"Lock her Up"

anatta said:
there is no need to "surrender", there is a need to recognize we are at war.
Clinton wants "intelligence surge" -whatever that means -are we not sharing as much as possible now?
The Pulse shooter was under investigation, but had to be cleared (suspended investigation) by the FBI-because he went under the radar.

We have to do what we do with Syrian jihadists ( US and European) -permanently keep them under a watch
If not the actual terror watch list -some type of accountability .

Also our intelligence agencies need to be able to use "radical Islamist" analysis, and not be shunned by political policy.
We have to act like we are at war, and not some kind of "law enforcement action"
Click to expand...

i recognize were at war but the tactics suggested by the intelligence comunity mean that we will be at war for my whole life. Im for trying the Trump way of brutalizing them first by killing families and torture to see if we can break them quickly.

If not then fakking long war it is but I want to avoid that at all cost. I view war as something that should exist as an abberation to the normality of peace not as the natural state of things.

In ww2 we did terrible things but we got over it in 5 yrs.
 
anatta said:
366DA1AF00000578-3698580-image-a-25_1468983682124.jpg


Clintons lame Tweet -attacking Christie but not defending herself
Click to expand...

what a surprise......Hillary trying to sell something she doesn't own.......must be liberal morality.....
 
tsuke said:
i recognize were at war but the tactics suggested by the intelligence comunity mean that we will be at war for my whole life. Im for trying the Trump way of brutalizing them first by killing families and torture to see if we can break them quickly.

If not then fakking long war it is but I want to avoid that at all cost. I view war as something that should exist as an abberation to the normality of peace not as the natural state of things.

In ww2 we did terrible things but we got over it in 5 yrs.
Click to expand...
You're still thinking of 'war' as a conventional war. Before the Indians taught us guerilla tactics, we lined up in parades and shot at the enemy's parade.

Wars evolve. For all of our high tech weaponry, we are getting our asses kicked by kids with bombs that were manufactured with materials from Home Depot.


There is no way Trump can deliver on his idiotic plan to 'brutalize' them. Martyrs don't care about being killed. And where exactly do you find these people?


Best you get used to the fact that this 21st century brand of 'war' is never going away.

You cannot win against a group of people who have nothing to lose.
 
Althea said:
We are in a war that we cannot win. Maher used to use the term 'whack a mole'. We will never be able to stop these 'lone wolf' attacks.


If we learned anything, it's that spreading Democracy in the Mid East isn't a viable concept. It's just a shame that we didn't learn from Iraq. Further, it's a shame that we like to publicly take a stand against torture, and the use of chemical weapons, while we torture people at black sites.

If we hadn't made such a big deal about taking Asaad's chemical weapons away, ISIS would not exist today.

If you're dealing with animals, let the world's despots exterminate them like animals.

Why don't we let those in the region deal with their own problems the way they have for centuries?

Because we have a dream that the entire Mid East will just give us their oil.
Click to expand...
ridiculous. Assad's opposition is much more then ISIS - it's secularist like the FSA ( whatever they are called now)
and Islamists like al-Nursa and assorted other grooup. ISIS has little to do in western Syria (Levant) where the real battle for power rageson
Damascus and Aleppo.

Tthe ME is more then oil. it's the gateway to all the continents ,and a potential choke point for international shipping

It's the crossroads of the world, and it's the cauldron of the world that spins out terrorism, and secular wars.
It'sthe region that is most important in terms of geo-political control..

It's why your comments on Russia being just fine having a blue water fleet, and surpassing the US in Egyptian relation -
as well as linking up with Iran in Syria do not pass muster.
Russia is looking for worldwide expansion ,and Iran will gladly partner with them in the region, and perhaps beyond
as they get more powerful. It's a new power axis.
we've seen how Russian and Iran do not respect boundaries.

I do agree with "whack a mole" -it's the only counter-terrorism strategy that ever pays off; unlike nationbuilding
 
Althea said:
You don't punch 'down' on politics. Christie was responsible for the Bridge debacle. That's not even up for debate.


I'll say it one more time, because sometimes your zeal prevents you from absorbing what I'm saying.


You can have your opinion on Libya. You cannot make Christie's case that Clinton was the 'chief engineer' of the campaign. Your own NYT article debunks that in the second paragraph.


As for the Boco Haram bullshit...that's just a gross fabrication.
Click to expand...
not sure of your "punch down" term in usage here.
it was only a comment that "ethics" (bridgegate) was a red herring by Clinton. Christie was a prosecutor and that was the role the was playing.

Jesus, am I sorry I showed you that source - it's amazing how you miss the others,
even when I broke it down for you there was no "humanitarian crisis" -was never going to be any humanitarian crisis.
There was no confirming intelligence ( just TV news) -no cell phone pics, and it wasn't the behavior of Qadaffi to massacre
on his counter-offensive in cities.
What it was is recognition by the NTC that they were being routed ( even though Misrata was still just encircled)-
and they had to get the western powers on their side.

Jibril was in Paris -do you think he knew about Sarkozy's being pissed at Qadafi?
And then here come Clinton to the rescue -as soon as she got promises of a democratic Libya-
she went all in for intervention and dragged a "wary Obama" (NYTimes name of that piece) into the war.
Within 45 minutes of the Jibril meeting in Paris, Clinton—the Times reporters wrote—“was convinced that a military intervention was needed.”


I'm not going to explain the subtleties by the NYTimes in their coverage- the fact they left that one paragraph in there-
and most of their coverage is still sympathetic to Clinton isn't as important as the source is accepted by Democrats/uninformed.
The revisionists of course will never even look at anything else then "humanitarian war" -they are worse then Dems.

If I start posting "counterpunch" and more scholarly sites as evidence (foreign Policy and links from there)
Democrats won't listen. The still have to hold to the fiction Clinton isn't a neo-con..
That's one reason I started the blog -but even there my focus was on what happened to Libya, and not US/west politics
But keeping it acceptable to Democrats also means they lose more incisive references..
Libya was a very complex war boiled down to simplistic idea by Clinton is the best way to put it.

And i'm not saying oil isn't part of it -but HOW oil is involved is complex -just like the Qaddafi/west relationship.
What is amazing is that Clinton was willing to throw it all away on the pretext of "humanitarian war"
++
** RCP rates it "1/2 true"-- it's small potatos, but the rest of the Christie indictment I already showed the facts
backed up his speech
 
anatta said:
ridiculous. Assad's opposition is much more then ISIS - it's secularist like the FSA ( whatever they are called now)
and Islamists like al-Nursa and assorted other grooup. ISIS has little to do in western Syria (Levant) where the real battle for power rageson
Damascus and Aleppo.

Tthe ME is more then oil. it's the gateway to all the continents ,and a potential choke point for international shipping

It's the crossroads of the world, and it's the cauldron of the world that spins out terrorism, and secular wars.
It'sthe region that is most important in terms of geo-political control..

It's why your comments on Russia being just fine having a blue water fleet, and surpassing the US in Egyptian relation -
as well as linking up with Iran in Syria do not pass muster.
Russia is looking for worldwide expansion ,and Iran will gladly partner with them in the region, and perhaps beyond
as they get more powerful. It's a new power axis.
we've seen how Russian and Iran do not respect boundaries.

I do agree with "whack a mole" -it's the only counter-terrorism strategy that ever pays off; unlike nationbuilding
Click to expand...
It's long been established the ISIS was born out of the old Iraqi Republican Guard. They fled to Syria, and regrouped. If Asaad had gassed them when we were helping them in their attempted overthrow, they might just be a blip on our radar.

Not sure what you are referring to w/respect to Russia? I don't remember having the discussion.
 
anatta said:
not sure of your "punch down" term in usage here.
it was only a comment that "ethics" (bridgegate) was a red herring by Clinton. Christie was a prosecutor and that was the role the was playing.

Jesus, am I sorry I showed you that source - it's amazing how you miss the others,
even when I broke it down for you there was no "humanitarian crisis" -was never going to be any humanitarian crisis.
There was no confirming intelligence ( just TV news) -no cell phone pics, and it wasn't the behavior of Qadaffi to massacre
on his counter-offensive in cities.
What it was is recognition by the NTC that they were being routed ( even though Misrata was still just encircled)-
and they had to get the western powers on their side.

Jibril was in Paris -do you think he knew about Sarkozy's being pissed at Qadafi?
And then here come Clinton to the rescue -as soon as she got promises of a democratic Libya-
she went all in for intervention and dragged a "wary Obama" (NYTimes name of that piece) into the war.
Within 45 minutes of the Jibril meeting in Paris, Clinton—the Times reporters wrote—“was convinced that a military intervention was needed.”


I'm not going to explain the subtleties by the NYTimes in their coverage- the fact they left that one paragraph in there-
and most of their coverage is still sympathetic to Clinton isn't as important as the source is accepted by Democrats/uninformed.
The revisionists of course will never even look at anything else then "humanitarian war" -they are worse then Dems.

If I start posting "counterpunch" and more scholarly sites as evidence (foreign Policy and links from there)
Democrats won't listen. The still have to hold to the fiction Clinton isn't a neo-con..
That's one reason I started the blog -but even there my focus was on what happened to Libya, and not US/west politics
But keeping it acceptable to Democrats also means they lose more incisive references..
Libya was a very complex war boiled down to simplistic idea by Clinton is the best way to put it.

And i'm not saying oil isn't part of it -but HOW oil is involved is complex -just like the Qaddafi/west relationship.
What is amazing is that Clinton was willing to throw it all away on the pretext of "humanitarian war"
++
** RCP rates it "1/2 true"-- it's small potatos, but the rest of the Christie indictment I already showed the facts
backed up his speech
Click to expand...
I'm not going to argue the Libya issue with you. The facts are the facts.

That paragraph totally debunks your claim that 'most of what Christie said was true'.

end of story.
 
Althea said:
The facts behind that issue are as such:


CIA was secretly meeting with Boco Haram to get them to stand down. If the State Dept designated them a terrorist org, all talks would have to cease.

When it became evident that there was no success at the talks, the State Dept labeled them a terrorist org.

Clinton was not SS when the girls were kidnapped.

Christie is full of shit, but what do you expect at a shit convention?
Click to expand...
good research..I'll look at it a bit more -but thanks.
That does also seem to be the debate in State also.
 
anatta said:
not sure of your "punch down" term in usage here.
it was only a comment that "ethics" (bridgegate) was a red herring by Clinton.
Click to expand...

You claimed that Hillary was taking a cheap shot at Christie.

In politics, you don't punch down. Christie is a gnat. Clinton is the next POTUS.


Christie is still lying about Bridgegate. But, the wall is crumbling, and his underlings are about to sing.


So..for a former prosecutor to flap his jowls about Clinton....employing lies and slander...while he's under investigation for creating a massive 3 day disaster over politics, is a hoot.
 
Yeah in fact, I don't know, there is a non-negligible chance that Christie gets indicted for bridgegate, still. And don't forget, a woman did die in that. She did. Now I don't know if the case can be made that she would have died anyway, but she died.
 
Althea said:
I'm not going to argue the Libya issue with you. The facts are the facts.

That paragraph totally debunks your claim that 'most of what Christie said was true'.

end of story.
Click to expand...
JFC. what a waste of time. go ahead and cling to a single paragraph/meme if it makes you happy..
Ignore the facts I gave you..the facts of the Libyan war are complex -
the WH NSC meetings, and "Viagra Rape"/"Humanitarian crisis" are false and facile.

There is much more evidence, like Clinton refusing to hear from Qaddafi's son when he called State-
but your mind is not choosing to absorb any reality except your pre-conception is indeed the " end of story" .
 
Althea said:
You claimed that Hillary was taking a cheap shot at Christie.

In politics, you don't punch down. Christie is a gnat. Clinton is the next POTUS.


Christie is still lying about Bridgegate. But, the wall is crumbling, and his underlings are about to sing.


So..for a former prosecutor to flap his jowls about Clinton....employing lies and slander...while he's under investigation for creating a massive 3 day disaster over politics, is a hoot.
Click to expand...
I was claiming her tweet was a red herring -not a cheap shot.
Bridgegate/Christies ethics in that regard have nothing to do with his "indictment" speech.
I realize you despise Christie - so do I -but that doesn't make EVERYTHING he says untrue.
I already supported his conclusions on a previous page. It doesn't mean I fully agree with them all either -
just that they are supportable.
 
Darla said:
Yeah in fact, I don't know, there is a non-negligible chance that Christie gets indicted for bridgegate, still. And don't forget, a woman did die in that. She did. Now I don't know if the case can be made that she would have died anyway, but she died.
Click to expand...
In the end, this will be an embarrassment for Christie, but I don't think he'll face charges. He's done in Jersey anyway.

This has nothing to do with the supposed non endorsement of Christie. It has to do with his war with the state legislature over his judicial nominee. He lost his shit in front of the press a couple of days before the bridge issue.
 
Althea said:
It's long been established the ISIS was born out of the old Iraqi Republican Guard. They fled to Syria, and regrouped. If Asaad had gassed them when we were helping them in their attempted overthrow, they might just be a blip on our radar.

Not sure what you are referring to w/respect to Russia? I don't remember having the discussion.
Click to expand...
Assad gassed civilians his people in Ghouta on 21st August 2013 ..Gassing ISIS is not possible they are too far flung, and in the cities as well.
It's one reason Trump's crap about" massive bombing of ISIS" is bullshit too.
Urban warfare is house to house - maybe supported by helicopters, not bombs/gassing
++
Forget it if you don't recall it. It was something we were hammering out about US/Russian ME roles-
one of our discussions that was interesting at the time
 
anatta said:
JFC. what a waste of time. go ahead and cling to a single paragraph/meme if it makes you happy..
Ignore the facts I gave you..the facts of the Libyan war are complex -
the WH NSC meetings, and "Viagra Rape"/"Humanitarian crisis" are false and facile.

There is much more evidence, like Clinton refusing to hear from Qaddafi's son when he called State-
but your mind is not choosing to absorb any reality except your pre-conception is indeed the " end of story" .
Click to expand...
To claim that Clinton is the 'chief engineer' of the Libya issue, is to ignore that there was an uprising in Libya for many months before the U.N took notice.

In fact, it was Qadafi's massacre of protesters in Benghazi that spread the uprising.

Despite BAC's notion that Libyan society was 'just fine' due to Qadafi's benevolent sharing of the oil wealth.....the majority of the tribes in Libya were not happy.
 
anatta said:
ridiculous. Assad's opposition is much more then ISIS - it's secularist like the FSA ( whatever they are called now)
and Islamists like al-Nursa and assorted other grooup. ISIS has little to do in western Syria (Levant) where the real battle for power rageson
Damascus and Aleppo.

Tthe ME is more then oil. it's the gateway to all the continents ,and a potential choke point for international shipping

It's the crossroads of the world, and it's the cauldron of the world that spins out terrorism, and secular wars.
It'sthe region that is most important in terms of geo-political control..

It's why your comments on Russia being just fine having a blue water fleet, and surpassing the US in Egyptian relation -
as well as linking up with Iran in Syria do not pass muster.
Russia is looking for worldwide expansion ,and Iran will gladly partner with them in the region, and perhaps beyond
as they get more powerful. It's a new power axis.
we've seen how Russian and Iran do not respect boundaries.

I do agree with "whack a mole" -it's the only counter-terrorism strategy that ever pays off; unlike nationbuilding
Click to expand...

You fucking idiot.
To start with, you disagree with whack a mole. You think it works. It doesn't.

The entire rest of your diatribe is crap; you can't prove a single bit of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top