than wishing it was illegal makes it illegal.

Obama deserves some shit for this, but I think Tapper's got exactly the right tack on the type of shit he deserves -- make the administration come out and explain a) what exactly they claim they have the right to do, b) explain why they think they have the right to do it, and c) explain whether their answers to a and b jives with their own view of American legal traditions.

The people who want to make this into "Obama committed a crime" aren't helping fix this, they're just helping Republicans win the next election.

>> ^criticalthud:

@bmcs27 no i would call that a terrible waste of time. go ahead and look up the politics of landmines and you may be surprised at which country is both adamant about the production and continued use of them. and yeah, i've been to cambodia. another country we had absolutely no business sticking our nose into.
@NetRunner. "Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.
why are we there? well, before we hated the taliban, we loved em. but either way they are still sitting on trillions in minerals and rare earth deposits.
but hey, lets pretend little johnny is over there ensuring our safety from further crotch-bombers.


Your dead right on Cambodia, after all the horrific things Kissinger's lackeys did to there they followed it up by supporting the Khmer Rouge.

On Al-Qaida, you are just flat wrong. Bin Laden came up with the name for his particular cult of international islamic jihadists.

You are also wrong on the Taliban. During the push to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan, the American's backed Pakistan and it's training of Afghan and imported mujahideen warriors. Those mujahideen warriors were NOT the Taliban, they were a disparate collection of all manner of different local and imported fighters. The Taliban were not the only group to come from this Pakistan and American backed crowd, so where the Northern Alliance fighters whom the Taliban sought to destroy. It's fun to make cheap comments like yours, but that doesn't make them accurate or true.

@bmcs27 no i would call that a terrible waste of time. go ahead and look up the politics of landmines and you may be surprised at which country is both adamant about the production and continued use of them. and yeah, i've been to cambodia. another country we had absolutely no business sticking our nose into.

@NetRunner. "Al Queda" is a term created by the US government for a loose collection of groups who do not admire US foreign policy.

why are we there? well, before we hated the taliban, we loved em. but either way they are still sitting on trillions in minerals and rare earth deposits.

but hey, lets pretend little johnny is over there ensuring our safety from further crotch-bombers.