# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  A comment I made about Chris Kyle on Facebook

## Brett85

I posted this comment on Facebook.  I just thought I would post it here and see what you guys think.




> "I hate the damn savages ... I couldn't give a flying f*** about the Iraqis." ~ Chris Kyle





> This is what Chris Kyle wrote in his book. Regardless of what you think about the Iraq War, Christians shouldn't have the attitude that certain people are subhuman and have no worth. Every human being has worth to God. God created them. The Bible doesn't teach pacifism, and there are times when we have to kill our enemies. But, we aren't supposed to have an attitude of hate and malice when we do that. It should just be viewed as being a necessary evil. From what I've read, Chris Kyle had an attitude of enjoying killing people and hated those whom he killed. That is not a Christ like attitude. We should do what we have to do to defend ourselves, but we shouldn't hate other people and shouldn't be happy to kill people.

----------


## jmdrake

It will be interesting to see the responses.

----------


## Brett85

> It will be interesting to see the responses.


I don't know if there will necessarily be that many or not.  The only comment so far was by a fellow Ron Paul supporter who agreed with me.  Those who disagree may just ignore it.  I don't generally get a lot of comments on things that I post.

----------


## fisharmor

Didn't you get the memo, TC?  This has been settled by agents of the state turned theologian.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/t...se-for-killing

----------


## Brett85

> Didn't you get the memo, TC?  This has been settled by agents of the state turned theologian.
> 
> http://www.theindychannel.com/news/t...se-for-killing


Well, I don't really disagree with him that killing in self defense is morally justified.  But of course, it isn't always easy to tell whether it's actual self defense or not, and many times police officers kill people when it's not absolutely necessary and isn't legitimate self defense.

----------


## Brett85

Well, I did get some comments already.  I'm trying not to make it into a debate about the Iraq War as that wasn't my intent.  I just want Christians to at least see that the attitude that Chris Kyle had was in no way a Christian attitude.  But yet some Christians seem to worship this man and think that he can do no wrong.

----------


## erowe1

I saw a post by Gun Owners of America on Facebook saying that Jesus would support Chris Kyle's sniping.

I thought that was odd, since that's not what GOA is supposed to be about, and in fact, as I thought about it, weren't a lot of the people Chris Kyle killed killed merely for exercising their right to keep and bear arms? So the GOA wasn't just going outside of its stated mission, but was positively contradicting it.

----------


## pcosmar

I am a believer in and supporter of Self Defense.. and I believe that the bible supports this as well,, though it makes it clear that  not resorting to violence it better.
I can not fault anyone for true Pacifism.
That said... when you start a fight,, or instigate a conflict,, it is no longer self defense.

The people of Iraq (or Afghanistan) have a justified Position of self defense. US Soldiers do not.

Self Defense is not an issue here.. I heard the man speak,, and have read some of what he wrote.
He reveled in killing.

I am not his judge. but I will not defend him.

----------


## Brett85

> I am a believer in and supporter of Self Defense.. and I believe that the bible supports this as well,, though it makes it clear that  not resorting to violence it better.
> I can not fault anyone for true Pacifism.
> That said... when you start a fight,, or instigate a conflict,, it is no longer self defense.
> 
> The people of Iraq (or Afghanistan) have a justified Position of self defense. US Soldiers do not.
> 
> Self Defense is not an issue here.. I heard the man speak,, and have read some of what he wrote.
> He reveled in killing.
> 
> I am not his judge. but I will not defend him.


Yeah, I understand that it wasn't about self defense.  I just didn't really want to make it a debate about the war in Iraq, and I generally don't like to stir up controversy.  This might actually be the most "controversial" thing I've ever posted to Facebook, even though I didn't go nearly as far as many libertarians would go when talking about Chris Kyle and the Iraq War.  But despite watering it down from what I could've said, I still got pushback from what I said on Facebook.

----------


## donnay

> I am a believer in and supporter of Self Defense.. and I believe that the bible supports this as well,, though it makes it clear that  not resorting to violence it better.
> I can not fault anyone for true Pacifism.
> That said... when you start a fight,, or instigate a conflict,, it is no longer self defense.
> 
> The people of Iraq (or Afghanistan) have a justified Position of self defense. US Soldiers do not.
> 
> Self Defense is not an issue here.. I heard the man speak,, and have read some of what he wrote.
> He reveled in killing.
> 
> I am not his judge. but I will not defend him.


Well said.  

We don't have the right to impose our ways on others.  Tyrants are tyrants and taking orders from tyrants isn't an excuse to murder people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, I understand that it wasn't about self defense.  I just didn't really want to make it a debate about the war in Iraq, and I generally don't like to stir up controversy.  This might actually be the most "controversial" thing I've ever posted to Facebook, even though I didn't go nearly as far as many libertarians would go when talking about Chris Kyle and the Iraq War.  But despite watering it down from what I could've said, I still got pushback from what I said on Facebook.


How in the world could any sane person "pushbacK" about what you said in that OP?  What you said is the kind of thing every Christian should be able to agree with easily.

----------


## Brett85

> How in the world could any sane person "pushbacK" about what you said in that OP?  What you said is the kind of thing every Christian should be able to agree with easily.


I guess because they viewed it as criticism of Chris Kyle, and apparently he's not ever to be criticized.

----------


## phill4paul

> I saw a post by Gun Owners of America on Facebook saying that Jesus would support Chris Kyle's sniping.


  Well, damn. Done with them. If ya got a link.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I saw a post by Gun Owners of America on Facebook saying that Jesus would support Chris Kyle's sniping.
> 
> I thought that was odd, since that's not what GOA is supposed to be about, and in fact, as I thought about it, weren't a lot of the people Chris Kyle killed killed merely for exercising their right to keep and bear arms? So the GOA wasn't just going outside of its stated mission, but was positively contradicting it.


Never heard of this...but make sure it really is the GOA's account before judging.  There are $#@!s out there who create fake accounts just to pose as other people/orgs and make them look bad.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, I did get some comments already.  I'm trying not to make it into a debate about the Iraq War as that wasn't my intent.  I just want Christians to at least see that the attitude that Chris Kyle had was in no way a Christian attitude.  But yet some Christians seem to worship this man and think that he can do no wrong.


Thou art surprised?  True story.  A neighbor I had once was telling me how much he loved the book "Sole Survivor" and that the movie was coming out.  The plot is that a group of Navy SEALS were on a top secret mission deep in Taliban country.  A goat herder and his son stumbled across them.  They had to make a decision, kill the two innocent Afghans or risk exposure.  They chose to risk exposure.  My neighbor, a Christian who attends church every Sunday, said "Of course they couldn't kill them because the liberal media would have crucified them when they got home."    Really, many Christians are so screwed in the head that they would be quite alright with INNOCENT children being killed if that meant accomplishing the mission.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Thou art surprised?  True story.  A neighbor I had once was telling me how much he loved the book "Sole Survivor" and that the movie was coming out.  The plot is that a group of Navy SEALS were on a top secret mission deep in Taliban country.  A goat herder and his son stumbled across them.  They had to make a decision, kill the two innocent Afghans or risk exposure.  They chose to risk exposure.  My neighbor, a Christian who attends church every Sunday, said "Of course they couldn't kill them because the liberal media would have crucified them when they got home."    Really, many Christians are so screwed in the head that they would be quite alright with INNOCENT children being killed if that meant accomplishing the mission.


Why oh why isn't his church telling him to repent?  Our churches are so messed up.  Ugh..

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Thou art surprised?  True story.  A neighbor I had once was telling me how much he loved the book "Sole Survivor" and that the movie was coming out.  The plot is that a group of Navy SEALS were on a top secret mission deep in Taliban country.  A goat herder and his son stumbled across them.  They had to make a decision, kill the two innocent Afghans or risk exposure.  They chose to risk exposure.  My neighbor, a Christian who attends church every Sunday, said "Of course they couldn't kill them because the liberal media would have crucified them when they got home."    Really, many Christians are so screwed in the head that they would be quite alright with INNOCENT children being killed if that meant accomplishing the mission.


Makes total sense if you realize that to most American Christians, the US Government - god.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> I saw a post by Gun Owners of America on Facebook saying that Jesus would support Chris Kyle's sniping.
> 
> I thought that was odd, since that's not what GOA is supposed to be about, and in fact, as I thought about it, weren't a lot of the people Chris Kyle killed killed merely for exercising their right to keep and bear arms? So the GOA wasn't just going outside of its stated mission, but was positively contradicting it.


I just went to their FB page that has 845,000 likes...here's what they said




> Michael Moore attacks Chris Kyle yet again and puts a liberal anti-gun spin on What Would Jesus Do. Of course, we know WWJD -- see Luke 22:36 and I Samuel 13:19.
> But don't you love it when non-Christians try to use Jesus to make their point?


What is said in Luke 22:36 and I Samuel 13:19?

----------


## pcosmar

> I just went to their FB page that has 845,000 likes...here's what they said
> 
> 
> 
> What is said in Luke 22:36 and I Samuel 13:19?


Luke is taken well out of context often.. and most certainly in this case. but here is the verse.




> And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.


 and here is the FULL context,



> And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. *"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me*, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."…


Elsewhere,, Peter used the sword and Christ stopped him  and healed the wound caused.

The whole book folks.

----------


## paleocon1

> I posted this comment on Facebook.  I just thought I would post it here and see what you guys think.


I think you are correct regarding a Biblical attitude towards War. That said it must be clearly understood that the USA has not fought a War in which USA involvement could pass the Just War test in well over 160 years.

----------


## paleocon1

> .................................. I still got pushback from what I said on Facebook.


Why do you even lower yourself to participating in facebook? It is a tool explicitly created to monitor and control the sheeple.

----------


## paleocon1

> .................................. I still got pushback from what I said on Facebook.


Why do you even lower yourself to participating in facebook? It is a tool explicitly created to monitor and control the sheeple.

oops on the double up.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Why do you even lower yourself to participating in facebook? It is a tool explicitly created to monitor and control the sheeple.


You want to change the way people think, you have to go to where the people are.  NSA/FBI honeypot or not.

----------


## Brett85

> That said it must be clearly understood that the USA has not fought a War in which USA involvement could pass the Just War test in well over 160 years.


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

----------


## otherone

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


Action against whom?  A criminal conspiracy?  If the Mafia murders 100 people in Brooklyn, is it Just to take "military action" against Cleveland?
What defines "war"?

----------


## Brett85

> Action against whom?  A criminal conspiracy?  If the Mafia murders 100 people in Brooklyn, is it Just to take "military action" against Cleveland?
> What defines "war"?


No, we can't take military action against people in our own country.  But when a bunch of foreigners come over here and knock down one of our buildings, we're just supposed to sit back and do nothing?

----------


## Brett85

I go from arguing against extremely pro war people on Facebook to arguing against extremely anti war people on this forum.  Lol.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, we can't take military action against people in our own country.  But when a bunch of foreigners come over here and knock down one of our buildings, we're just supposed to sit back and do nothing?


A bunch of Saudis knock down buildings and we attack Afghanistan and Iraq.  Yeah, makes perfect sense.  Free the 28 pages from the 9/11 report!  As much of a whitewash that report was, the TPTB still felt the need to censor it.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, we can't take military action against people in our own country.  But when a bunch of foreigners come over here and knock down one of our buildings, we're just supposed to sit back and do nothing?


I think you missed his point.  If the attack came from Brooklyn why attack Cleveland?  If the attack was funded by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, why attack Iraq?  And when the FBI was involved in the 1993 WTC attack, when didn't the U.S. military attack the FBI?

----------


## Brett85

> A bunch of Saudis knock down buildings and we attack Afghanistan and Iraq.  Yeah, makes perfect sense.  Free the 28 pages from the 9/11 report!  As much of a whitewash that report was, the TPTB still felt the need to censor it.


I'm not saying that our particular military response in Afghanistan was the only option, but I believe that we had to respond with military force in some way.  If not Afghanistan, then propose some kind of other alternative for how to respond with military force when we get attacked.  We can't just allow others to attack us and just sit back and do nothing and not defend our country.

----------


## pcosmar

> I go from arguing against extremely pro war people on Facebook to arguing against extremely anti war people on this forum.  Lol.


Well from a spiritual perspective,, Who taught man to war? Who taught the making of weapons?

----------


## Brett85

> Well from a spiritual perspective,, Who taught man to war? Who taught the making of weapons?


I'm not exactly sure what the point of your question is.  There are quite a few examples of war and violence in the Old Testament.  I don't use those examples to say that we should get involved in preemptive wars overseas and have endless war, but I certainly don't believe that God/Jesus is a pacifist either.  I think there's such a thing as just wars and unjust wars.  I'm not opposed to all wars.  I'm opposed to unjust wars, wars that I feel God wouldn't support and are also detrimental to our country.  I also believe that when we go to war we should just do what we have to do but shouldn't have a hateful attitude towards those who we're fighting.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not saying that our particular military response in Afghanistan was the only option, but I believe that we had to respond with military force in some way.  If not Afghanistan, then propose some kind of other alternative for how to respond with military force when we get attacked.  We can't just allow others to attack us and just sit back and do nothing and not defend our country.


Question.  Is "doing something" if that "something" is wrong better than "doing nothing?"  We were so eager after 9/11 to "do something" that we responded without thinking.  Well...the American people responded without thinking.  The powers that be were planning to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before 9/11.  That should make you wonder why 9/11 happened in the first place.

Edit: And here is the deal.  Every time you agree to a military response you are *begging* for people like Chris Kyle.  Let's take everything Chris Kyle said or wrote, minus the totally proven lies like the Jesse Ventura punch, at face value.  If Chris Kyle was shooting at women and children who were about to kill his buddies, an understandable move, does it really matter if he ended up hating them or not?  "Oh and just killed a 6 year old boy with a grenade.  I feel SO BAD about it."  Some fighter jock drops a bomb from 200 feet and some kids playing soccer next to the home of some jihadist and they die, does the fact that the fighter jock never knew that he killed some kids make any difference to the family of the kids?

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm not exactly sure what the point of your question is.  There are quite a few examples of war and violence in the Old Testament.  I don't use those examples to say that we should get involved in preemptive wars overseas and have endless war, but I certainly don't believe that God/Jesus is a pacifist either.  I think there's such a thing as just wars and unjust wars.  I'm not opposed to all wars.  I'm opposed to unjust wars, wars that I feel God wouldn't support and are also detrimental to our country.  I also believe that when we go to war we should just do what we have to do but shouldn't have a hateful attitude towards those who we're fighting.


Yes there are examples. There are the examples of Sodom and Gomorrah too. The books are full of examples.
I asked,, "who taught man to war?  Who taught man to kill?" 

a simple question and a simple and clear answer.

Azazel: taught the making of weapons of war.

----------


## Brett85

> Question.  Is "doing something" if that "something" is wrong better than "doing nothing?"


There's nothing wrong with responding with military force when we get attacked.  There's nothing in the Bible which suggests that Christians are supposed to be pacifists.  Now, I'm not arguing in favor of preemptive wars like the Iraq War.  Some of the really hardcore people here seem to get confused and think that if you ever support going to war, then you must support every war.  Well, you can support some wars and oppose other wars.  People in the Republican Party today are basically on the extreme of supporting every war, and then wanting those wars to last indefinitely.  Some here seem to be on the opposite extreme of never supporting war under any circumstances.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes there are examples. There are the examples of Sodom and Gomorrah too. The books are full of examples.
> I asked,, "who taught man to war?  Who taught man to kill?" 
> 
> a simple question and a simple and clear answer.
> 
> Azazel: taught the making of weapons of war.


I would say that God did, because it's something that God authorized the Israelites to do in the Old Testament for various reasons.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm not saying that our particular military response in Afghanistan was the only option, but I believe that we had to respond with military force in some way. [...]  We can't just allow others to attack us and just sit back and do nothing and not defend our country.


No one has said or suggested that "we" should "just sit back and do nothing" when "we" are attacked.

What has been said is that if A attacks you, you've got no business retaliating against B or C.

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked "us." Therefore, "we" had no business attacking them.

"Our particular military response in Afghanistan" was not only not the "only option," but in all justice, it should never have been an "option" at all ...




> If not Afghanistan, then propose some kind of other alternative for how to respond with military force when we get attacked.


Really? Is it that difficult to figure out "some kind of other alternative" to retaliating against someone who didn't attack you?

How about this: _Don't attack people who didn't attack you - instead, attack the ones who did._




> There's nothing wrong with responding with military force when we get attacked.


Again, no one has said otherwise.

What has been said is that there is something VERY wrong with "responding with military force" against those who have NOT attacked you.

Afghanistan and Iraq did not attack "us." Some Saudis and Egyptians did - apparently with material support from Saudi Arabia. _Ergo ..._

----------


## jmdrake

> I go from arguing against extremely pro war people on Facebook to arguing against extremely anti war people on this forum.  Lol.


Sometimes a "middle of the road" response makes no sense.

_Revelation 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot._ 

Whenever you go to war you risk killing innocent people.  Even the "best" post 9/11 military response likely would have ended up with more innocent people killed by our response than killed by the attacks.

----------


## jmdrake

> There's nothing wrong with responding with military force when we get attacked.  There's nothing in the Bible which suggests that Christians are supposed to be pacifists.  Now, I'm not arguing in favor of preemptive wars like the Iraq War.  Some of the really hardcore people here seem to get confused and think that if you ever support going to war, then you must support every war.  Well, you can support some wars and oppose other wars.  People in the Republican Party today are basically on the extreme of supporting every war, and then wanting those wars to last indefinitely.  Some here seem to be on the opposite extreme of never supporting war under any circumstances.


What is "right" about a military response?  Prior to 9/11 the worst terrorist attack was (according to the official story) from two white non-Muslim Americans.  Should there have been a "military response?"  Why or why not?  I mean if *every time* there is an attack that kills a lot of people there should be a military response..... Oh.  But it's only if you can say for certain that there were foreigners involved.  It doesn't matter if you never actually connect the attack to a foreign government.  (9/11 was never connected to the Taliban).  But "We've got to respond" with military force.  Why?

Here is where a military response is justified.  When there is a real opposing military trying to take over your country.  That's a justified military response.  Some random people trying to kill people?  That's a criminal matter and is best responded to that way.  After the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, OBL should have been nabbed by the CIA and killed if they couldn't nab him.  There were opportunities.  Hell, CNN found him!

----------


## pcosmar

> I would say that God did,


No,, He did not.

Either you do Not know God,,or you know some other God.

----------


## Brett85

> How about this: _Don't attack people who didn't attack you - instead, attack the ones who did._


The actual people who attacked us died in the 9/11 attacks.  How do you respond with military force against dead people?

----------


## Brett85

> No,, He did not.
> 
> Either you do Not know God,,or you know some other God.


Again, I don't believe that God is a pacifist.  I believe he considers some wars to be just and other wars to be unjust.

----------


## Brett85

> Sometimes a "middle of the road" response makes no sense.
> 
> _Revelation 3:15 I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot._ 
> 
> Whenever you go to war you risk killing innocent people.  Even the "best" post 9/11 military response likely would have ended up with more innocent people killed by our response than killed by the attacks.


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

----------


## Brett85

> What is "right" about a military response?  Prior to 9/11 the worst terrorist attack was (according to the official story) from two white non-Muslim Americans.  Should there have been a "military response?"  Why or why not?  I mean if *every time* there is an attack that kills a lot of people there should be a military response..... Oh.  But it's only if you can say for certain that there were foreigners involved.  It doesn't matter if you never actually connect the attack to a foreign government.  (9/11 was never connected to the Taliban).  But "We've got to respond" with military force.  Why?


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

----------


## Brett85

Anyway, this is getting very off topic.  I just posted this to illustrate that I think that most conservatives and most Christians today are off on the wrong track when they seem to glorify war and have a hateful attitude towards those who we're at war with.  I don't like the attitude that comes from many Christian conservatives and hope that it changes.  War should always be a last resort and should just be seen as a necessary evil, but rather it's become something that we're perpetually involved in and something that most Christians seem to have no problem with at all.

----------


## pcosmar

> The actual people who attacked us died in the 9/11 attacks.  How do you respond with military force against dead people?


That is a good question.

Perhaps you should stop doing whatever you are doing to antagonize people to take such drastic actions against you.??

----------


## pcosmar

> *Anyway, this is getting very off topic.*  I just posted this to illustrate that I think that most conservatives and most Christians today are off on the wrong track when they seem to glorify war and have a hateful attitude towards those who we're at war with. 
> 
>  I don't like the attitude that comes from many Christian conservatives and hope that it changes.  War should always be a last resort and should just be seen as a necessary evil, but rather it's become something that we're perpetually involved in and something that most Christians seem to have no problem with at all.


I don't either. I see it too. I just do not agree with it at all.

They have some seriously wrong ideas,, and don't seem to understand which God they are serving.

This country was just involved in the rescue of the Yazidis . And "Christians",,,, were backing it.
And they condone Kyle.



Edit,, no, this is not off topic. this is the topic.

----------


## jllundqu

> I saw a post by Gun Owners of America on Facebook saying that Jesus would support Chris Kyle's sniping.
> 
> I thought that was odd, since that's not what GOA is supposed to be about, and in fact, as I thought about it, weren't a lot of the people Chris Kyle killed killed merely for exercising their right to keep and bear arms? So the GOA wasn't just going outside of its stated mission, but was positively contradicting it.


As an Iraq War veteran (2 tours) all I can say is this.... if I were an Iraqi and saw an occupying army killing everything my friends, neighbors, and anything in sight, I would have taken up arms against the US.  That is one harsh realization to come to after having seen the killing first hand, but I think Clint Eastwood, being the genius that he is, actually made American Sniper not to glorify Chris Kyle, but as a critically important ANTI-WAR Film.

----------


## Brett85

I really don't even see why the member here who I was speaking to above should even be allowed to be a member here.  This post that I created was a criticism of Chris Kyle and the Iraq War.  All throughout this thread I said that I was opposed to the Iraq War, that it was a huge mistake.  For the moderators to allow that kind of blatant dishonesty to go on here is disappointing.  It's not really any different from when Chris Kyle lied and made up the story about knocking out Jesse Ventura.  Liars like that need to be held accountable for their actions.  In a court of law that particular member would've been found guilty of libel and slander.

----------


## Brett85

Is slander something that's allowed here?  If so, why?  Why is it within the rules to slander someone here on this forum?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There's nothing wrong with responding with military force when we get attacked.  There's nothing in the Bible which suggests that Christians are supposed to be pacifists.


Turn the other cheek.  Blessed are the peacemakers.  As much as it depends on you, live at peace with all men.  Numerous accounts of apostles being martyred rather than fighting back.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I say all that as a non-pacifist.  I have different interpretations for the above verses than pacifists.  But, they do have valid Biblical arguments.



> Now, I'm not arguing in favor of preemptive wars like the Iraq War.  Some of the really hardcore people here seem to get confused and think that if you ever support going to war, then you must support every war.  Well, you can support some wars and oppose other wars.  People in the Republican Party today are basically on the extreme of supporting every war, and then wanting those wars to last indefinitely.  Some here seem to be on the opposite extreme of never supporting war under any circumstances.


Or maybe they just don't support the specific wars you're talking about.

I don't happen to support any of the wars America has fought at this point, which oddly enough, would be disliked by some libertarians as well as soem conservatives.

But I still believe in the concept of just war.  Its rarely done correctly, particularly in the modern era.




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


More like Rand than Ron.  Ron is now opposed to Afghanistan, has always been opposed to invading ISIS, and kind of implies in End the Fed that he's not much of a fan of WWII.

----------


## pcosmar

> Again, I don't believe that God is a pacifist.  I believe he considers some wars to be just and other wars to be unjust.


Wars Are.

And I do believe in self defense,,and community defense. War is an unholy evil,, even when it is necessary.

That is why anyone tainted with it has to remain outside the camp,,until they cleanse themselves of it.

----------


## pcosmar

> But I still believe in the concept of just war. * Its rarely done correctly,* 
> 
> .


If ever.
I understand the concept of a just war,, I just don't know any examples. Save for removing the Nephalim and their corruption from the land.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Ok, this is the last time I'm going to respond to you on this particular thread.  You are absolutely stupid.  No where did I ever say that we should've invaded Iraq.  I said throughout this thread that the Iraq War was an unjust war of aggression that's been an absolute tragedy for our country.  I said that from the day I started posting here on this forum.  You just illustrated exactly what I said earlier, which is that some of you are so incredibly extreme that you think that if someone isn't opposed to all wars that they support every war.


In my first post to this thread, I criticized your assertion - namely, that "we" *must* respond to an attack by militarily retaliating against *somebody* - by pointing out that such retaliation can only be justified if it is directed against "somebody" who was actually responsible for such an attack against "us" (which, in this case, Iraq and Afghanistan were not). In reply, you deliberately cherry-picked a single line from my post and ridiculously  & absurdly mischaracterized it as suggesting that military retaliation could or should be carried out against people who are already dead - while completely ignoring the rest of what I had said, which made what I meant perfectly clear. I merely and sarcastically replied in kind, and you've got no  business hypocritically pissing at other people for doing to you what you have done to them.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I really don't even see why the member here who I was speaking to above should even be allowed to be a member here.  This post that I created was a criticism of Chris Kyle and the Iraq War.  All throughout this thread I said that I was opposed to the Iraq War, that it was a huge mistake.  For the moderators to allow that kind of blatant dishonesty to go on here is disappointing.  It's not really any different from when Chris Kyle lied and made up the story about knocking out Jesse Ventura.  Liars like that need to be held accountable for their actions.  In a court of law that particular member would've been found guilty of libel and slander.





> Is slander something that's allowed here?  If so, why?  Why is it within the rules to slander someone here on this forum?


 Get over yourself.

----------


## Brett85

> More like Rand than Ron.  Ron is now opposed to Afghanistan, has always been opposed to invading ISIS, and kind of implies in End the Fed that he's not much of a fan of WWII.


I'm "now opposed to Afghanistan" as well.  I don't think we should be there now nation building and occupying the country.  I don't think Ron necessarily ever said that we were wrong to go into Afghanistan to kill Osama Bin Laden, but just that he was wrong to vote for the AUMF because it was overly broad and is used today to justify perpetual war.

I'm not in favor of "invading ISIS."  I'm opposed to having any ground troops over there.  I did say that I thought military strikes were necessary and morally justified after they beheaded two of our citizens.  I just thought there has to be some response when others actually mess with us.  But, Thomas Massie did bring up a good point as well, that rather than doing nothing to respond to that and rather than launching a full scale air assault that perhaps we could've just tried to capture and bring to justice those who beheaded our citizens.  That's at least something to consider.  I do have concerns that the air strikes against ISIS are going to just lead to a perpetual war against them, which I'm not in favor of.  But it's not as easy for me as it is for you.  I don't view air strikes against ISIS to be very similar to our other interventions such as the original Iraq war or the war in Vietnam.  Whether or not the air strikes are necessary, it seems to me like there's more of a justification for them than there was to invade Iraq or get involved in Vietnam.  

I still disagree with Rand when it comes to his support for sanctions, his support for some foreign military bases, his reluctance to say that we should get out of treaties like NATO, etc.  So I think to say that I'm completely in line with Rand's stated foreign policy I don't believe is accurate either.  I'm somewhere in between Ron and Rand on foreign policy issues.

----------


## Brett85

I think a certain person is just going to have to be put on ignore.  It's probably better that way.

----------


## otherone

> Is slander something that's allowed here?  If so, why?  Why is it within the rules to slander someone here on this forum?


I'm not sure what you are referring to.
State military action is required in defense against state military action.  911 was perpetrated by foreign nationals, ostensibly of their own will.   Criminal conspiracies need to be investigated with the cooperation of other states.  If the host nation will not cooperate, or are complicit in the act, a formal declaration of war should be considered.  Should countries invade the homelands of international criminals?    
As an example, if a hacker group of 15 men from Sweden attack the German government's infrastructure, should Germany we invade and occupy Sweden?  Is there a difference between a criminal act, and an act of war?

----------


## Brett85

> As an example, if a hacker group of 15 men from Sweden attack the German government's infrastructure, should Germany we invade and occupy Sweden?  Is there a difference between a criminal act, and an act of war?


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

----------


## otherone

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


Then why not simply declare war on Afghanistan?

----------


## Brett85

> Then why not simply declare war on Afghanistan?


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

----------


## pcosmar

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


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

Bin Laden was the boggieman for the cover story.

----------


## Brett85

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


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

----------


## otherone

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


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

----------


## Brett85

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


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

----------


## Bryan

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


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

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

Thank you.

----------


## erowe1

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


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

----------


## jmdrake

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


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




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


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

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

----------


## jmdrake

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


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

----------


## jmdrake

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

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

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

----------


## Brett85

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


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

----------


## Brett85

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

----------


## erowe1

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


Such as?

----------


## jmdrake

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


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





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


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

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

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

----------


## jmdrake

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


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

----------


## paleocon1

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


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

----------


## paleocon1

> Am I the only one that remembers how World War I started?  A Serbian terrorist murdered the royal couple of Austria.  That would be like if some Iranian terrorist killed the U.S. president and first lady.  Austria demanded Serbia turn over the terrorist. Serbia refused.  Austria declared war on Serbia.  Before all was said and done, France, Britain and the U.S. declared war on Austria and its allies (German, the Ottomon Empire etc) all fighting *on behalf of a country that refused to turn over a terrorist!*
> 
> As a result of this "justified military action" against a "foreign agent of terrorism" somewhere between 15 to 18 *million* people died.  All of this over the deaths of two people?
> 
> Now WW I is an extreme example of human stupidity.  And in contrast far more people died in initial 9/11 attack and far less people died overall.  But still, how is creating a situation where far more innocent people are going to die from your response than died from the attack justified?  Oh there's always the fallback "Well I don't agree how it went *this* time" but...when's the last time war went well?  And again, Osama Bin could have been killed without an invasion.


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

----------


## pcosmar

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


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

----------


## paleocon1

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


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

----------


## jmdrake

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


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

----------


## paleocon1

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


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

----------


## Ender

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


Uhhhhhh...... NO.

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

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

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

----------


## Brett85

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

----------


## jmdrake

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


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

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

----------


## jmdrake

> Uhhhhhh...... NO.
> 
> The Taliban agreed to turn OBL over IF Bush would agree to have him tried in a neutral country. While they were trying to negotiate with Bush, the US attacked.
> 
> AND- Bin Laden was never proven to be the culprit- he even denied it himself, which was not his way. Plus, even if he had been the mastermind, what right did the US have to invade a country that had nothing to do with the attacks. 
> 
> *Add to all of this that no one really knows who carried out those attacks; TPTB seem to have either had prior knowledge or to have been involved.*


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

----------


## Brett85

> Actually I think the thread going "off topic" (if it actually went off topic) made it more interesting and informative.  Really, is the problem with Chris Kyle, besides his pathological lying (thankfully he lied about murdering looters post Katrina), that he made peace with killing women and children seeking to harm his buddies by hating the women and children as "savages" or is the problem the war he got deployed to, which was not his choice?  The FB post you linked to from Chuck Baldwin took the opposite tact that you did.  Rather than criticizing Kyle, he criticized the war itself.
> 
> Now back to Afghanistan.  I was (and still am I suppose) miffed at my neighbor for saying and thinking that the only thing wrong with some navy SEALs not killing an innocent man and child to keep that man and child from giving away their position is "They would be crucified by the liberal media."  But is the SEAL who kills two innocent people up close and personally in order to safely complete his mission any worse than an air jock who's bomb kills 20 innocent people in "collateral damage?"  There is an "intent" issue of course, but beyond that, dead is dead.  Before we put fighting men in position where they may have to kill innocent people or "guilty" people who might not have even hated America before we invaded their country, we should think *long and hard* about whether a military solution is the best option.


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

----------


## otherone

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


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

----------


## jmdrake

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


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

----------


## jmdrake

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


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

----------


## Brett85

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


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

----------


## Brett85

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


I think their citizens would demand that they do something to respond to the attacks.  The American people demanded that we have some kind of response to the 9/11 attacks.  Any President who would just sit back and do nothing would be impeached.  I don't believe the American people are hungry for war, but they do believe in going to war when we've been messed with.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I need to watch it.  I think Gunny Freedom has always argued that Letters of Marque and Reprisal can include the military as well.  I wouldn't have a problem with letters of marque and reprisal as long as they include the military.


Why are you so stuck on the military?  Serious question.  You seem to understand the fact that the use of the military in Afghanistan made a bad situation *much* worse.  So....why still advocate that as the "correct" option?  Why include it at all?  I'm asking because I honestly don't get that.




> But I don't really see how an untrained private individual could ever do the job as well as a trained member of the military.


Who said anything about people who were untrained?  Do you believe the only way someone can be trained to do military operations is in the military?  A private company can't train its own mercs or hire people who were in the military?  Again, if the military was restricted to uses that make sense, actually protecting the U.S. from foreign invasion, then were would still be a steady stream of young men and women ready to be hired out to go fight wherever.  Just leave the country as a whole out of it.

----------


## specsaregood

You know,  I was thinking about why Eddie Routh killed Kyle.  I read that he plans to plead guilty by reason of insanity; but...

Given that Kyle lied about killing people in New Orleans and Texas, I thought about the possibility that maybe Kyle gave this guy reason to believe that he intended to kill american citizens in the near future?  Perhaps even tried to draw him into a conspiracy to commit such murders?   And it is THAT which made him flip out and kill him.

Obviously no facts, just some wild eyed speculation.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think their citizens would demand that they do something to respond to the attacks.  The American people demanded that we have some kind of response to the 9/11 attacks.  Any President who would just sit back and do nothing would be impeached.  I don't believe the American people are hungry for war, but they do believe in going to war when we've been messed with.


Yeah....people have this idea that if there is a problem the government has to "do something" and as long as it "does something" that must be better than "doing nothing."  There are people who lack health insurance?  "Do something" and pass Obamacare.  An underwear bomber gets let on a plane on purpose by the U.S. government? (Admitted).  "Do something" by installing naked body scanners.  Some scientists say what we exhale is destroying the planet?  The federal government has to "do something."  Forget whether the something makes sense or not.  Just "do something."  Our policy of arming rebels in Syria helps create the ISIS crisis?  Just "do something" by arming the rebels even more.  After we start our bombing campaign the size of ISIS triples?  Well "do something" by increasing the bombing campaign.  After all the overwhelming majority of Americans demand that we "do something" to ISIS.  The Soviet Union felt it had to "do something" in response to the U.S. funding islamic terrorists in Afghanistan.  We see how that worked out for them.

At some point, those of us who have taken the time to sit back and evaluate the results of our leaders deciding to "do something" about every problem that comes up to the extent that they make the problem worse need to talk to our friends and family about how their bloodlust to "do something" is destroying this country.

----------


## pcosmar

> I think their citizens would demand that they do something to respond to the attacks.  The American people demanded that we have some kind of response to the 9/11 attacks.  Any President who would just sit back and do nothing would be impeached.  I don't believe the American people are hungry for war, but they do believe in going to war when we've been messed with.


The people were LIED TO. They were lied to by the President, ,they were lied to by the media.

And for the record,, I essentially agreed with your first post.
My comments we directed at the so called christian community that would accept and justify this bull$#@!.

It was wrong. It was wrong to invade these countries.. It was wrong to kill anyone in these countries.
It was wrong to recruit murderous $#@!s like Kyle and turn them loose on the people of those countries.

It was wrong. Don't try to justify or minimize,, or sugar coat it.. It was wrong and should be called out as such.

----------


## jmdrake

> The people were LIED TO. They were lied to by the President, ,they were lied to by the media.
> 
> And for the record,, I essentially agreed with your first post.
> My comments we directed at the so called christian community that would accept and justify this bull$#@!.
> 
> It was wrong. It was wrong to invade these countries.. It was wrong to kill anyone in these countries.
> It was wrong to recruit murderous $#@!s like Kyle and turn them loose on the people of those countries.
> 
> It was wrong. Don't try to justify or minimize,, or sugar coat it.. It was wrong and should be called out as such.


You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

^This.  And that's why 9/11 truth is an essential part of the liberty movement whether the rest of the liberty movement is willing to accept this or agree with it.  I initially supported the war in Afghanistan until I realized we were lied to.  Now, in retrospect, I can see the argument that even if we *weren't* lied to, the war itself was counterproductive and there's no way, that I can think of anyway, that it couldn't have been.  But I had to have the "fog of war" cleared from my head first to see that.

----------


## erowe1

> I think their citizens would demand that they do something to respond to the attacks.


Probably. But the politicians don't care about that kind of thing. They're gonna do what the big money wants, and they have shown multiple times that they have no trouble going against the desires of even the most overwhelming numbers of Americans to do so if necessary.

----------


## Brett85

> Why are you so stuck on the military?  Serious question.  You seem to understand the fact that the use of the military in Afghanistan made a bad situation *much* worse.  So....why still advocate that as the "correct" option?  Why include it at all?  I'm asking because I honestly don't get that.


Ok, I'm someone who believes in the concept of limited government.  I'm not for an interventionist foreign policy, but I believe that we have a right and an obligation to respond with military force when we get attacked.  This is not inconsistent with libertarianism, conservatism, or Christianity.  It goes back to the just war theory, that we have the right to use military action when we get attacked.  I believe in having a military, and for the most part I'm opposed to using our military in wars unless we've been attacked.  We were attacked on 9-11, which is a legitimate time to use military force, after a major attack on our soil.  Again, I'm not necessarily saying that going into Afghanistan was the "correct" option, just that it was one option.  As I said earlier, there were other options as well.  We could've done it in a more surgical way.  But I think that just saying that we shouldn't respond with military force at all after we've been attacked goes way beyond simply non interventionism and libertarianism.  I view that as being a pacifist attitude and don't believe that taking that position really has anything to do with either liberty or non intervention.

----------


## Brett85

> The people were LIED TO. They were lied to by the President, ,they were lied to by the media.
> 
> And for the record,, I essentially agreed with your first post.
> My comments we directed at the so called christian community that would accept and justify this bull$#@!.
> 
> It was wrong. It was wrong to invade these countries.. It was wrong to kill anyone in these countries.
> It was wrong to recruit murderous $#@!s like Kyle and turn them loose on the people of those countries.
> 
> It was wrong. Don't try to justify or minimize,, or sugar coat it.. It was wrong and should be called out as such.


I believe it's wrong to get involved in preemptive wars like the war in Iraq, when we haven't been attacked.  I don't believe it was wrong to use military action in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.  I view that as a form of self defense and a just war.  I don't believe that either Christianity or libertarianism demands that we do nothing when we get attacked.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ok, I'm someone who believes in the concept of limited government.  I'm not for an interventionist foreign policy, but I believe that we have a right and an obligation to respond with military force when we get attacked.


So even if a military response is the wrong response we have an obligation to respond with military force?  That makes no sense.  Okay let's pretend for a moment that God spoke to you directly and said "TC, if you intervene in Afghanistan using the military, it will end badly for the United States.  It doesn't matter what kind of military response you chose.  Any one will end badly for the United States."  Would you still think there was an *obligation* to respond militarily?  I'm guessing the answer is "no" but I could be wrong.

My point is that you need to step out of "I've got a hammer so that's got to be a nail" mode for a moment and evaluate each situation to see if in *that* case the military option makes sense.  I think I've explained sufficiently at this point why the military response with regards to Afghanistan and the Taliban made no sense.  Others have as well.  Why use a military option when Bush could have taken the Taliban up on its "neutral third party" option for instance?




> This is not inconsistent with libertarianism, conservatism, or Christianity.  It goes back to the just war theory, that we have the right to use military action when we get attacked.  I believe in having a military, and for the most part I'm opposed to using our military in wars unless we've been attacked.  We were attacked on 9-11, which is a legitimate time to use military force, after a major attack on our soil.  Again, I'm not necessary saying that going into Afghanistan was the "correct" option, just that it was one option.  As I said earlier, there were other options as well.  We could've done it in a more surgical way.  But I think that just saying that we shouldn't respond with military force at all after we've been attacked goes way beyond simply non interventionism and libertarianism.  I view that as being a pacifist attitude and don't believe that taking that position really has anything to do with either liberty or non intervention.


Again, why are you *stuck* on the military option?  Ross Perot got his employees out of Iran without relying on the U.S. military.  Jimmy Carter failed to rescue hostages using the U.S. military.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying "Well sure, maybe some non military option might have worked in Afghanistan, but we had to use the military because....well we're just obligated to use the military."

----------


## Brett85

> Currently, most Republicans probably fall under one of two broad categories regarding foreign policy.
> 
> 1. Those who believe that George W. Bush did the right thing with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, President Obama has not fought the War on Terror aggressively enough, and the threat of the Islamic State is justification enough to fight the same types of wars again if we must.
> 
> 2. Those who believe Iraq was probably a mistake, Afghanistan went on for too long and the threat of ISIS should be met with force, but should also not lead us to making the same kind of foreign policy mistakes.


http://rare.us/story/republicans-can...oreign-policy/

----------


## jmdrake

> I believe it's wrong to get involved in preemptive wars like the war in Iraq, when we haven't been attacked.  I don't believe it was wrong to use military action in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.  I view that as a form of self defense and a just war.  I don't believe that either Christianity or libertarianism demands that we do nothing when we get attacked.


If the truth finally comes out that the 9/11 attacks were like the 1993 WTC attacks where the FBI informant made the bomb that killed 7 Americans after he was forced to do so by the FBI, will you still hold that same opinion?

----------


## Brett85

I post that to say that I'm in the second camp.  Others here seem to be off the grid.

----------


## jmdrake

> http://rare.us/story/republicans-can...oreign-policy/


Yeah...it will take a while for it to sink in to the average Republican that the Afghan war was a mistake from the beginning as well.  It took a while for me to realize that too.  It took Ron Paul a little less time to realize that.  I believe Rand Paul realizes it but can't politically say it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I post that to say that I'm in the second camp.  Others here seem to be off the grid.


Well Ron Paul is "off the grid."  If you're safely on the "grid" of the deck of the Titanic is that a good place to be?

----------


## pcosmar

> We could've done it in a more surgical way.


Could have done what? 

Could have murdered a man that had nothing to do with the event.

How do you justify murdering a man with NO TRIAL? (based on accusations by known lairs)

----------


## otherone

> So even if a military response is the wrong response we have an obligation to respond with military force?


Your Chechnya comparison was apt.

----------


## Brett85

> If the truth finally comes out that the 9/11 attacks were like the 1993 WTC attacks where the FBI informant made the bomb that killed 7 Americans after he was forced to do so by the FBI, will you still hold that same opinion?


I wouldn't hold the same opinion if the 9/11 attacks were just entirely an inside job by the government.  But I don't believe the 1993 WTC attacks were deliberately carried out by the government, right?  It was basically just incompetence, that they had someone working under cover on the inside who simply allowed the plot to go on for too long.  It seems as though it was just an incident where the government was incompetent and didn't step in and arrest the terrorists, right?

----------


## Brett85

> It took Ron Paul a little less time to realize that.  I believe Rand Paul realizes it but can't politically say it.


I don't really believe that.  I think that Rand says what he believes for the most part.  I don't think he's quite as hardcore as Ron on staying out of foreign wars.

----------


## Brett85

> Could have done what? 
> 
> Could have murdered a man that had nothing to do with the event.
> 
> How do you justify murdering a man with NO TRIAL? (based on accusations by known lairs)


Were we supposed to put the Japanese government on trial after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor, rather than responding with military force?

----------


## jmdrake

> I wouldn't hold the same opinion if the 9/11 attacks were just entirely an inside job by the government.  But I don't believe the 1993 WTC attacks were deliberately carried out by the government, right?  It was basically just incompetence, that they had someone working under cover on the inside who simply allowed the plot to go on for too long.  It seems as though it was just an incident where the government was incompetent and didn't step in and arrest the terrorists, right?


Why are you so sure of that?  Have you ever read Operation Northwoods?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662

People at the highest levels of government wrote detailed plans to carry out terror attacks against the people of the U.S. in order to bolster support for a particular foreign policy agenda, and when a U.S. intelligence service gets caught red handed in a terrorist attack against the U.S. people like you assume that it *must* have been incompetence?  Why?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't really believe that.  I think that Rand says what he believes for the most part.  I don't think he's quite as hardcore as Ron on staying out of foreign wars.


Do you think Rand Paul now believes in man made global warming?  Because he voted for a resolution stating that.  Rand Paul is a politician and a damn good one.  He's not above stretching the truth for a political end.

----------


## jmdrake

> Were we supposed to put the Japanese government on trial after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor, rather than responding with military force?


Osama Bin Laden was part of what government?

----------


## Ender

> Were we supposed to put the Japanese government on trial after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor, rather than responding with military force?


The Japanese were forced into an attack when FDR sanctioned all their oil; he also knew when they were attacking and had the larger ships moved out of Pearl Harbor.

FDR wanted this so the Americans would agree to WWII- up until then the average American was against more war.

----------


## pcosmar

> Were we supposed to put the Japanese government on trial after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor, rather than responding with military force?


Not in any way comparable. Japan was a nation that sent warships to attack.

9/11 was NOT done by a nation,, there were no soldiers sent to attack..
Iraq did not send them. Afghanistan did not send them.
Afghanistan was not harboring anyone involved.
*
and your response did not answer the question*




> How do you justify murdering a man with NO TRIAL? (based on accusations by known lairs)


That is the question.

----------


## Brett85

> Osama Bin Laden was part of what government?


He was part of a foreign terrorist organization.

----------


## Brett85

> Not in any way comparable. Japan was a nation that sent warships to attack.
> 
> 9/11 was NOT done by a nation,, there were no soldiers sent to attack..
> Iraq did not send them. Afghanistan did not send them.
> Afghanistan was not harboring anyone involved.
> *
> and your response did not answer the question*
> 
> 
> ...


Osama Bin Laden had already admitted to being involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing from what I recall.  I don't see why that wouldn't be enough evidence for us to kill him even without direct evidence in his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you think Rand Paul now believes in man made global warming?  Because he voted for a resolution stating that.  Rand Paul is a politician and a damn good one.  He's not above stretching the truth for a political end.


It was just a resolution which said that human beings contribute to climate change.  Even if Rand only believes that human beings cause 1% of the total warming, his vote in favor of that resolution would've been an honest vote.

----------


## Brett85

> Why are you so sure of that?  Have you ever read Operation Northwoods?
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
> 
> People at the highest levels of government wrote detailed plans to carry out terror attacks against the people of the U.S. in order to bolster support for a particular foreign policy agenda, and when a U.S. intelligence service gets caught red handed in a terrorist attack against the U.S. people like you assume that it *must* have been incompetence?  Why?


I'm not "sure" of it.  I've just not seen any evidence that the U.S government actually intended for the 1993 WTC bombing to occur.

----------


## otherone

dup post

----------


## otherone

> He was part of a foreign terrorist organization.


Right. A criminal organization, like the Yakuza or Russian Mafia.
IRT to the Japanese, there was a formal declaration of war by the US government.  War has rules (ostensibly).  "Military action" does not.

War has particular objectives.  Military action does not.

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm not "sure" of it.  I've just not seen any evidence that the U.S government actually intended for the 1993 WTC bombing to occur.


Someone did. Someone furnished the Explosives,, the same someone that instigated the whole thing.

----------


## pcosmar

> Osama Bin Laden had already admitted to being involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing from what I recall.


Nope. He was wanted for some attacks in the Middle East. He attacked legitimate Military targets,, and was already wanted for that.
Basically,,he was a convenient patsy.

Even a criminal deserves a fair trial.

----------


## jmdrake

> Osama Bin Laden had already admitted to being involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing from what I recall.  I don't see why that wouldn't be enough evidence for us to kill him even without direct evidence in his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.


You don't recall correctly.  Source?  Osama Bin Laden was wanted for the embassy attacks in Africa.  In fact the FBI never put the 1993 WTC bombing or the 2001 attacks on his wanted poster.

----------


## Brett85

> Someone did. Someone furnished the Explosives,, the same someone that instigated the whole thing.


I know that someone furnished the explosives, but from what I understand it was basically an example of CIA agents "working under cover" to try to foil the plot to bomb the WTC building, and the CIA agents were incompetent and allowed it to go too far and allowed the attack to occur.  I was just asking for information, some documentation of some kind, that they actually wanted the attacks to occur, rather than simply messing up an operation.

----------


## jmdrake

For TC.  Tell me what you think of this video.

----------


## pcosmar

> I know that someone furnished the explosives, but from what I understand it was basically an example of CIA agents "working under cover" to try to foil the plot to bomb the WTC building, and the CIA agents were incompetent and allowed it to go too far and allowed the attack to occur.  I was just asking for information, some documentation of some kind, that they actually wanted the attacks to occur, rather than simply messing up an operation.


No It was another example of the FBI creating a plot to foil. There was no plot until they made a plot and recruited players. Then they supplied the means.

----------


## jmdrake

> I know that someone furnished the explosives, but from what I understand it was basically an example of CIA agents "working under cover" to try to foil the plot to bomb the WTC building, and the CIA agents were incompetent and allowed it to go too far and allowed the attack to occur.  I was just asking for information, some documentation of some kind, that they actually wanted the attacks to occur, rather than simply messing up an operation.


1) It wasn't CIA, it was FBI.

2) The FBI informant specifically asked to use harmless powder and was instead specifically instructed to use real explosives.

What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to jump through to chalk that up to "incompetence?"  Why benefit could their possibly be to using real explosives in this case?  And why was nobody in the FBI prosecuted for manslaughter?  That's the proper charge when reckless "incompetence" leads to an innocent person dying.

----------


## Brett85

> 2) The FBI informant specifically asked to use harmless powder and was instead specifically instructed to use real explosives.
> 
> What kind of mental gymnastics do you have to jump through to chalk that up to "incompetence?"  Why benefit could their possibly be to using real explosives in this case?  And why was nobody in the FBI prosecuted for manslaughter?  That's the proper charge when reckless "incompetence" leads to an innocent person dying.


I don't know that it's the case that it was incompetence, just that it could've been.  I haven't researched the issue that much and don't know all of the details.  I agree that people in the FBI should've been prosecuted even if it were only reckless incompetence.

----------


## jmdrake

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13664.htm
_FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

By Ed Haas

06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1]  In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” 

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.” 

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. 

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. 

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.” 

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you? 

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI? 

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse? 

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?
No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it. 

Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the Muckraker Report. Get smart. Read the Muckraker Report. http://teamliberty.net

NOTES
[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May 31, 2006] 

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/..._bt630-01.html, [Accessed June 5, 2006] 

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed June 5, 2006] 

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/1...aden.videotape, [Accessed June 5, 2006]_

----------


## Brett85

> For TC.  Tell me what you think of this video.


It seemed like it was kind of hard to follow.  I know there have been other times when Osama Bin Laden claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/in...aCND.html?_r=0

----------


## pcosmar

> It seemed like it was kind of hard to follow.  I know there have been other times when Osama Bin Laden claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/in...aCND.html?_r=0


No,,there were some phony Bin Laden tapes that were produced for that purpose. They have been thoroughly debunked.

----------


## jmdrake

> It seemed like it was kind of hard to follow.  I know there have been other times when Osama Bin Laden claimed credit for the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/in...aCND.html?_r=0


There is good reason to believe those "confessions" were from faked videos.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...osamatape.html

But let's assume that was real.  From 9/11 through when the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan, Osama denied responsibility for 9/11.  The "confession" video was "found" by U.S. troops in an Afghanistan cave.  So....how was the Taliban supposed to know about this supposed confession *before* the invasion of Afghanistan?  You can't use information gleaned after the Taliban was overthrown against the Taliban on the question of why didn't the Taliban turn OBL over immediately instead of asking for evidence.

----------


## Brett85

> But let's assume that was real.  From 9/11 through when the U.S. first invaded Afghanistan, Osama denied responsibility for 9/11.  The "confession" video was "found" by U.S. troops in an Afghanistan cave.  So....how was the Taliban supposed to know about this supposed confession *before* the invasion of Afghanistan?  You can't use information gleaned after the Taliban was overthrown against the Taliban on the question of why didn't the Taliban turn OBL over immediately instead of asking for evidence.


We already had evidence that he was involved in the embassy attacks in Africa.  He was on the FBI 10 most wanted list.  That should've been enough for the Taliban to turn him over to us.

----------


## pcosmar

> We already had evidence that he was involved in the embassy attacks in Africa.  He was on the FBI 10 most wanted list.  That should've been enough for the Taliban to turn him over to us.


Actually they did. They had given his location and go ahead for a strike against him.

The US did not want Bin Laden.. they wanted Afghanistan.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle26410.htm
There were talks with the Taliban about turning over bin Laden before 9/11 even happened.
The Taliban wanted the US to take him.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B325/doc01.pdf  (Documents declassified in 2010)

----------


## jmdrake

> We already had evidence that he was involved in the embassy attacks in Africa.  He was on the FBI 10 most wanted list.  That should've been enough for the Taliban to turn him over to us.


Except we didn't invade Sudan when he was living there.  Also....what's wrong with an extradition hearing?  That's what normally happens in these situations.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually they did. They had given his location and go ahead for a strike against him.
> 
> The US did not want Bin Laden.. they wanted Afghanistan.
> http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle26410.htm
> There were talks with the Taliban about turning over bin Laden before 9/11 even happened.
> The Taliban wanted the US to take him.
> 
> http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...B325/doc01.pdf  (Documents declassified in 2010)


I learn something new everyday.

----------

