Ted Cruz: We ought to bomb ISIS back to the stone age

[tangent4ronpaul]

You may not be a neocon but you sure sound like one with your fear mongering as an excuse to go to war. I asked before so I'll try and ask again. Why do you want to bomb ISIS so bad? If they are as scary as you and, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers and the MSM say they are, then why are the neighboring countries doing nothing? Israel bombs Lebanon and Syria whenever it feels threatened by them yet they haven't bombed ISIS? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey gets billions of dollars in military equipment from us. Why have they not bombed them? Why do you feel that it up to us to bomb them TC? Is it because we are the policemen of the world?

Just to throw something out there... a F16 costs 3 million dollars. The payload of smart munitions hanging under it's wings generally costs more than the aircraft...

-t

 

[Brett85]

You may not be a neocon but you sure sound like one with your fear mongering as an excuse to go to war. I asked before so I'll try and ask again. Why do you want to bomb ISIS so bad? If they are as scary as you and, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers and the MSM say they are, then why are the neighboring countries doing nothing? Israel bombs Lebanon and Syria whenever it feels threatened by them yet they haven't bombed ISIS? Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey gets billions of dollars in military equipment from us. Why have they not bombed them? Why do you feel that it up to us to bomb them TC? Is it because we are the policemen of the world?

A lot of the countries you mentioned actually financially support ISIS, like Saudia Arabia. They certainly aren't going to bomb ISIS. We need to cut off all foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. It's insane to give money to a country that's then going to turn around and give that money to ISIS.

 

[RDM]

Not necessarily. I think it would be better to try to form a world coalition to try to stop the rise of ISIS. Of course that's always easier said than done.

How do you suggest we do that? Have you seen who's behind ISIS?

The former NSA and CIA agent Edward Snowden revealed that the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi was trained in Israel, various Iranien sources reported.
Snowden added that the American CIA and the British Intelligence collaborated with the Israeli Mossad to create a terrorist organization that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place, using a strategy called “the hornet’s nest”.
The “Hornet’s nest’’ strategy aims to bring all the major threats to one place in order to track them, and mostly to shake the stability of the Arab countries. The NSA agent revealed that the ISIS “Calif”, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi went trough intense military training in the Israeli intelligence “Mossad”.
Besides military training, Al Baghdadi studied communication and public speaking skills in order to attract “terrorists” from all the corners of the world.
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), an independent non-profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada, which focuses on research and media, relayed a story about this as well, adding that “three countries created a terrorist organisation that is able to attract all extremists of the world to one place,” using the aforementioned “the hornet’s nest” strategy.
“The only solution for the protection of the Jewish state is to create an enemy near its borders,” Snowden was reported to say. http://moroccantimes.com/2014/07/ns...rabu-bakr-al-baghdadi-trained-israeli-mossad/

The Pro-Zionists will fight you on this:

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, so-called ”Caliph,” the head of ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant is, according to sources reputed to originate from Edward Snowden, an actor named Elliot Shimon, a Mossad trained operative.
-
Simon Elliot (Elliot Shimon) aka Al-Baghdadi was born of two Jewish parents and is a Mossad agent. We offer below three translations that want to assert that the Caliph Al-Baghdadi is a full Mossad agent and that he was born Jewish father and mother:
-
The real name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is “Simon Elliott.” The so-called “Elliot” was recruited by the Israeli Mossad and was trained in espionage and psychological warfare against Arab and Islamic societies.
-
This information was attributed to Edward Snowden and published by newspapers and other Web sites: the head of the “Islamic State” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has cooperated with the U.S. Secret Service, British and Israel to create an organization capable of attracting terrorist extremists from around the world. http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/french-report-isilisis-leader-al-baghdadi-jewish-mossad-agent/

 

[Brett85]

@RDM-That's insane if true. Maybe we should just do what Tod Evans suggested and send all of our politicians over to Iraq to fight ISIS. They're the ones who created ISIS with their ridiculous policies.

 

[mac_hine]

I've often wondered, Why hasn't Israel ever been attacked by al Qaeda or ISIS? Why haven't either of these groups come to the aid of the Palestinians? Could it be because they are run by the CIA / British Intelligence / Mossad?

 

[RDM]

I've often wondered, Why hasn't Israel ever been attacked by al Qaeda or ISIS? Why haven't either of these groups come to the aid of the Palestinians? Could it be because they are run by the CIA / British Intelligence / Mossad?

 

[Brett85]

The main reason why I'm taking this position is because I want to stop ISIS from launching a terrorist attack against us, because I think that if they're able to launch a successful attack against us, you'll see a dramatic expansion of the police state that we've never seen before. The American people will willingly give up all of their liberty if we get attacked, and the liberties that we still have left will be gone. We won't have any amount of freedom, liberty, or privacy left. I think that we're less likely to get attacked if we can take out their infrastructure, specifically their command and control infrastructure in Syria. It would make it harder to launch an attack against us if their infrastructure was destroyed. So I'm in favor of stopping future terrorist attacks coming from this group, because if they succeed in attacking us, every single ounce of liberty that we have now will be gone. I don't want to see that happen, so in this one instance I'm willing to say that targeted air strikes now are a better option than a much wider war later and the dramatic expansion of the police state in America. The American people will demand a massive police state if this group attacks us.

 

[georgiaboy]

TC, sorry, but all the rationales you've stated thus far just ring hollow and tired. I feel like I've read all of them before over the years from others. It's broken record syndrome, but it's strange coming from you.

There is just nothing about this current situation that is any different from what we've seen in recent history, and all of those situations do nothing but continue to cost all sides lives and money over and over again.

Enough is enough already.

I'm simply at a loss for why you can't see this this time as well.

Or even worse, maybe you can? That would be even more concerning.

 

[Brett85]

There is just nothing about this current situation that is any different from what we've seen in recent history, and all of those situations do nothing but continue to cost all sides lives and money over and over again.

So you really don't see any difference between targeted air strikes in this situation, and say the all out invasion and subsequent occupation of both Vietnam and Iraq? I can see how you can oppose the air strikes, but I don't see how you don't see the difference between this and those previous interventions.

 

[Brett85]

And I have to say that I really don't even consider it to be intervention when we kill people who are trying to kill us. It's nothing more than an act of self defense. If someone walks up to you and holds a gun to your head, you have the right to defend yourself and kill that person before he kills you.

 

[MaxHen]

And I have to say that I really don't even consider it to be intervention when we kill people who are trying to kill us. It's nothing more than an act of self defense. If someone walks up to you and holds a gun to your head, you have the right to defend yourself and kill that person before he kills you.

A better comparison would be a member of the mafia in a country millions of miles away threatening your life, and you responding by bombing his house, with no concern for those who live near him or retaliation against you from the mafia he works for.

 

[bolil]

I don't see how supporting one intervention makes one pro war. I mean, if I oppose 99 out of 100 interventions, but support one limited intervention with air strikes, that somehow makes me some warmongering neocon? I'm opposed to intervening for humanitarian reasons, but I support defending our country and responding to national security threats, and I think it's getting to the point where ISIS poses a direct and present threat to U.S national security.

But you would take measures that would harm and not kill the organization. Kick a hornets nest because they pose a threat to the garage. See how it works.

 

[twomp]

The main reason why I'm taking this position is because I want to stop ISIS from launching a terrorist attack against us, because I think that if they're able to launch a successful attack against us, you'll see a dramatic expansion of the police state that we've never seen before. The American people will willingly give up all of their liberty if we get attacked, and the liberties that we still have left will be gone. We won't have any amount of freedom, liberty, or privacy left. I think that we're less likely to get attacked if we can take out their infrastructure, specifically their command and control infrastructure in Syria. It would make it harder to launch an attack against us if their infrastructure was destroyed. So I'm in favor of stopping future terrorist attacks coming from this group, because if they succeed in attacking us, every single ounce of liberty that we have now will be gone. I don't want to see that happen, so in this one instance I'm willing to say that targeted air strikes now are a better option than a much wider war later and the dramatic expansion of the police state in America. The American people will demand a massive police state if this group attacks us.

Again, if you what you were saying had any ounce of truth and didn't reek of pure propaganda then Israel would have delivered their own air strikes already. They have the biggest stick in that neighborhood and they don't seem to have much concern over ISIS. Yet, here you are TC all the way over here, thousands of miles away freaking out that ISIS will become so powerful that they can stop the world from traveling. Then, you say that air strikes will be all that is needed to stop them. If they were that powerful, how can only air strikes stop them? We need a full on invasion for peace and harmony in the world!

 

[extortion17]

I would still point out that any military action taken against ISIS needs to be approved by Congress. The President doesn't have the Constitutional authority to just bomb whoever he wants to whenever he wants to.

Exactly . . .

we should keep in mind that the enemy is in more than just Iraq and Syria . . . ISIS is NOT how they should be referred to
(and avoid the biblical neocon evangelical fanaticism of the word isis - that is horsesheeet)

A formal declaration of war would have to specify them as ISIL (per the enemies preferred name for themselves - (داعش) (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/)), btw - imho

US Senators vote . . . if Rand votes Yea or Nay it is up to him and the people of the great state
of Kentucky as his constituents as to how he votes for that formal declaration.











.

 

[extortion17]

I thought non Americans could not run for POTUS

Canadian-born US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) can not take the Oath of Office as President (or Vice-President either -actually)

sometin' about that letter from John Jay to delegate George Washington in the summer of 1787 (it was July 1787 btw)
that will haunt Cruz . . . Cruz can "run" and be part of the circus on the stage at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley for the debates.

Interestingly, the Constitutional Convention was going to implement that same rule for the Senators . . . it got voted down in 1787 -
there was a certain delegate from Scotland on the Pennsylvania delegation - they thought he'd be a good Senator.

But as the Commander-In- Chief . . . you can not be born in foreign waters (or airspace) or even at a hospital in Panama, whether on base or off base.

So the joker could never have been POTUS btw






.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

But you would take measures that would harm and not kill the organization. Kick a hornets nest because they pose a threat to the garage. See how it works.

Again, if you what you were saying had any ounce of truth and didn't reek of pure propaganda then Israel would have delivered their own air strikes already. They have the biggest stick in that neighborhood and they don't seem to have much concern over ISIS. Yet, here you are TC all the way over here, thousands of miles away freaking out that ISIS will become so powerful that they can stop the world from traveling. Then, you say that air strikes will be all that is needed to stop them. If they were that powerful, how can only air strikes stop them? We need a full on invasion for peace and harmony in the world!

They are concentrated in a limited number of areas. We could nuke them but the collateral damage and blowback would be devastating. It would stop them in their tracks, though. Or, like I sarcastically said before - we should send the next ebola pt back home via the more scenic eastern route and hope we get lucky. Plausible deniability doesn't get better than this, and epidemic spread is going to be limited in that kind of an environment... So is effectiveness. I'm more worried about some of them deliberately infecting themselves and hopping on planes for here before they show symptoms.

Canadian-born US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) can not take the Oath of Office as President (or Vice-President either -actually)

sometin' about that letter from John Jay to delegate George Washington in the summer of 1787 (it was July 1787 btw)
that will haunt Cruz . . . Cruz can "run" and be part of the circus on the stage at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley for the debates.

Interestingly, the Constitutional Convention was going to implement that same rule for the Senators . . . it got voted down in 1787 -
there was a certain delegate from Scotland on the Pennsylvania delegation - they thought he'd be a good Senator.

But as the Commander-In- Chief . . . you can not be born in foreign waters (or airspace) or even at a hospital in Panama, whether on base or off base.

So the joker could never have been POTUS btw






.

Actually, foreign embassies and military bases including ships flying under a particular flag are considered soil of that country. So McCain was born on US soil unless he was delivered off base.

-t

 

[extortion17]

. . .

Actually, foreign embassies and military bases including ships flying under a particular flag are considered soil of that country. So McCain was born on US soil unless he was delivered off base.

-t

Not true . . . read State Department ruling on US citizens persons born on ship, in the air, and on military bases -
i.e if the wife gives birth on Lufthansa is the child-brat a natural born German citizen ?

The United States Supreme Court is quite clear on what is "native" born - McCain was a U.S.citizen of course,
and of course trashed five planes as a shithole pilot, but Johnny McCain was not native born and there was nothing he could do about it - never ever.

He was born off-base anyway, although a Navy doctor signed the birth certificate - the actual site of McCain's birth (?) you ask. . .
Well, the hospital was replaced by condos . . . very lovely actually.

The reasons for the native requirement established by John Jay and George Washington was in regards to foreign allegiance . . .
it is the same problem indirectly that Catholics like JFK might have -
the MIC thinks of some allegiance to the Vatican as a foreign allegiance.

Cruz as a constitutional lawyer knows he goes no further than the United States Senate . . . and he needs to learn to shut up !!

(داعش) (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/) is already in Washington DC fwiw

 

[Brett85]

Then, you say that air strikes will be all that is needed to stop them. If they were that powerful, how can only air strikes stop them? We need a full on invasion for peace and harmony in the world!

I'm not in favor of sending in ground troops to fight because of all the damage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done to our military. I've seen too many pictures of soldiers with their arms and legs blown off to want to get involved in another full fledged war with ground troops. I don't want to get thousands more of our troops maimed and killed. If we aren't able to stop ISIS with are strikes, and they come through our porous border and invade us, then I guess we'll just have to fight them here at home. They'll face tough resistance going up against tens of millions of Americans with semi automatic weapons. This is why defending the 2nd Amendment is so important.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not in favor of sending in ground troops to fight because of all the damage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have done to our military. I've seen too many pictures of soldiers with their arms and legs blown off to want to get involved in another full fledged war with ground troops. I don't want to get thousands more of our troops maimed and killed. If we aren't able to stop ISIS with are strikes, and they come through our porous border and invade us, then I guess we'll just have to fight them here at home. They'll face tough resistance going up against tens of millions of Americans with semi automatic weapons. This is why defending the 2nd Amendment is so important.

Much as I agree with the principle here WRT the 2nd amendment, ISIS is not going to invade the US.

 

[twomp]

Much as I agree with the principle here WRT the 2nd amendment, ISIS is not going to invade the US.

Agreed. Nor will they "take over the Middle East." They are just a propaganda tool used by the media and MIC to scaring the American people into supporting more war and bloodshed. Those countries in the Middle East have been armed to the teeth by the tax payers over here, they are more than capable of defending themselves against ISIS despite the fear mongering TC and the media have been trying to tell everyone.