I thought I held grudges...

Nope... just putting some background out there to help you understand where I am coming from.

GG has a talent I will never match, and if there's a chance of influencing your support for the next "humanitarian war" it is worth my effort.

If any others happen to read it too... bonus!

A

:-)

I'm not up on posting links yet, so here's a bit by Glenn Greenwald from The Intercept that flows nicely with the neolibcon foreign policy discussion we had the other day.

TI on 9/13/15
“The countries that cooperate with us get at least a free pass,” acknowledged a senior U.S. official who specializes in Africa but spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution. “Whereas other countries that don’t cooperate, we ream them as best we can.”

The Post article went on to note that the Bush administration “took the same approach,” and that while “many U.S. diplomats and human-rights groups had hoped Obama would shift his emphasis in Africa from security to democracy … that has not happened.” In fact, “‘There’s pretty much been no change at all,’ the official said. ‘In the end, it was an almost seamless transition from Bush to Obama.'”

The italicized portion of the quote explains the crux of feigned U.S. concerns for human rights abuses: It’s never genuine, never anything more than a weapon cynically exploited to advance U.S. interests. The U.S. loves human-rights-abusing regimes and always has, provided they “cooperate”: meaning, honor U.S. dictates. On human rights abuses, such compliant regimes “get at least a free pass”: at least, meaning either passive acquiescence or active support. The only time the U.S. government pretends to care in the slightest about human rights abuses is when they’re carried out by “countries that don’t cooperate,” in which case those flamboyant objections to abuses are used by U.S. officials as punishment for disobedience: to “ream them as best we can.”

This is not remotely new, of course, nor should it be even slightly surprising for people who pay minimal attention to the role of the U.S. government in the world. But this nonetheless highlights what baffles me most about U.S. political discourse: how — whenever it’s time to introduce the next “humanitarian war” or other forms of attack against the latest Evil Dictator or Terrorist Group of the Moment — so many otherwise intelligent and well-reasoning people are willing to believe that the U.S. government is motivated by opposition to human rights abuses and oppression.

Support for human rights abuses and tyranny — not opposition to it — is a staple of U.S. foreign policy. Standing alone: how can anyone believe that the same government that lavishes the Saudi regime with arms, surveillance capabilities and intelligence is waging war or using other forms of violence in order to stop human rights abuses? (Read this informative New York Times article today describing the central role played by the U.S. government in the ongoing, truly heinous slaughter of Yemeni civilians by its close Saudi ally, consistent with the months of Yemen-based reporting done by The Intercept on these atrocities.)

If one wants to spout the Kissingerian “realist” view that only U.S. interests matter and human rights abuses are irrelevant, then fine: One can make that argument cogently and honestly if amorally. But to take seriously U.S. rhetoric on human rights abuses and freedom — we’re going to war against or otherwise sternly opposing these monstrous human-rights abusers — is totally mystifying in light of U.S. actions. The next time you’re tempted to do that, just read what U.S. officials, in their rare, candid moments, themselves say about how they cynically concoct and exploit human rights concerns.

Aside from accuracy for its own sake, this most matters because of what it means for proposed American “humanitarian wars.” Even if you accept the extremely dubious proposition that the U.S. could manipulate political outcomes for the better with bombs and military force in complex, faraway countries, it utterly lacks the desire, the will, to do that; it wants only to ensure those outcomes serve its interests, which more often than not means supporting despotism or, at best, chaos and disorder.

That’s why the feigned U.S. concern for humanitarianism in Libya — we are so very eager to protect the Libyan People from abuse and tyranny and bring them freedom –– extended only to dropping bombs on that country and completely disappeared the moment that fun, glorious part was over. Even though it’s self-satisfying to believe your government is some sort of crusader for human rights and freedom, it’s not asking too much to just be as honest about U.S. exploitation of human rights concerns as this “senior U.S. official” was when talking to the Washington Post"

OK. So that was actually most of the article... but I would urge you to go to The Intercept to read the rest... to follow the links mentioned in the article... and just in general if you do not already do so.

Just to clarify, when I said I was a realist, I absolutely did NOT mean one of the Kissengerian variety.

A

Like I pointed out to Micha, y'all are very, very polite.

Given how long CW has been at it, how hard he works, and the quality of his product... not to mention the regular exposure on HP... I find it troubling that there are only a handful of people who comment here regularly.

It would certainly be a lot less monochromatic here with more voices participating... and more rewarding for CW.

I remain unconvinced.
It may be in the "too polite" realm.
Expanding on an old saying, disagreeing without being disagreeable, delusional and dishonest would be far preferable.
And none of those qualities falls into the "good guy" category in my book.

We shall see how it goes.

A

But, you'd probably have to make mine a double ... if you know what I mean and I'm sure y'all do.

:-)

Michael is not bad guy. His mission, as I interpret it, is to provide the dissenting voice around these parts. Without him, CW.com would be a lot more monochromatic, which would be boring. His style is blunt, and sometimes I'm blunt back. Uh, often I'm blunt back. We often disagree on what constitutes a fact as opposed to an opinion. These are not enough reason to for me to get genuinely mad at him.

M reminds of a close friend who I have managed to remain a close friend of for 30+ years, in spite of diametrically opposite politics.

I'd probably enjoy drinking beer with Michael, but FL is far away and somebody has to feed the cat and change the litter.

Yeah, that's what I was asking. Nicknames are good and I hope you two do break through the barriers. I think the trick is trying always to narrow the conversation ... the narrower it gets, the more enlightening it gets.

The only other blog I participate in prefers that we address each other by our last names using Mr or the dreaded Ms. I'm still trying to get used to Ms Miller. Argh! I tried to be a rebel for a while, calling everyone by their first name (we all use our real first and last names, I am assuming) but, lately, I have succumbed to the party line, so to speak. :)

"I'll just say that the "sunny side of 60" is closer to 50".

I see.
Learn something new every day.
It's a little vague, but I guess that makes sense with a negative perspective on aging. And it is more upbeat than "the dark side of 50".

In any case, memory problems at "closer to 50" would be even more troubling.

"Do you think Michale is a girl or a Russian?"

Well, his false accusations and lying about what I've written make his comments childish... and in general they do give off a rather juvenile vibe (when I first read some of them an image of a teenage girl popped into my head for some reason)...

... but, no, not a girl and not a Russian..

If you're asking me why I call him Micha, well, he considers himself my friend and calls me Big Al, so I believe a nickname for him is an appropriate response to really try and crack through the ideological barriers between us... and maybe... eventually... the other barriers he keeps erecting.

In case you haven't noticed, I have a genetic predisposition to rooting for the underdog.

Perhaps I misunderstood this from Micha

Do you think Michale is a girl or a Russian? :)

Perhaps I misunderstood this from Micha- comment 97 on the Iran Deal?

"I am approaching the sunny side of 60 (one more in 22 days :D) and it's doubtful I could change even if I wanted to..."

59?
61?

I thought I understood what he was saying the first time I read it... now I'm not so sure.

A

60? WHAT!? ... no, I don't think so!

You wrote

"Do you know how I have lasted here so long??"

TS answered quite nicely above, but I think CW's tolerance of you despite losing commenters should be emphasized... because the "many, many" (according to you Micha) who have left because they couldn't tolerate your troll-like behavior is a burden he must bear.

"Do you know why there is that mutual respect that I told you about before??"

Have you considered that tolerance and respect do not necessarily go hand in hand, and/or that maybe I'm just not as polite as the good people here? Because they are being very, very polite.

I would also suspect that the people who have left because of you would laugh at that "mutual" whopper. But that may just be me, because I'll only give respect if I get it. You may have noticed, so far at least, that includes everyone here but you.

"Do you know why I can have informative and intelligent debates with practically every Weigantian here?? Liz, JL, David, TS, even CW..."

I've only seen you insist that you were right, but maybe you think that qualifies as debate/intelligent/informative, or maybe I just haven't been here long enough to see it.

"Because practically every Weigantian that actually can debate issues attacks what I say rather than attacks me personally...."

Why ask the question if you're going to answer it yourself?
Anyway, I haven't been here that long and I've already seen two others point out you were lying, one accusation of being taken out of context, two who called you a troll, and a fair amount of disbelief.
In other words, what you consider an attack, may actually just be a statement of fact.

You may also want to consider that your misinterpretations are causing you to jump to false conclusions.

There are other possibilities to discuss about these so-called attacks if you want to get specific and cite them individually.

"If you have any hope of being accepted here, you need to learn that"

As I understand it, you don't get to make that decision.
If someone delegates that authority to you, you won't even have to ask me to leave.

Lastly, we get to the "I'm still waiting" list...

So, since I already answered the questions and I've already told you I won't answer them again, here are a few possibilities as I see it... there may be others-

- you really are having memory problems... in which case you should consider my concern to be genuine, because that would be very troubling for someone who is only 60... and you are in denial about the problem and therefore refuse to go back and read what I've written.
- you are having memory problems, and you're too lazy to go back and read what I've written.
- you are choosing not to remember what I've written or go back to check because you're trying to weasel out of the apology you promised me.
- you are trying to distract from the issues I've raised since and the questions you've left unanswered for some reason.

The body camera question is a new addition... from an older thread?

I'm going to hold off answering that one until you respond to the comments you've been avoiding with your broken record shtick.

Apparently Micha is wrong yet again.

Note that my definition of terrorism is worded "initiating or maintaining." The slaves are the hostages at which the Plantation Class directs the violence. The policy being shaped is government non-interference with the status quo slave system. The Governments being pressured are both the slave state governments, which are heavily dominated by the Plantation Class (who are in fact a small fraction of voting citizens), and the Federal Government, which is split evenly on the issue (by design).

The fact that the Plantation Class is directing violence at its own assets is somewhat atypical, as is the fact that the Plantation Class is politically very powerful, and terrorism is often viewed as a tool of weaker governments. However, Stalin directed his terror at his own assets (citizens) as did Mao during the Cultural Revolution.

All in all, I find this a virtue of my definition, not a flaw. Models with broad applicability are called "robust."

Since you state that slavery was terrorism and you concede that the KKK was an unofficial arm of the Democrat Party, then the only possible conclusion is that the Democrat Party was a terrorist organization...

OK... I can live with that.. :D

Michale

Was the intent to terrorize so as to effect a political, economical or ideological change???

No it wasn't...

Ergo, it wasn't terrorism..

Michale

Agreed... :D

Michale

Mutual tolerance of the mutually intolerant by the mutual intolerant. That's pretty much how the system works around here. :-)

It's recess for adults :-)

Welcome aboard Altone. Here's your patch, here's your hook, here's plank. It's quite a crew.

Slavery was legally defined at both the Federal and State levels. Slaves were held hostage to their own lack of ANY political power. Any attempt to assert power, a political act, was subject to savage physical reprisals up to and including torture, mutilation and death, all served up at the whim of the owner or the owner's subordinates, without any due process. This system was about as naked a form of institutionalized terrorism as you can get. The nakedness was somewhat covered by the acreage and isolation of the large plantations.

But, there's more! The institution was backed by the southern militia system. So, when things got out of hand during the Nat Turner Rebellion, the terror got very public and ugly. 200 blacks were summarily murdered by militia and mobs. Turner was hanged, drawn, quartered and flayed. Public terror with a political message... This is what's waiting for you if you step out of line. We hold you, we hold your friends, we hold your families. Have a nice day y'all.

States sponsored terrorism was gradually revived to support Aparteid Ameican Style in the Post Reconstruction Period. Black voting was almost totally repressed. Terror was administered in the form of lynchings directed at blacks and white Republicans. The Ku Klux Klan was founded by prominent southern citizens (Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Gordon) and officially tolerated to the extent that membership peaked at around 3-6 million. It is not unfair to say the Klan was an unofficial arm of the southern Democratic Party.

I'm using my "Barnie Fief Bullet" to present a list of prominent KKK members http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-ku-klux-klan-members/user-x

Do you know how I have lasted here so long??

Do you know why there is that mutual respect that I told you about before??

Do you know why I can have informative and intelligent debates with practically every Weigantian here?? Liz, JL, David, TS, even CW...

Because practically every Weigantian that actually can debate issues attacks what I say rather than attacks me personally....

If you have any hope of being accepted here, you need to learn that...

Having said that, I am still waiting for you to point to acts of terrorism committed by the government of the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia..

I am still waiting for you to state whether Obama is a terrorist or not..

I am still waiting for you to admit you were wrong when you said police lapel-cams benefit "everyone"...

Still waiting, but I am sure you won't address any of that. Because they prove how utterly contemptible and erroneous your statements really are...

Michale

Obviously the wingnuttery isn't the only condition that falls into the early-onset category. I've read that memory loss can be very hard on your loved ones too.

You should try taking some ginkgo biloba.

"It's good for memory... and I forget what else"- Analyze That

It really pains me that you can't locate my previous comments that show you are lying once again. As the senior (no pun intended) member of this community I would think you'd know how to handle the task even in the state you are in... but then, you'd actually have to apologize for being wrong, so I get that there may be a subconscious disincentive.

But, I'm not the least bit surprised you justify your dishonesty and lack of integrity with an ethically challenged "they do it too" argument.

You've used it before after all.
I can't believe they let you get away with that crap in the military... or were you lying about that too?

The false accusations remain pathetic though.

As for your ever changing definition of terrorism, where the delivery method affecting the definition was obviously implied though not spelled out in the definition you provided, maybe you could enumerate anything else that is supposedly implied?
We can't really have you twisting into a pretzel until we nail down the definition.

And do try to remember that I haven't seen the comments you've written before I came here and dishonestly pretend otherwise.
Maybe it would help if you left yourself a note?

heh :D

The institution of slavery in the United States, and post Civil War Jim Crow laws, were a rather ugly form of State Sponsored Terrorism.

Not really...

You seem to be falling into the trap that anything and everything bad MUST be terrorism..

Katrina was "bad" and a lot of people died and a lot of people were terrified...

That doesn't make Katrina an act of terrorism..

In the case of slavery and intelligence agencies, intent is the overriding factor...

Michale

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Quite a bit of behavior that meets my criteria of terrorism gets implemented through intelligence agencies. The Russians have a long history of this, and they are keeping up the practice in the Ukraine and domestically with anybody who seriously challenges Lord Putin.

It's not just the Russians though, France, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom and the US have all arguably engaged in covert terrorism, or come uncomfortably close.

The institution of slavery in the United States, and post Civil War Jim Crow laws, were a rather ugly form of State Sponsored Terrorism. The Klan was an arm of state sponsored terrorism.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Quite a bit of behavior that meets my criteria of terrorism gets implemented through intelligence agencies. The Russians have a long history of this, and they are keeping up the practice in the Ukraine and domestically with anybody who seriously challenges Lord Putin.

It's not just the Russians though, France, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel,

That ranks right up there with the moronic-ness and stoopidity of the claim "One mans's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.."

I assume you just meant that tongue in cheek or as just pushing my buttons. :D

Michale

I am not "amending" anything.. I stated at the time that it was the delivery method that determined the Pentagon attack as a terrorist attack..

Again, you seem to have comprehension issues..

I'm not answering your stupid questions a third time just because you are too lazy to go back and read the original responses.

You SAYING you addressed the questions doesn't change the fact that you never have..

Point to the incidents of terrorist attacks committed by the governments of the US, Israel or Saudi Arabia..

You can use my definition or TS's definition...

Just answer the damn question..

Your apparent lack of integrity and honesty is unbecoming of someone with the "experience" you claim to have.

Yer questioning of my integrity and honesty is really rich, since you are the guy who within minutes of being part of the community started calling me a racist and demanded that the commenting policies be changed because you didn't like what I had to say.. :D

Oh, and one more question..

Is Obama a terrorist or not??

Michale

I used your definition to question your interpretation. In other words, I accepted your definition as sufficient for the discussion, so there was no need to waste my time... but TS still covered the topic more accurately... and it still doesn't change the fact that when pressed by TS, your certainty became vague.

And now you're amending your "definition" further due to the delivery method, and claiming everybody from our former presidents to the media were wrong because only your interpretation of your definition is right.
Perhaps you should consider that your definition and interpretation sucks... or is at the very least incomplete or not widely accepted in actual usage?

Your failure to grasp English and reality is shocking, but your petty weaseling is just par for the course.

You claim to have said things that don't appear in any comments I've seen, and claim not to know what I've written in my comments despite you responding to them.

I'm not answering your stupid questions a third time just because you are too lazy to go back and read the original responses.

Your apparent lack of integrity and honesty is unbecoming of someone with the "experience" you claim to have.

You like to quote from A Few Good Men, and yet you are seemingly oblivious to which character in the movie you are playing here.

Speaking even more of "skipping things"...

Is Obama a terrorist or not???

I see you ducked that question yet again...

Ya know, if yer gonna complain about others, you should make sure your own house is in order...

Just some friendly advice.. :D

Michale

You have a definition of terrorism in hand that you "like"... Granted, you had to sponge it off of TS, but I'll let that slide..

Since we now know what YOU... or rather, what TS thinks is terrorism, you can now point to me alleged terrorist acts committed by the governments of the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia..

I'll be here all day.. :D

Michale

Says the guy who can't address the facts of the BLM racist group and can't come up with any supporting facts of his own..

Yep.. Amused is a good word.. :D

Michale

You're right... maybe tizzy isn't the right word for falling over yourself in a frenzied fashion.
What word would you suggest?

Amused.... :D

Michale

I have already stated that, if not for the choice of delivery methods, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon would not have been a terrorist attack..

There is your infamous comprehension (or lack thereof) at work again.. :D

The USS Cole bombing?
Khobar Towers bombing?

Neither were terrorist attacks, though those ignorant of the facts liked to claim terrorism.. Present company included. :D

I think I like TheStig's definition better.

Color me shocked.. :D

Michale

These claims of broad inherent powers of a unitary executive were hogwash when a Republican was in office, and they're still hogwash when a Democrat is president.

Yer my hero... :D

Michale

I see no need to change civilian to non-combatant, since a noncombat who takes up arms ceases to be a civilian -

So, any civilian who packs is not a civilian??? :D

As for the targeting part, I was merely pointing out that that acts of terrorism sometimes result in what amounts to collateral damage to military or government assets.

But we are not talking collateral damage.. We are talking specific and intended targeting..

30 - go nuts,

Danke :D

Michale

These claims of broad inherent powers of a unitary executive were hogwash when a Republican was in office, and they're still hogwash when a Democrat is president. Sure, members of each branch have to push for their respective powers, if ambition is to check ambition. But those of us watching from the cheap seats don't have to give it any credence when it goes beyond the bounds of credibility.

What the Republicans always wind up with is absolutely nothing to show for their efforts at the end of the day

They get plenty of hot air, to fan the flames of their most ardent fans' fanaticism. There's a reason why they win big in off-year elections, and nonsense like this is part of it.

I see no need to change civilian to non-combatant, since a noncombat who takes up arms ceases to be a civilian - even if the partisan melts back into the civilian population. The flip side to this is that the response of the opposing military should follow the principles of Jus In Bello (as in don't round up all the men in the village and shoot them SS style).

Terrorism is any act of violence specifically directed at civilians with the intent of initiating or maintaining a condition in which the well being of a civilian population, or subset of a civilian population, is held hostage as a means to shape the targeted government's policy. Terrorism is a form of extortion. Terrorism does not specifically target government or military chain of command, military infrastructure or means of production, although any or all of these might be incidentally affected. Acts of terrorism deliberately disregard and or subvert the three principals of Just War Theory (Jus In Bello): Distinction, Proportionality and Military Necessity.

As for the targeting part, I was merely pointing out that that acts of terrorism sometimes result in what amounts to collateral damage to military or government assets.

30 - go nuts, just cite my nom de guerre and please insert the 'of' I left out - I was trained to read straight down the page, enables me read quickly, but also makes me a notoriously bad editor.

Terrorism is any act of violence specifically directed at civilians with the intent of initiating or maintaining a condition in which the well being of a civilian population, or subset of a civilian population, is held hostage as a means to shape the targeted government's policy. Terrorism is a form of extortion. Terrorism does not specifically target government or military chain of command, military infrastructure or means of production, although any or all of these might be incidentally affected. Acts of terrorism deliberately disregard and or subvert the three principals of Just War Theory (Jus In Bello): Distinction, Proportionality and Military Necessity.

You might also cite Thomas Aquinas on the whole Jus In Bello concept, in his capacity as saint he is rumored to have eerie powers.

I am getting the drumming of fingers treatment right now. Gotta go.

"Terrorism does not specifically target government or military chain of command, military infrastructure or means of production, although any or all of these might be incidentally affected.

Terrorism does not target government or military AT ALL, specifically or otherwise... If the target is military, then it is, by definition, NOT terrorism"

So the plane that targeted the Pentagon on 9/11?
If I recall correctly, there were 6 different government offices in the WTC?
The USS Cole bombing?
Khobar Towers bombing?

"Government targets are a little more dicey"
Ah, the hallmark of a definition.
Nothing like being vague after insisting there is clarity.

I think I like TheStig's definition better.

Now you're claiming I didn't write what is plain to see just to avoid apologizing?

Lower and lower you go.

I thought you failing to grasp simple comparisons and skipping over parts of my comments selectively was bad.

And, I guess despite all those years of "experience", you never had time to squeeze in an ethics class?

You're right... maybe tizzy isn't the right word for falling over yourself in a frenzied fashion.
What word would you suggest?

"Hasta Lasagna, don't get any on ya..."
-Emilio Estevez, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

Michale

So, in YOUR opinion, Obama is a terrorist...

Is that what you are saying??

Once you answer the question, I'll be happy to concede that I was wrong... :D

*I* have absolutely no problem conceding when I am wrong.. That makes me unique amongst Weigantians.. :D

Americans exempting ourselves from law and accountability is foolish.

What training, experience or expertise do you have that allows you to come to such a foolish conclusion??

Yea, that's what I thought...

So, if you think that its acceptable for the Chinese who voted for a war to set up a commission to decide whether they were complicit or just gullible for believing bad intelligence their leaders used to justify that war...

OK, how did the Chinese sneak into the discussion??

... or if they choose not to prosecute blatant torturers in order to move forward instead of looking back (or whatever bull Obama spewed)...

The ends justifies the means, sonny.... Which you would know if you actually had any real world experience instead of just all net-reading... :D

Michale

Like "Micha" from WAREHOUSE 13??? Dood, you have some serious gender issues... :D

Try paying closer attention... because I hate to see you all in a tizzy like this.

Son, the day you actually can get me CLOSE to a tizzy is the day I hang up my commenting chops in Weigantia and swear off the Net forever... :D

Michale

And, if you are feeling especially adventurous, apply your definition (with the suggested modifications) to alleged acts of terrorism committed by the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia governments...

Acts of terrorism deliberately disregard and or subvert the three principals of Just War Theory (Jus In Bello): Distinction, Proportionality and Military Necessity.

I REALLY do like this.. Do you mind if I incorporate it into the definition that I quote most often..??

Michale

"I DECREE THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL CHANGE THEIR PARTY NAME, MASCOT, STATIONARY... SO SAY WE ALL"?

You take jokes literally and serious matters jokingly.
Freaky ideology.

Try paying closer attention... because I hate to see you all in a tizzy like this.

A

Not bad... Not bad at all...

Acts of terrorism deliberately disregard and or subvert the three principals of Just War Theory (Jus In Bello): Distinction, Proportionality and Military Necessity.

I especially like that part....

I would only argue two points, but they are minor.. Almost semantic-ish..

Terrorism is any act of violence specifically directed at civilians with the intent of initiating or maintaining a condition in which the well being of a civilian population, or subset of a civilian population, is held hostage as a means to shape the targeted government's policy.

Change "civilians" to "non-combatants"... Civilians can be legitimate targets under certain circumstances.. Gaza is replete with "civilians" that are legitimate targets, for example...

Terrorism does not specifically target government or military chain of command, military infrastructure or means of production, although any or all of these might be incidentally affected.

Terrorism does not target government or military AT ALL, specifically or otherwise... If the target is military, then it is, by definition, NOT terrorism.. Government targets are a little more dicey...

OK, glad to see your response. Sorry to be so bitchy about it.. Gun shy and all that..

So, now that we have a definition that is somewhat agreeable, apply that to the shoot-down of the airliner by Ukrainian/Rebel rebel forces....

You might also want to consider the downing of the Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes as precedent..

Michale

I know English can be difficult to master, so even after writing it and then pointing it out to you already, I will repeat myself.

It is your interpretation of the word terrorism that is the problem. The definition is fine.

Again with the false accusations...
... I clearly included Obama's regime change war in Syria using al Qaida and the ongoing drone program in my examples with those for Bush.

You can post an apology here.
Or, can't you admit you were wrong?

I'm a little worried about your memory.
At your age, maybe you should be too?

Why worry what the rest of the world thinks?
Americans make up less than one twentieth of the global population.
Your ideology that asserts American law is supreme is a fanciful delusion that, among other things, empowers war criminals by shielding them from accountability.

But the precedent set by those you defend with unquestioning trust despite mountains of evidence is the truly reckless part... beyond the blatant violations of American values, basic morality, and the concept of justice.

The next time we seek to rally a global coalition against an actual threat... a country starting a war of aggression based on lies or one engaged in systematic torture of captives (who may be Americans next time), the precedent set by Bush and Cheney, whitewashed by Congress and swept under the rug by Obama (all of which you defend)... our arguments may well fall on deaf ears.

Americans exempting ourselves from law and accountability is foolish.

So, if you think that its acceptable for the Chinese who voted for a war to set up a commission to decide whether they were complicit or just gullible for believing bad intelligence their leaders used to justify that war...

... or if they choose not to prosecute blatant torturers in order to move forward instead of looking back (or whatever bull Obama spewed)...

... then you are indeed hopeless.

Terrorism is any act of violence specifically directed at civilians with the intent of initiating or maintaining a condition in which the well being of a civilian population, or subset of a civilian population, is held hostage as a means to shape the targeted government's policy. Terrorism is a form extortion. Terrorism does not specifically target government or military chain of command, military infrastructure or means of production, although any or all of these might be incidentally affected. Acts of terrorism deliberately disregard and or subvert the three principals of Just War Theory (Jus In Bello): Distinction, Proportionality and Military Necessity.

I mean, Bush is a terrorist because he prosecuted a legitimate, fully legal and fully authorized war..

But Obama is NOT a terrorist, even though he has increased drone strikes by a hundred fold and has killed THOUSANDS of innocent civilians..

Do ya'all see why any thinking rational person has a problem with taking ANYTHING ya'all say seriously???

Ya'all are *completely* ruled by partisan Party Ideology..

Michale

{sigh}

Ya'all throw around TERRORISM accusations left and right...Mostly right..

Yet, when asked how ya'all DEFINE terrorism??

{{chiirrrrppppp}} {chirrrrrppp}

Cricket city...

Why is that??? :^/

Michale

WOW.....

Think very highly of yerself, eh?? :D

I DECREE THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL CHANGE THEIR PARTY NAME, MASCOT, STATIONARY... SO SAY WE ALL...

And people call *ME* arrogant!?? :D

Michale

Actually, it's IRAN, SYRIA, SUDAN..

But why confuse the issue with, yunno, FACTS...

It's funny how Big Al's two BFFs are the top 2 in the STATE TERRORIST categories...

I wish I could say I am surprised that he would jump into bed with such scumbags, but.... I can't...

Michale

I mean, who cares what the rest of the world thinks, right?

Exactly...

I would ask you what relevance it has to any of this discussion, but I know how you duck and ignore any question you can't answer..

So, I won't embarrass you any more than I already have..

And, of course, US and Saudi funding, training and arming of al Qaida for our regime change "civil war" in Syria apparently doesn't count either.

And you can PROVE that, right??

"Oh yea, that's right.. I forgot. You were absent the day they taught LAW and Law School.."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

Syrians are our enemy, so their civilians all qualify as combatants in his mind... which means our actions aren't terror under the definition he uses.

Actually, Assad is our enemy. They Syrian people are being brutalized by Assad.. Doy....

Sort of like the way Palestinian civilians are seen by Israel, the State Department, and Michale too.

You mean, the Palestinian civilians who voted in a Terrorist organization as their leadership??

TS,

Re: #18

What's your point??

That because Russia is not on the list, that Iran shouldn't be on the list either??

Remember that little airline shoot down incident over Ukraine a few months back. The evidence is pretty persuasive that Russia payed,supplied, trained and shielded the perps to a fairly high degree.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Big Al.. Hopefully YOU won't run and hide..

Give me your definition of terrorism and explain how the airline shoot down is an act of terrorism..

Michale

I keep asking Michale about the lists of state sponsors of terror that other countries compile, but so far, he has only found ours.

Apparently, ours is the only one that cuts the mustard on his sandwich.

I mean, who cares what the rest of the world thinks, right?

And, of course, US and Saudi funding, training and arming of al Qaida for our regime change "civil war" in Syria apparently doesn't count either.

Syrians are our enemy, so their civilians all qualify as combatants in his mind... which means our actions aren't terror under the definition he uses.
Sort of like the way Palestinian civilians are seen by Israel, the State Department, and Michale too.

Good comments btw.
A

Yeah, I noticed the bit about the challenge to Boehner... but that raises some questions.

If tea partiers take down Boehner, does that count as an internal power struggle?
If so, that would be an admission that there was really just a Tea Party wing of the Repub Party all along.
That may piss off a lot of Tea Party groups who fancied themselves independent.

And if the takeover is successful, it would mean there is really just a Repub wing of the Tea Party now... sort of watered down, or weak Tea as it were.

I think we should require a change of party name, mascot, stationary and titles if the takeover is completed.

I would guess that Trump wouldn't be displeased if there was a "-T" instead of an "-R" after all the candidates names from now on... even if the reason behind it has nothing to do with him.

In any case, would this mean that RNC PR BS is in danger of losing his job too?
Or maybe he could just change his name to Teince?

A

Well, you seem to like at least one thing coming out of State Department. Syria, Iran, Sudan. In all fairness, I heard it on the radio a few days ago, something to do with Cuba and past hard feelings.

So, let me see if I've got your position right on this:

If you are a sovereign state, and you finance a terrorist operation somewhere, in full or in part, provide the weapons used in the operation, full or in part, you trained the terrorists f.o.i.p, and or you gave some form of sanctuary to the terrorists (on the political cover to safe-house continuum)none of the above actions matter in the least, you are not a STATE sponsor of terrorism, good Sir, because you are not on the list! Begone, step back beyond the purple cord and do not darken our door again! This is a Members Only Club!

Remember that little airline shoot down incident over Ukraine a few months back. The evidence is pretty persuasive that Russia payed,supplied, trained and shielded the perps to a fairly high degree. There was outrage. I remember your comment-you seemed ticked off, possibly considering WWIII up to and maybe beyond naval action up through the Dardanelles (what could possibly go wrong with that). But hey, rules are rules, Russia isn't on the list, so while Russia is a recognized State, and they do sponsor terror, they are not Official State Sponsors of Terrorism. It's sort of the like the Olympics. "This car bomb was brought to you by Sudan, distributors of plastic explosives and slightly used AK-47s, an Official State Sponsor of Terrorism." Somebody is drinking Pepsi in the stands, but Coke is the Official Sponsor.

Just one final question: Have you been playing football without a helmet recently? That is my second football reference of the tread.

WHY is it a bad argument??

Ignore partisanship for a moment. Isn't it a LOGICAL argument!??

As for Reid switching his vote, that's a Senate rules thing. If the Majority Leader votes for a bill and it fails, the rule is that he can't bring the same bill back up for another vote. So when the ML wants to bring a bill back up, he switches his vote at the last minute to "nay". Both parties do this all the time -- it's not any sort of "thing", really. It's just the rules they operate by.

But on the surface, it's ridiculous.. :D

Getting annoyed at the GOP Congress being completely incapable of doing anything yet? Just checking...

Hell ya!!

John M is right -- this is in fact the most notable outreach effort by Obama towards Congress, in his entire term in office.

Let's be accurate.. it's the most notable outreach to Congressional DEMOCRATS....

As for Iran being #1, well, as I recall 15 of the highjackers (anniversary tomorrow) were Saudis, reared in Wahaabiism (probably misspelled that...). So how's the US-Saudi relationship these days?

So???

We're talking about Terrorist STATES... Not terrorists..

If ya'all have a problem with Iran being designated the NUMBER 1 State Sponsor of terrorism, take it up with The State Department and Wikipedia..

I am just stating the facts...

Oh, almost forgot, here's a quote for you:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
-Ronald Reagan

And I'll say to you what I say to ANYONE who posts such felgercarp...

That is THE biggest piles of carp of ALL the piles of carp that exists in the universe...

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist..

There is NOTHING good or noble or decent or romantic about a terrorist.. He or she is nothing but a cockroach to be stepped on at one's earliest opportunity...

Saint Ron notwithstanding..

Nice ta see ya, CW!!! :D It's been too long..

Michale

Oh, almost forgot, here's a quote for you:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
-Ronald Reagan

-CW

The Tea Partiers may indeed have a leadership vote -- also on deck for September is a possible vote of "no confidence," which would remove Boehner as Speaker. No telling who would take his place, which could indeed be a wild ride.

Michale [2] -

No surprise that you buy into the "clock isn't even ticking yet" argument. Good luck with that one -- maybe the House will file another meaningless lawsuit (which they will lose) against Obama. Yeah, that'll really show him!

Heh.

As for Reid switching his vote, that's a Senate rules thing. If the Majority Leader votes for a bill and it fails, the rule is that he can't bring the same bill back up for another vote. So when the ML wants to bring a bill back up, he switches his vote at the last minute to "nay". Both parties do this all the time -- it's not any sort of "thing", really. It's just the rules they operate by.

Getting annoyed at the GOP Congress being completely incapable of doing anything yet? Just checking...

TheStig [4] -

Friends don't let friends drink and type. Heh. Actually, I got a big laugh out of your comment, especially that first bit...

:-)

Michale [8] -

John M is right -- this is in fact the most notable outreach effort by Obama towards Congress, in his entire term in office. The White House worked Congress hard to get this deal, in a way they simply haven't bothered to in the past (even on the PPACA). You can call it what you want, but Obama worked the levers and not only stacked the deck in advance, but personally lobbied hard to get the result he got. The GOP was left crying in their beer, once again, and that didn't just happen by chance.

As for Iran being #1, well, as I recall 15 of the highjackers (anniversary tomorrow) were Saudis, reared in Wahaabiism (probably misspelled that...). So how's the US-Saudi relationship these days?

-CW

As much as it pains me to say it, you suffer the same malady as Big Al....

He thinks everything is terrorism too...

There are exactly 3 states who sponsor terrorism on the planet...

Which is not to say that there is plenty of terrorism NOT committed by these states.. There is..

But we're talking a government actively pursuing regional dominatitive goals thru the expressed use of terrorism...

Michale

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/imce/2015/03-MAR/MAD-Magazine-Horrifying-Cliches-Loathsome-Task_5508897d770676.56033266.jpg

hehehehehehe As I said, TS.. You crack me up... :D

How do you know Iran is the "THE NUMBER ONE state sponsor of terrorism on the planet."

The United States State Department designation was a huge clue.. :D

Wikipedia also provided some facts as well.. :D

There is no shortage of terrorism these days. The bench is deep, you might say.

Actually, the bench is quite empty..

There are exactly THREE...

1000 quatloos if you can name them without googling.. :D I'll give you a hint...

Iran is Number 1....

Michale

As I started reading "I am contrained" I instantly recalled Horrifying Cliches, the Paul Coker jr. cartoon feature that was a regular, and very funny feature of MAD Magazine. (I remember an even funnier parody by National Lampoon, which ran with "Blowing a Joke" and turned it into a kind of Larry Craig themed encounter in a stall).

So there I was, with this mental image of you roped to chair, being pistol whipped by a couple of burly, horned monsters covered in pastel shaded Naugahyde fur. Something like below:

http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/imce/2015/03-MAR/MAD-Magazine-Horrifying-Cliches-Loathsome-Task_5508897d770676.56033266.jpg

How do you know Iran is the "THE NUMBER ONE state sponsor of terrorism on the planet." Is there an awards show that I missed? Celebrities, fashion, wrap parties, seat fillers and of course long winded speeches ("Webster's Dictionary defines Terroism as....". This is sort of like "Trump is worth 9 billion dollars. It get's bandied about, it might be true, but nobody seems to have any hard numbers. There is no shortage of terrorism these days. The bench is deep, you might say.

The lives of innocent Israelis brutally butchered by Hamas and Hezbollah mean very little when stacked up to preserving Obama's ego...

I get it.. It's sad, but I get it...

Michale

Senate Dems block GOP measure to kill Iran deal
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/iran-deal-senate-dems-block-gop-measure-to-kill-213506#ixzz3lN4HO7lR

The Demcorat Party is the Party of Iran and the Party Against Israel...

The blood of Iran's terrorist victims will be on the Demcorat's hands...

Michale

The immigration debacle is a perfect example..

Obama bitched and moan that Congress wouldn't take action so he (Obama) was going to do it himself..

But what Obama MEANT is that Congress didn't take the action that OBAMA wanted... Congress took the action that the American people wanted taken..

Every "big ticket item" that Obama and the Democrats have done have been AGAINST the will of the American people.. Train Wreck Care.... Illegal Immigrant Criminals Amnesty... Iran Giveaway...

The American people are AGAINST all of that and more...

But Obama does it anyways...

And yet, ya'all think it's REPUBLICANS that are poisoning the well???

Surely you jest....

Michale

Of course, you would say that..

But it's clear to political agnostics that these problems were brought on by Obama giving the finger to Congress and doing whatever he wanted anyways...

Obama and Democrats have so poisoned the well that the idea that the legislative and executive branch can work together is ludicrous...

These are the facts, whether you admit it or not..

Michale

"This does not bode well for the upcoming budget battles, it almost goes without saying.

Welcome to Congress as brought to you by Obama and the Democrat Party... :D"

You got that a little backwards, don't you Michale??? It should read "Brought to you by Boehner and the Republican Tea Party." :-D

In this case, honor and integrity compel me to point out...

Hmmmmmmm

I like that...

Honor and integrity compel me it point out......

I'll use that from now on...

Thanx, TS!! yer a peach... :D

Michale

hehehehehehehe You crack me up... :D

Michale

pssst - michale... no don't look up...just act natural...i'm using lower case 'cause it's quieter..who is constraining you to speak? touch your nose if it's Iranians...ooh, ooh, sorry, right, right your hands are tied. Fiendishly clever this constraint - most outfits just beat the snot out of you with a pipe if they want you to say something. I'll bet it's isis, they go in for this indy art house terror, the slow mo shots of world heritage fragments tumbling end over the end and some UN official moaning nnnnnooooooooooo. they are mopping the floors with the once big studios..north korea, i was sure they would win a frappy award with their zany takedown of sony pix, but no, snubbed at the award ceremonies...again, two years running! it's like they don't even have weapons of mass destruction. old favorites, sudan, syria, pakistan (hello nukes), they are nobodies. putin is trying to rebuild the the old russian franchise with his grainy black and white ukraine project, and they do have nuclear weapons which probably work. cuba, poor old cuba. they haven't submitted anything in years.

just wiggle your nose if it's iran.

Given that Iran is THE NUMBER ONE state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, it's entirely possible that Iran itself will derail the deal...

According to the Iran Cheerleading Squad, if the deal is derailed, it will be all sorts of catastrophic for the UNITED STATES.. A deep dark armageddon that the US will NEVER recover from.....

(Someone remind me again how it's the GOP who is always fear-mongering??)

So, it's entirely possible that Iran will institute a massive terrorist attack to turn Congress AGAINST the deal, thereby sealing the fate of the US who would be totally de-throned as the world's only Superpower... At least, that's the way the Pro-Iran group tells it.. :^/

Anyways, I wouldn't be all so sure that Iran and their BFF, Obama, is going to win this one...

I could be wrong.. It's been known to happen..

But I could also be right.. Which happens a LOT more frequently and, usually, in very big ways.. :D

Michale

Just like DEMOCRAT leaders whining about the use of the filibuster when the Republicans were the minority...

Pot, meet kettle...

Once again, proof positive that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans...

The Washington Post is now reporting that the hotheaded House Republicans actually want three bills passed. The first would confirm their twisted logic on the clock situation,

Could you explain how the logic is "twisted"?? The clock starts when Obama fully discloses the entirety of the deal to Congress..

Obama has NOT fully disclosed the entirety of the deal to Congress..

Ergo, the clock has yet to start..

The Washington Post is now reporting that the hotheaded House Republicans actually want three bills passed. The first would confirm their twisted logic on the clock situation, the second would be to boost some sanctions, and the third would be to approve the Iran nuclear deal. Confused? Well, so am I.

Yea, I was confused when Harry Reid voted against legislation he strongly supported just so he could bring it up again later...

Making sausage... Remember??? :D

John Boehner plots some meaningless parliamentary move designed to score political points against Obama and the Democrats,

As Nancy Pelosi did time and time ad nasuem to score points against Bush and the Republicans when she was in charge..

No difference.. Remember??

This does not bode well for the upcoming budget battles, it almost goes without saying.

Welcome to Congress as brought to you by Obama and the Democrat Party... :D

Michale

Holy guacamole!

Seems like we have a third party mucking up our two party system.

Maybe the tea partiers will make it official at some point?
They really deserve to have their own... er, um... leadership votes.

Of course, the real tea partiers who don't believe in the NSA spying on innocent Americans and who want the government to keep their hands off of their Social Security and Medicare may then become a problem for the astroturf tea party types.

But we can always hope.