i don't think he knows what "comprehensive" means.

The Obama administration for years kinda had their eyes half shut and what the Trump people are saying is, let's close them altogether and legislate blindly based on what we don't know and haven't even asked about.

What a know nothing, feckless, and feculent tool.

Feck yeah!

Giving this another go *promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, January 29th, 2017 1:10pm PST - promote requested by original submitter theali.

He was on the verge of making a point about the radicalization of US Muslims. Remember Anwar al-Awlaki, US citizen killed by drone? Guess which other country he lived in? The countries on the list, with the exception of Iran, all have weak central governments that are unable to prevent large groups of terrorists operating in their country and spreading radical islamic beliefs. I think Egypt and Saudi Arabia should probably be there too just based on their history, but maybe diplomatic considerations were made. Obviously Trump had no concern over diplomatic relaions with Iran.

Moving this video to theali's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by enoch.

Came here to say exactly this.

I'll add that Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't just hiding out in Yemen. The Fort Hood shooter was emailing back and forth with him. The attempted bombings in Times Square and of Northwest Airlines flight 253 were also linked back to him. So yeah, there were absolutely guys in Yemen helping launch attacks on American nationals and American soil.

That all said, blanket bans on everyone from the country period is only A answer and mayhaps not THE answer, baby with the bath water and all. Most of our Islamic allies, and the highest percentage of victims of jihadist terrorism are the moderate muslims in those same countries.

@bcglorf
the story of anwar al awlaki is a little more complicated than he simply said some bad stuff,and the tenuous connection to the fort hood shooter has already been debunked.

now maybe anwar was truly guilty of inciting violence,and maybe he is responsible in some fashion,but we will never know.

jeremy scahill has done some of the best work in regards to that particular story,and i found this lecture the most insightful:
https://videosift.com/video/jeremy-scahill-how-do-you-surrender-to-a-drone

The 'tenuours connection' has not been debunked. The evidence president Obama had access to was enough to order Anwar's assassination from even.

Anwar al-Awlaki and the Fort Hood shooter met in person at the mosque Anwar was then an Imam at. Following that the shooter emailed Awlaki back and forth, but the contents of the email's has been kept closed. Anwar's praise and blessing of the attack immediately afterwards though is kind of telling.

That then combines with Anwar's past before that, where he was an Imam at 2 separate mosques attended by 3 of the 9/11 hijackers. One of those is the same mosque where he also met the Fort Hood shooter...

Or back even before that in the late 90's when he was running a charity that was later declared a front for funnelling money to terrorists.

That's an awful lot of coincidental contact with terrorists. Combine that with the fact he went full on cheer leader for it all once he left US soil seems to tell enough. He was an active participant and conspirator to at least Fort Hood, and possibly many more attacks on the US and it's allies.

I'm sorry to say it, but Jeremy Scahill is pretty guilty of selectively presenting and showing only the facts that fit his arguments and leaves out a mountain of other extremely relevant information that would be inconvenient to his narrative.

First, never proven publicly, and more importantly not in court, so assassinating him was unconstitutional and probably should have gotten Obama impeached, but the right wasn't going to go after him for killing the scary Muslims, even if they're American......
......but to this attack, what connection did his 8 year old grand daughter have to terrorism that necessitated shooting her in the neck?

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

You obviously know that jihadists like Anwar operate outside of the regions in the world that recognise any law but their own. You have what are essentially stateless powers launching acts of war on the civilised nations of the world. I understand that you refuse to acknowledge that justifies treating them as combatants in a war. I just don't think you have valid grounds to be smug about that obviously being the more moral course. Jihadists like those Anwar was counselling and guiding kill Muslim children like his grand daughter every day. The bonus is they do it on purpose and proudly claim it afterwards as a warning to others who won't convert to their true religion. There is a pretty strong argument to be made that the death of leaders like him lowers the overall body count.

But it's real easy to observe that war is bad and just stop thinking about it.

I prefer another example.
White nationalists supported and praised the actions of Dyllan Roof, said black people should be shot and lynched, and many of them may have had correspondence with him. Under the same rules that allowed the assassination of al awlaki , all white nationalists could be targeted and killed as being connected to a terrorist attack as soon as they step off American soil, and by then, maybe on American soil.
Does the right want that being the norm when a hyper lefty is president in 4 years?....I don't.

EDIT: No, I certainly don't know that. They often operate in places where the local government is not strong, but that's different from no law but their own by FAR.

It's not what I refuse to acknowledge, it's the constitution and American law. You can't murder American citizens without due process and conviction. Period. Al Awlaki was not killed on the battlefield taking up arms against Americans, the only legal acceptation.

So, you THINK they are inhuman monsters that kill innocent children (in order to spread their 'our way or the grave' message), and maybe some of them do, so you want to go ahead and kill their children (to spread our "our way or the grave" message), because killing children makes the killer the kind of human trash that we all agree should be eradicated without process, huh? Think about that.

Stripping context is a stupid semantics game and your better than that. If I say "declaring it's ok to kill children" is an abhorrent thing to say and I condemn it unequivocally, you aren't being honest if you observe I uttered the words "...it's ok to kill children...".

I stated the context being an act of war. If you are at war, and the enemy has managed to dig up a battle group with dual American citizenship, does every bomber sortie over them have to hold back until police can come in and arrest the group so they can stand trial first?

Your just being deliberately obtuse. Simply state you disagree on it qualifying as war like situation, then you and I otherwise agree on the whole thing.

You used the accusation that they advocate killing children to excuse us killing their children during our assassinations by drone.
EDIT: You strongly implied it's OK and smart to kill children as collateral damage because it "lowers the overall body count" and because we don't target the children specifically, but they do (but we don't not target them).
You don't have to say the exact words you put in quotes to mean it. I did not quote you saying those specific words, did I?

We aren't at war, war is between nations. This is an international police action at best.
And again, you aren't being honest to play a semantics game and conflate active attacks on a battlefield with supportive speeches. We aren't at war, and there's no American citizen filled battle group, and never has been one fighting Americans. (not since the civil war, that is)
EDIT: To be labeled and killed as an "enemy combatant", we should have to be able to prove they are actually engaged in combat, IMO.

You are being deliberately obtuse. It's NOT war, war as a legal concept only occurs between nations, not groups of individuals. That is not opinion, it's international law. It is war like, but that's a completely different legal situation, one that until recently would not allow us to kill Americans.

How about I quote Steven Erickson's succinct summary of humankind:
Children are dying.

I never advocated killing children, I advocated quite the opposite, killing the people who are killing children.

Again, it's context. Should the allied bombing campaign in WW2 have been abandoned because of the huge toll of children they were killing?

I get it, and even said upfront I know you refuse to acknowledge the act of war context, just at least acknowledge that's the context within which my statements were made.

All I really can ask is acknowledge that children are still dying even if we steadfastly sit safely on this side of the ocean ignoring the rest of the world's problems. Acknowledging the possibility that killing the killers could at least theoretically have the potential to reduce the body count would be even better, but I'm not crossing my fingers that you accept that as a possibility.

If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you.

The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military.

And yes, he was supporting those mass killings. We know now that he was running a charity funnelling money to terrorists even before 9/11. We know that not 1, but 3 of the 9/11 hijackers attended his sermons, even spanning two different mosques. One of those being the same mosque he met with the Fort Hood shooter. It's not exactly rocket science to put together that his 'work' with the CIA, FBI and any other organisation opposing terror wasn't honest or open from the very start. It's pretty clear his jihadists teachings came first, not after.

As you say, anywhere within the reach of the law; courts, arrest warrants and due process all protect the public well enough.

Back the original CNN clip, I dare say I must at least insist that it's not disingenuous to point to Anwar as an example of terrorism on American soil by Yemeni dual citizen.

And after all that, Trumps order is still stupid. Just because you can find such examples doesn't count as me supporting his order. I just don't see what the need is to deny facts just because Trumps order doesn't look bad enough without trying to deny reality to make it even more worthless.

When asked about the innocent 8 year old girl shot through the neck, you replied 'they advocate killing children, killing them (and their children) lowers the overall body count' but really it increases it, because every child that's collateral damage creates 100+ more violent enemies bent on revenge.

Again, context, bombing a nation we are at war with is 100% a different thing from targeted assassination by multiple drone strike or assassination squad on a group. I see that's how you insist on seeing things, but it's not reality. You can't declare war on a group, it's a total intentional misapplication of the term.

If we only targeted known (not suspected) fighters and killers and didn't bomb weddings to get one guy, ok, but we attack large groups and then attack the first responders coming to their aid, then claim they are all terrorists because one of them might be one....creating more terrorists by murdering innocents and then washing our hands smugly. Can you admit that?


By your standard for designating proper targets, we should have bombed the royal family in Saudi Arabia long long ago, but that's not on the table because.....oil and cash.

@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

Hannity and all those at Fox, good example.
All white nationalists too, because they radicalized the terrorists in Canada to murder people in another church....and those that are connected with the white nationalists....like Bannon and Trump. We need to assassinate them now, because clearly they're fostering and creating terrorists or at the very least in league with them, right?
No due process needed, they live in a place where there's no chance of the law touching them, so assassination is the proper course, right?
I find the entire argument incredibly short sighted and myopic.

Trying split up addressing your points and enoch's here, forgive me if things bleed over between a bit.

Large terrorist networks like Al Qaida were and still are using your definitions against your country. They operated with impunity and effectively as their own autonomous state within the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The question is whether acts of war launched from that region then are classed as an act of the Afghan or Pakistani state. If they are, then Afghanistan and Pakistan are to be held to account as states launching the act of war. If they are not, then they have for intents and purposes yielded the sovereignty of that territory to a new independent state waging it's own independent war.

The jihadists are trying to hard to live in an international loophole where they are operating with the autonomy of a state right up until another nation state wants to wage war back against them and then suddenly they are just citizens of the larger state they are technically within the borders of.

When the Bush admin pushed back hard, the Afghanistan government refused(more on this in my reply to Enoch) while the Pakistani government extremely begrudgingly agreed to at least pretend they weren't friendly with them in back channels anymore. Thus act of war met with war in Afghanistan, and yes, I would insist a war that Afghanistan initiated and NOT GW.

As for Saudi Arabia, they are more responsible for Jihadi ideology and funding than any other state, and yes the west largely has ignored it so long as they sold their oil and then used the money to buy back top of the line American made military hardware. I have to say I think it's a bit shortsighted to have made Saudi Arabia number 3 on the global military budget charts... You won't find my hypocritically trying to defend them, they are the ones sending most of the money into Pakistan's mountains to build the madrasa's that don't seem to teach anything after how to fire and assemble your AK.

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them. Horrible idea, and against international law.

I call bullshit. That's like saying if an American commits a crime outside of America, or inside it against a foreigner, America just declared war on that country. Absolute bullshit. if Pakistan's government didn't direct the attack, they aren't declaring war. You don't hold a nation accountable for the actions of a few criminals within their borders unless they are backed by that nation. Because they can't stop the monster(s) we made (neither can we) absolutely in no way means they yield their sovereignty...that's asinine. EDIT: your theory would mean the Bundies would be their own country now, sovereign and at war with America, because we were unable to stop them from taking over public land (repeatedly), and didn't prosecute any of them.

Bullshit again. Because they aren't a state, they shouldn't be treated as one, no matter what bullshit they claim. Duh. Maybe they claim to be one, but they don't run away from that claim, it just isn't given credence by accepting it. They mostly are illegal aliens in the countries they now live in.

Afghanistan had good reason to refuse Bush....and you might recall were fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaida already for control of their own country.

Afghanistan was not hosting the terrorists, they 'invaded' or morphed out of non government controlled militias (Al-Qaida started as a retirement unit for the 'freedom fighters' we trained to fight Russia) . The Afghan government has excellent reasons to never invite a super power to cross their borders ever again.....and empires have good reason to avoid doing so. Afghanistan did not start or declare war with us, some invaders and criminals squatting in caves there did.

Exactly, the terrorist organizations aren't the fault or beneficiary of the government's in the countries where they hide or invade, they are the fault of those that support them, oddly missing from the travel ban and our assassination plans. See how that might piss off Afghansans and Pakistani?

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

@newtboy,

Then, you (We) are suggesting legitimizing their claim to be autonomous states by accepting that classification to be able to declare war against them.

I addressed exactly that in my longer follow up to Enoch. I am asking you to open your eyes and look at the reality on the ground. It's not about legitimizing claims to statehood for convenience or opportunity or semantics or whatever. It is that an area of land larger than many European countries was running under their laws. Was paying them taxes. Was under their justice system. Was under their rule in every single manner. At that point you need to recognize the reality and call a spade a spade and start acting in accordance with reality and not just the borders drawn up on somebody's map somewhere.

You want an analogy in America, than have the whole state of Texas under the control of Richard Spencer and his likes. The American police don't go there, because they fear for their lives. Even the American military has stopped pushing in because their losses were too much. Instead the American military is using back chanels to mostly direct their violent terrorist attacks towards the Mexicans. If Mexico gets tired of Texans coming in and killing them, do they have no further recourse than to ask pretty, pretty please to the US to extradite Spencer and crack down on extremists? That is the reality in Tribal Pakistan with the Taliban calling all the shots.

That's backwards.
If it's illegal to shoot mimes but you still do it, it's wrong...even though it's a mine.

Breaking long standing international law is wrong, no matter why. There are always alternatives, even if they are (in the short term) more difficult or dangerous.

Btw, Being willing to vote for Clinton might indicate to many that you are a neocon.

No, it's about law.
Warren Jeffries (EDIT: that's Warren Jeffs) people did all that, on a smaller scale. They weren't their own country, even though they got away with it for decades.
Law.
No, but they couldn't indiscriminately bomb Houston and any large gatherings either....not even if Spencer might be there. The first American civilian they kill will start a war...a real, legitimate war.

P.S.. Holy Crap, you might be interested to know that Trump threatened the Mexican president with exactly that logic, your army can't get the bad hombres, so he might send ours there to do it. Lucky us, Mexico decided to not be a nuclear power.

Vote Hillary == Neo-Con
Vote Trump==Racist Neo-Con

It would seem the only winning move is not to play

@newtboy,

No, it's about law. Warren Jeffries people did all that, on a smaller scale. They weren't their own country, even though they got away with it for decades. Law.

Forgive my lack of familiarity with him, but your telling me he (on a smaller scale than Texas), stopped paying taxes, and instead collecting them. Started up his own legal and justice system. He created his own borders within which the police would not dare set foot because it would be a death sentence for them. And after he'd done all this the US military itself failed to remove him as well?

Or are you meaning not just scale, but severity and all the other rather meaningful extremes of sovereignty that the Taliban and Al Qaida achieved? It's the same then in the sense that me punching you is violent just me killing ten people is violent, but in another sense they are nothing alike...

No, but they couldn't indiscriminately bomb Houston and any large gatherings either....not even if Spencer might be there. The first American civilian they kill will start a war...a real, legitimate war.

Your not embracing the analogy. Spencer's terrorists are still killing American civilians every week, outside of Texas borders. The American military is just corrupt enough that as long as its democrats/republicans dying,(whomever we choose to not be in power) they let it slide because it shows the need for the military to 'protect' the country.

You need to take a harder look at Pakistani politics to see just how powerful Al Qaida and the Taliban's control over the tribal areas has been.

More over, all of the above definitions of state within a state violence and jihad doesn't require war as the response to acts of war. To invade Afghanistan to prevent another 9/11 is dubious at best. Even the Kissinger's of the world wouldn't count the value of that trade off, losing a couple thousand Americans to an attack each decade or so is 'acceptable' loses.
Call it the price of freedom and carry on. The real trick was that if the Taliban and Al Qaida were so tight with Pakistan's military and intelligence services, how concerned should America be that the Pakistani proxies in their tribal regions and Afghanistan are so keen to target Americans. That lead directly to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal being a big enough concern with that pairing that maybe it was time to tell Pakistan they had to end their little dance with terrorists hitting Americans and they had better make a choice who they are going to side with in the Jihad that was already being waged for 2 decades.

Death sentence, maybe, maybe not, but so dangerous that they didn't go, and the rest, yes. He's the polygamist leader that had sex with all the group's children....in prison now, but in charge of his own fiefdom for decades with next to no interference.
Edit: sorry, that's Warren Jeffs
That makes no sense. You don't prove the need for the military by having it sit idle while you're attacked.

I actually do think we should have done far more, if not gone to war with Pakistan when it was clear the military and government were harboring Osama (and others, and supplying terrorists, etc.) and claiming to be our allies....but, they've got nukes, so it won't happen....well, wouldn't happen, today all bets are off, so who knows.

That's what many thought, and so we have Trump as president.