This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Should We Arrest D.C. Politicians for Supporting Al Qaeda?

George Washington's picture





 

In the name of "fighting Al Qaeda or associated forces" or those who "support" those bad guys, the U.S. government has authorized:

In other words, the government has shredded our constitution and destroyed our freedom and liberties in order to fight Al Qaeda and associated forces.

And yet the government is itself supporting - with money, arms, and logistical support - Al Qaeda and associated forces in a number of nations.

The U.S. is supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Syria. America funds terrorist groups within Iran. And we supported Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya (and here).

Does that mean that American military and law enforcement personnel should arrest, indefinitely detain, label as "terrorists", torture or assassinate those in D.C. who are authorizing the support?

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 08/04/2012 - 09:02 | Link to Comment Hannibal
Hannibal's picture

We can only hope US Marshalls have their (list) and sights set on these scumbags that have ruined our country. A speedy, fair and transparent Nuremberg type trial would be appropriate>

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 03:21 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Quite a many US citizen nations allows citizen's arrests.

In the US, US citizens have guns to back up the endeavour.

If they must do the arrest, US citizens have the possibility, legal and physical.

If they do not do it, that is because there is nobody to arrest.

By US citizen standards, no illegal action is taken.

And the assessment does not come from the US citizen elite but from the US People (among others)

All these dispositions are very good. US citizen nature includes duplicity and having them is a direct giveaway.

Nothing prevents US citizens from performing the arrests. They simply do not do them because they actually support the actions of their government. They demand them in fact.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 05:43 | Link to Comment Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

Totally agree.  Why have an honest debate or actually stay on topic when no one is going to kick us out and there are so many good Katy Perry videos to listen to.

Buying physical just ain't the same as listening to you or rocking out to this video, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=t5Sd5c4o9UM

Since Tyler clearly ain't kicking anyone out, it's a free-for-all, huh?

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 06:21 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The comment is topical and answers to the question: should we arrest DC politicians for supporting Al Qaeda? That is the title of the article.
The bulk of the article then provides a collection of various actions taken by US citizen politicians.

Observing the actions of US citizens gives the answer to the question in the title.

By reminding that US citizens have the legal opportunity of performing arrests (there is no monopoly by the Police on this legal action) and that they possess guns to back up the execution of the move, one can know the answer to the question.

The most obvious observation: US citizen do not arrest their politicians while they have the opportunity of. Do you contest that observation?

Cause: they support them. Do you have any other causality?

That is all.

US citizens are used to making a lot of claims but it does not mean they are used to factuality.

Honest debate? You were unable to address any of the facts reported in the comments, preferring to call for protection from what you cant handle.

It is no debate. It is the shutting down of debate actually.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 08:43 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

An expert in all things, here again AnAnonymous displays his omniscience to a world of simpletons:

By reminding that US citizens have the legal opportunity of performing arrests (there is no monopoly by the Police on this legal action) and that they possess guns to back up the execution of the move, one can know the answer to the question.

The most obvious observation: US citizen do not arrest their politicians while they have the opportunity of. Do you contest that observation?

Well, there you have it. The obvious solution to all of America's political ills and corruption is right there in front of us. It's all so easy.

Cause: they support them. Do you have any other causality?

That is all.

Not so fast there, little buddy. Just because you issue an edict with an unctuous air of authority and smug superiority doesn't necessarily make it true. As shocking as you may find it, there may indeed be other causalities.

For the moment, though, let's set that aside. Let's presume that you are correct, that it really would be as easy as you say it would be for an American to arrest a DC politician. For the sake of argument, pretend that you are a US citizen that does not support the politicians, believes they are breaking the law, and wants to begin arresting them. What would you do?

Let's say that you've decided on a politician to arrest. Please explain, step by step, just how you would go about it. Would you carry a gun with you? If so, would you carry it openly or concealed? Where would you go to make your arrest? Would
you go directly to the politician's office or home, or would you go to a restaurant, bar, or some other public place that the politician is known to frequent?

How would you approach the politician? What would you say to him? It is reasonable to expect that the politician would be uncooperative with you, so how would you respond to that? Would you physically restrain him? How would you respond if the people he was with tried to stop you? How would you respond to bystanders if they misinterpret your actions and think you're committing a crime?

Would you physically transport the politician to the police station? Would you simply detain him, at gunpoint if necessary, until the police arrived? What would you say to the police to explain your actions?

You see, I'm just a simple minded US citizen. With all the time I spend on robbing the upper class blind, extorting the weak, and farming the poor, I've just never had the time to think about how this would be done. You appear to have all the answers, so I'm looking forward to your explanation of how this would be done.

Yes, yes, I know what you're going to say. US citizens, especially the middle class (which is the king class), simply adore their politicians, so such a scenario would never happen. But this is a hypothetical situation, for the sake of honest debate. You don't want to shut down debate, do you?

US citizens are used to making a lot of claims but it does not mean they are used to factuality.

Well, then, give me the facts. Lay it on me. Here is your chance to tell it like it is. I'd hate to think you were just some pecksniffian bloviator that can't support what he says.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 12:37 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Well, then, give me the facts. Lay it on me. Here is your chance to tell it like it is. I'd hate to think you were just some pecksniffian bloviator that can't support what he says.

________________________

The facts were given and are going to be repeated.
It is doubted that actually 'Americans' are able to cope with them and will have to flee once again in their world of fantasy and propaganda.

So here there are:

_______________________________________

Well, there you have it. The obvious solution to all of America's political ills and corruption is right there in front of us. It's all so easy.

____________________________

Fact: the solution is not provided by me. The solution is provided by the system elaborated by 'Americans', that is 'Americanism'

'Americanism' includes giving to 'Americans' the possibility to perform arrests (no monopoly by the Police on this legal move) and in the US, guns are available to back up the move.

It is fact.

__________________________________________
Let's presume that you are correct, that it really would be as easy as you say it would be for an American to arrest a DC politician.
___________________________________________

Strawman. It was never claim it would be easy. It was reminded that the many US citizen nations allow citizen's arrest and that in the US, guns are available.
Never stated something like easy. When it is easy, it is stated, like easy enemy, easy war, the wars looked for by US citizens.
Here, no mention of ease.

This is fact.

__________________________________________

For the sake of argument, pretend that you are a US citizen that does not support the politicians, believes they are breaking the law, and wants to begin arresting them. What would you do?
___________________________________________

That is no sake of the argument. 'Americans' are hold to vouch for the claimed merits of 'Americanism' No one else.
It is known that 'Americans' are used to hijacking humanity but this does not make 'Americanism' the natural system for humanity.

This is up to 'Americans' to determine the way they are going to stick to the tenets of 'Americanism' (which they do by the way, as US citizenism is as US citizen does)

This is fact.

________________________________________

Let's say that you've decided on a politician to arrest. Please explain, step by step, just how you would go about it. Would you carry a gun with you? If so, would you carry it openly or concealed? Where would you go to make your arrest? Would
you go directly to the politician's office or home, or would you go to a restaurant, bar, or some other public place that the politician is known to frequent?
___________________________________________

This is up to 'Americans' to determine. The fact is they do not act. They choose not to. They have the opportunities. They have the means of.

'American' politicians are a small number compared to the number of 'Americans' who can perform the arrest.
One failing to perform the arrest is far from meaning that there is no more 'Americans' to renew the effort.

This is fact.

______________________________________________
How would you approach the politician? What would you say to him? It is reasonable to expect that the politician would be uncooperative with you, so how would you respond to that? Would you physically restrain him? How would you respond if the people he was with tried to stop you? How would you respond to bystanders if they misinterpret your actions and think you're committing a crime?
_____________________________________________

It is fantasy.

The 'American' system states that one is innocent until proven guilty and that a trial by peers is going to establish that point. Or something like that.

Why would the 'American' politician resist an arrest when she knows she is innocent? Does she have something to be reproached with, to repeat the 'American' assertion?

Reminding this, would not resisting arrest turn the 'American' audience suspicious by asking the same question? In 'Americanism' you have to trust the institutions of justice right? 'Americanism' is all about justice, right? So what?

So the politician will follow the arrester, trusting the judicial system. If not, there would be consequences brought by the 'American' audience.

______________________________________________
Would you physically transport the politician to the police station? Would you simply detain him, at gunpoint if necessary, until the police arrived? What would you say to the police to explain your actions?
_____________________________________________
In 'Americanism', the Police does not have to question this kind of move. They are legal and the trial will later convinct or not.

As to the issue of force, in the US, guns are allowed to fight tyranny in the government. It is all up to 'Americans' to decide if they will use guns to back up the arrest or not.
There are quite a number of vets which can provide military experience.
About the security personal, it is nothing different from any other arrest. If the Police plans to arrest somebody and that some retainers try to obstruct the arrest, it is obstruction which is illegal. If they use guns, they perform illegal actions and can be shot down using guns etc

All the answers are provided by 'Americanism'
The legal opportunities exist. The means exist. The modus operandi is left to the determination by 'Americans'

'Americans' simply do not act. Who/what is restraining them? Nothing. 'Americans' do not have to be restrained because they support the actions by their government that enacts the popular will.

All these are facts.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 21:20 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous, pecksniffian bloviator, said:

The facts were given and are going to be repeated.

So you say. I rather doubt it.

'Americanism' includes giving to 'Americans' the possibility to perform arrests (no monopoly by the Police on this legal move) and in the US, guns are available to back up the move.

It is fact.

I knew that's what you were going to do. You have the spine of a bureaucrat, the ethics of a divorce lawyer, the courage of a congressman, the integrity of a Wall Street banker, and the grounded-in-the-real-world judgement of an Ivy League economist. You will evade the questions entirely, dancing around them with abstract theoretical technicalities.

By the end of your response, you will have typed a lot of words and managed to say nothing. In true bureaucratic form, this accomplishment will have you strutting with boastful pride, failing utterly to realize that all you've done is reveal yourself to be nothing more than a sanctimonious popinjay.

Strawman.

Don't you mean strawsman? I must have hit a nerve for you to be falling out of character so soon.

It was never claim it would be easy.

Ah, yes, falling back to the politician's trick of plausible deniability: "I never actually said that it would be easy."

It was reminded that the many US citizen nations allow citizen's arrest and that in the US, guns are available.

And right on cue, resorting to the slippery tricks of the lawyer: "Technically, in some cases, provisions exist for citizen's arrest, and guns are available, subject to a panoply of restrictions on their sale, posession, transport, carry, and usage."

You've conveniently ignored what you said in the preceding post:

Nothing prevents US citizens from performing the arrests.

Why yes, of course, nothing prevents it, nothing at all. Although you didn't come right out and say that it would be easy, that's exactly what you imply. Even though you know that it's bullshit, you needed to make it sound simple and easy in order to arrive at your conclusion, which is why you resorted to implication rather than direct statement.

The ridiculous conclusion of yours, the one that required you to create this fallacious support, the one that you know is utter bullshit, is this:

They simply do not do them because they actually support the actions of their government.

Deny it though you will, even you can see the absurdity in such a statement.

Never stated something like easy.

Let's go back to your own words again, where we can see the same trickery using the same implication to arrive at the same absurd conclusion:

By reminding that US citizens have the legal opportunity of performing arrests (there is no monopoly by the Police on this legal action) and that they possess guns to back up the execution of the move, one can know the answer to the question.
The most obvious observation: US citizen do not arrest their politicians while they have the opportunity of. Do you contest that observation?
Cause: they support them. Do you have any other causality?
That is all.

Yes, that is all. Those lazy US citizens, when it comes to arresting politicians, they all "have the opportunity of" (sic). Why, it's so easy that they could do it during their morning commute and still not be late for work. It's so easy that the only possible reason they don't is because they support their politicians.

Here, no mention of ease.

This is fact.

Weasel words. The implication of ease is clear, because without it you couldn't arrive at your ludicrous conclusion. That's why I asked you to explain, in detail, how you would go about making a citizen's arrest. You can't do it without revealing just how difficult such a task would be. However, removing the implications of triviality and ease would critically undercut your conclusion that US citizens support their politicians.

It seems to me that the only choices you have are to 1) admit that you are wrong and that your conclusion is absurd, or 2) try to dance around my questions with non-answers, evasions, and red herrings. Let's see which path you take.

My question:

For the sake of argument, pretend that you are a US citizen that does not support the politicians, believes they are breaking the law, and wants to begin arresting them. What would you do?

Your evasion:

That is no sake of the argument. 'Americans' are hold to vouch for the claimed merits of 'Americanism' No one else.
It is known that 'Americans' are used to hijacking humanity but this does not make 'Americanism' the natural system for humanity.

This is up to 'Americans' to determine the way they are going to stick to the tenets of 'Americanism' (which they do by the way, as US citizenism is as US citizen does)

The way you're grasping at straws here, it looks like you're already starting to panic.

My questions:

Let's say that you've decided on a politician to arrest. Please explain, step by step, just how you would go about it. Would you carry a gun with you? If so, would you carry it openly or concealed? Where would you go to make your arrest? Would
you go directly to the politician's office or home, or would you go to a restaurant, bar, or some other public place that the politician is known to frequent?

Your evasion:

This is up to 'Americans' to determine. The fact is they do not act. They choose not to. They have the opportunities. They have the means of.

No. I specifically asked what you would do. You did not provide an answer to what was asked. That's a funny dance step you're doing. It looks like the "Fear of the Questions Foxtrot".

My questions:

How would you approach the politician? What would you say to him? It is reasonable to expect that the politician would be uncooperative with you, so how would you respond to that? Would you physically restrain him? How would you respond if the people he was with tried to stop you? How would you respond to bystanders if they misinterpret your actions and think you're committing a crime?

Your evasion:

It is fantasy.

The 'American' system states that one is innocent until proven guilty and that [blah blah blah]

My questions asked what you would do. It's clear that you're afraid to address them. You respond with more dancing, this time with the "Jackanapes Jitterbug".

My questions:

Would you physically transport the politician to the police station? Would you simply detain him, at gunpoint if necessary, until the police arrived? What would you say to the police to explain your actions?

Your evasion:

In 'Americanism', the Police does not have to question this kind of move. They are legal and the trial will later convinct or not.

As to the issue of force, in the US, guns are allowed to fight tyranny in the government. It is all up to 'Americans' to decide if they will use guns to back up the arrest or not.

No no no! Bad monkey! Stop running from the questions. I wasn't asking about Americans. I asked what you would do. The utter desperation in your evasiveness is pathetic. You're scurrying around like a rat on a sinking ship.

As I said you'd do, you've evaded the questions entirely. You typed a lot of words and managed to say nothing. All that's left for you to do is strut with boastful pride of your non-accomplishment, pretending that you've successfully supported your ridiculous conclusion.

All the answers are provided by 'Americanism'
The legal opportunities exist. The means exist. The modus operandi is left to the determination by 'Americans'

'Americans' simply do not act. Who/what is restraining them? Nothing. 'Americans' do not have to be restrained because they support the actions by their government that enacts the popular will.

All these are facts.

Voila! AnAnonymous, pecksniffian bloviator and sanctimonious popinjay.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 03:41 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

No. I specifically asked what you would do.

______________________________________

Ah, running away in a fantasy land. The reliance on fantasy. US citizens can not do without that.

I told it outright and even when warned, 'Americans' can not resist the urge of their 'American' eternal nature.

'Americans' are the sole responsibles for the substance of 'Americanism'

The question grounded in reality is what proponents of a system should do to implement their system.

What next? Asking what aliens should do in the same situation?

No. 'Americans' are responsible for 'Americanism' No one else.

It is no evasion to remind this point. On the contrary. It is debunking a shallow evasion manoeuver as done by US citizens.

It is cornering US citizens.

But 'Americans' are used to shifting the burden of their systemics onto other people so now it is up to someone else to do the job.

Cant work this way though.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 11:46 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

Your disingenuous, ridiculous and pathetic attempts at evasion when your irational and illogical arguments are demolished by others, along with your ragingly collectivist hatred of all Americans, is simply hilarious beyond words.  The idiocy, intensity and insanity of your anti-American trolling has only ever been even approached here by the rabid trolling of the gold-haters, but for sheer lunacy I have to judge you peerless.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 11:37 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

In a shameful, contemptible display, reminiscent of a spoiled child's tantrum, AnAnonymous continues his pitiful flailing:

No. I specifically asked what you would do.

______________________________________

Ah, running away in a fantasy land. The reliance on fantasy. US citizens can not do without that.

By this point, I think it is clear to readers that the only purpose of this post by AnAnonymous is a desperate attempt to convince himself that he is correct. One can observe in the above quoted excerpt his total abandonment of any sense of rationality. Notice also how quickly he resorts to the psychological defense mechanism of projection. He retreats into a fantasy world and then projects this retreat onto his favorite creation for such purposes, "US citizenism".

I told it outright and even when warned, 'Americans' can not resist the urge of their 'American' eternal nature.

'Americans' are the sole responsibles for the substance of 'Americanism'

Unable to come to terms with his own faults, his own retreat into fantasy, and his own dishonorable motives, we see him launch into another spittle-flecked diatribe.

Watch him now as he employs a virtual kaleidoscope of logical fallacies in a frantic effort to evade the questions while pretending not to:

The question grounded in reality is what proponents of a system should do to implement their system.

What next? Asking what aliens should do in the same situation?

No. 'Americans' are responsible for 'Americanism' No one else.

It is no evasion to remind this point. On the contrary. It is debunking a shallow evasion manoeuver as done by US citizens.

It is cornering US citizens.

An execrable performance. I doubt that it convinced even himself.

Watch now as he concludes with more psychological projection, attempting again to heap his own shortcomings onto others:

But 'Americans' are used to shifting the burden of their systemics onto other people so now it is up to someone else to do the job.

His usage of primitive defense mechanisms are indicative of some sort of personality disorder, such as antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, or narcissistic personality disorder.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 12:11 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

He hates americans. 

That about covers it.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 11:54 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

"You forgot ugly, lazy, and disrespectful

-The Breakfast Club

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 09:44 | Link to Comment homme
homme's picture

+2 For using pecksniffian bloviator in a sentence.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 12:17 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Triple bonus points if you can place the word 'melange', within the same sentence.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 09:07 | Link to Comment i-dog
i-dog's picture

 

"How would you approach the politician?"

Spiderman has a cool routine where he swings in on a web attached to a nearby building. Don't laugh...it could work!

"What would you say to him?"

The phrase: "FREEEEEZE, MUTHAFUCKA!!!!" comes to mind. Will that do?

(I'm a little hazy on the details after that ... of dealing with the swat teams, the trumped up child porn charges, the trial by a military tribunal as a terrorist, and then the conditions in Guantanamo. Maybe AnAnomalous can help out with those trivia?).

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 06:59 | Link to Comment BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

Until you tell us where you reside, you douchebag - none of your posts is worth the sweat of my scrot sac - fuckhead.

Come on fucker.....tell us.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 12:04 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

But, but, but it was thought that 'Americans' fight to preserve freedom of speech?

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 07:16 | Link to Comment TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

He's in France.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 12:01 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

But what about that chinese citizenism, smoking opium parlours, shitting on the chinese roadsides and all?

Make up your mind.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 15:58 | Link to Comment Mad Cow
Mad Cow's picture

Plop!

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 09:36 | Link to Comment TSA gropee
TSA gropee's picture

Well that kind of explains things doesn't it? AA, between sipping wine, munching on crescents and protesting their oh so long work days and short vacations (sarc) finds ample time to rag on the U.S.

Reminds me of a quote from Patton, "I'd rather have a German division in front of me, than a French one behind".

Or the adverstisement for a french rifle that simply read, "French rifle for sale, never fired, dropped once"...

F'n pussy.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 12:03 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Am I not supposed to a chinese? So now I am a French.

Fantasy and US citizens...

You know, facts are this different from fantasy and propaganda.

Propaganda and fantasy wear out. They have to be renew now and then to keep their enticing power.

So yes, that is the way it is.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 15:56 | Link to Comment Mad Cow
Mad Cow's picture

French Canadian of Chinese extraction.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 12:20 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

... or a gook? ... might still harbor some ill-feelings ... it can happen.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 13:31 | Link to Comment Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Well you pretend not to be a native speaker of English ... but you are. 

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 03:43 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

English has no official grammar.

'Americans' love to depict themselves as no group people.

Anytime an 'American' points out a personal use of english, as opposed to a collective habit of the english language, it speaks.

All goes to expose 'American' duplicity.

Sun, 08/05/2012 - 05:12 | Link to Comment Mad Cow
Mad Cow's picture

Plop!

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 01:49 | Link to Comment CitizenPete
CitizenPete's picture

The US Government - an all out embarresment to Americans and the world. 

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 05:50 | Link to Comment Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

Sorry fukface.  I know it's late and I should not reply to you but...

...

.gov ain't an embarrasment.  The people I know in .gov are good people.

Perhaps you - wailing on things - without offering better ideas are the embarrassment?  

Just asking.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 09:48 | Link to Comment TSA gropee
TSA gropee's picture

How many people does that comprise, 3? maybe 4? And at what levels of government, town, city, state? Brilliant. You sir are a retard. One judges government (the people in it) by the actions or inactions they take with regards to the oath they took as public servants. The questions to ask oneself are: Am I more free? (think 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments) By the various executive orders and legislation, am I safer? are things more fair with regards to judicial matters, economic decisions, etc, etc. You may or may not get my point.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 00:15 | Link to Comment Coldfire
Coldfire's picture

America working hand-in-hand with Al-CIA-da? This is news?

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 05:52 | Link to Comment Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

I swear Tyler you gotta kick some of us out soon.

'Cuz I think Coldfire be a fuking joke. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=KlyXNRrsk4A&feature=endscreen

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 09:49 | Link to Comment TSA gropee
TSA gropee's picture

Agreed. I think you should be the first to go. IMHO.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 00:12 | Link to Comment monad
monad's picture

yes

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 20:55 | Link to Comment Yes_Questions
Yes_Questions's picture

Should We Arrest D.C. Politicians for Supporting Al Qaeda?

Just detain indefinitely.

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 20:18 | Link to Comment stiler
stiler's picture

On this Shabbat: for your listening pleasure:

 

http://2a.d.344a.static.theplanet.com/conference_display/17

the guy @ bottom of page, Bill Konig is appropriate.

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 20:35 | Link to Comment AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

Perot became heavily involved in the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue. He believed that hundreds of American servicemen were left behind in Southeast Asia at the end of the U.S. involvement in the war,[17] and that government officials were covering up POW/MIA investigations in order to avoid revealing a drug smuggling operation used to finance a secret war in Laos

 

Perot also launched private investigations of, and attacks upon, U.S. Department of Defense official Richard Armitage who was involved in CIA led Phoenix Program.

 

By 1972, Phoenix operatives had "neutralized" 81,740 suspected NLF supporters, of whom 26,369 were killed.

 

Common methods of torture used at the interrogation centers included:

"Rape, gang rape, rape using eels, snakes, or hard objects, and rape followed by murder; electric shock ('the Bell Telephone Hour') rendered by attaching wires to the genitals or other sensitive parts of the body, like the tongue; the 'water treatment'; the 'airplane' in which the prisoner's arms were tied behind the back, and the rope looped over a hook on the ceiling, suspending the prisoner in midair, after which he or she was beaten; beatings with rubber hoses and whips; the use of police dogs to maul prisoners."[9]

Military intelligence officer K. Milton Osborne witnessed the following use of torture:

"The use of the insertion of the 6-inch dowel into the canal of one of my detainee's ears, and the tapping through the brain until dead. The starvation to death (in a cage), of a Vietnamese woman who was suspected of being part of the local political education cadre in one of the local villages ... The use of electronic gear such as sealed telephones attached to ... both both the women's vaginas and men's testicles [to] shock them into submission."[

 

SOUND FAMILIAR?????? Guantánamo Bay isn't anything new....US IS AS EVIL AS AL QUEDA.....THEY JUST WIN AT THE END AND COVER UP ALL THE EVILS AND REWRITE HISTORY

 

Americans you have been warned. Your elites are capable of becoming Nazis, Alqueda, or any other terrorists.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 05:53 | Link to Comment Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

Senator John McCain has been up to his eyebrows in the coverup of those left behind in Vietnam. I guess the apple didn't fall far from the tree when it comes to cover ups...re: McCain Senior's role in the USS Liberty 'affair.'

 

 

Richard Armitage was/is just one of the thugs in the employ of the US GOV who pose as respectable bureaucrats.

 

As for the topic of this thread, the US GOV and it's minions(edit: and ally, beginning with I an ending in l) were the fucking creators of 'Al Qaeda.'

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 21:09 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Guantanamo Bay is just the cover for "Camp No" where the real work get's done.

DHS has hired KGB officers retired or other to help form America's security policies. Where do you think "See something say something" came from? Inform on your neighbor anonomously. Now you know who is spying on your personal communications and data. 

PC, Political Correctness was indoctrinated in Germany to quell thier equivilent to our 9/11. Anyone going around saying the Germans burned down Reichstag was quickly silenced and verbage was curbed. They just pointed the finger at Poland and the war was on.

 

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 20:41 | Link to Comment Cosmosoft
Cosmosoft's picture

FUC K YOU SHIT BAG TYLERZ COCKSUKERZ POS

 

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 04:55 | Link to Comment Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

Struck a nerve did it?

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 05:58 | Link to Comment Vic Vinegar
Vic Vinegar's picture

Sure buddy.

 

  • to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
  • to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
  • to liberate oppressed knowledge.
  • to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
  • to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
  • to keep abreast of the most popular Katy Perry videos.

 

Which of these is not like the other?  More importantly, which of these matters?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=KlyXNRrsk4A&feature=endscreen

 

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 18:45 | Link to Comment stiler
stiler's picture

on Christian temperance:

Cause & effects. Gradation. The rank and file honor people of high birth. Those of middling intelligence despise them, saying that their birth is an advantage of chance, not of what they are. Clever men honor them, not in the way the rank and file do, butfrom deeper motives. Devout people with more zeal than knowledge despise them, despite the fact that they are honored by clever men, because piety gives them a new light to judge by. But perfect Christians honor them in a different, higher light.

So opinion follows opinion, for and against, depending on how much understanding you have.

~Pascal

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 18:45 | Link to Comment rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

Prosecute itself,

for “material support”? Hardly.

The government doesn’t define “material support” as one might think.

In the Humanitarian Law Project case, human rights
workers wanted to teach members of the Kurdistan PKK,
which seeks an independent Kurdish state, and the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which sought
an independent state in Sri Lanka, how to use
humanitarian and international law to peacefully
resolve disputes and obtain relief from the United
Nations and other international bodies for human rights
abuses by the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka. Both
organizations were designated as FTOs by the Secretary
of State in a closed hearing, in which the evidence is
heard secretly.

Despite the nonviolent, peacemaking goal of the
Humanitarian Law Project’s speech and training, the
majority of the Supreme Court nonetheless interpreted
the law to make such conduct a crime. Finding a whole
new exception to the First Amendment, the Court decided
that any support, even if it involves nonviolent
efforts towards peace, is illegal under the law since
it “frees up other resources within the organization
that may be put to violent ends,” and also helps lend
“legitimacy” to foreign terrorist groups.

?

http://dissentingdemocrat.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/obama-regime-expands-...

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 22:19 | Link to Comment Bringin It
Bringin It's picture

Some guy's in jail in NY because despite what the 1st Amendment says about protecting free speech, he helped his neighbors get al Manar on their satelite dishes.  I don't know what they say on al Manar.  Supposedly it is banned because it is from terrorists.  The Consitution has no special rules for speech the PTB like and don't like.  The Constitution, via The Bill of Rights says speech is protected.

I think Fox, CNN, et. al. are the terrorist broadcasting networks.  They shill for war and then the terror rains down on the Muslim masses.

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 18:28 | Link to Comment Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

Of course they realize it but you happen to forget that we're dealing with here are Fraudsters, deceptionist and outright Criminals operating in plain sight.

Unfortunately, our Military/Police fail us in upholding the law and refuse to arrest these Criminals.

I believe that The American People's last recourse/remedy or Civil Disobedience is to write Cyst and Decease letters acknowledging The Globalist and NGO's of their Crimes Against Humanity, Crimes Against The American People, Treason, Sedition, Trading With The Enemy and Economic Terrorism.

This message will convey to them the fact that the American People are aware of their various Crimes and notify them that upon arrest they will be dealt will the fullest extent of our domestic laws as well as International War Crimes.

These letters should be then posted on every social media platform available including flooding the halls of The Office of The President, Congress, The Dept of Justice, State Dept. CIA, ATF, DEA, DHS, FBI, and any other Criminal Agency that you can think of. Including OUR Military, Police as well as any NGO (Non-Governmental Offices) think tanks such as The Council on Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Comm., Rand Corporation, PNAC etc....

These individuals are hard core Criminals and should be treated as such. The Crimes Against Humanity and Crimes Against The American People and Crimes Against Soveign Nations can no longer be ignored. The Crimes are now being committed out in the open as opposed to being "hidden in plain view" in the past.

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 21:33 | Link to Comment Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

Al CIA-duh - (Noun)

A division of an intelligence agency or entity who's primary purpose is to create the illusion of, or appearance of, a real threat for the purpose of consumption by the general population.

"The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that from the CIA's inception in 1947 to 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations."

Throw in another 2 million from 1987 to 2007, interpolated from the above estimate.

"At least 869,720 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates." So let's call that another 1 million.

Fri, 08/03/2012 - 18:21 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Since America is a Corporation and we are unwittingly active participants within said Corporation, can we get a lawyer? Can we start a class action lawsuit against these Treasonist acts? After all, they are suposed to be our represenatives of We the People. Trading with the Enemy Article 50 does go both way's with out prejudice? 

 

Please reply. I think we may have something here.

 

Thanks!

-JP

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 00:44 | Link to Comment James
James's picture

No

You would have no standing.

The problem is your PLACE in said Corp.

For @least 140 years since filing that incorporation the ARTICLES of Incorporation say you are not an American but a United States,inc citizen

You are looked at as but a stock "UNIT".

Your birth certificate # is your "Stock" #

The real issue is filing that corporation.

People don't realise that ALL of D.C. is really the only place these laws are enforceable as their Corp. is legally  only D.C.

That's why it's not a state.

Up until being inc'ed it was STATES RIGHTS

Eternal power grab.

Sat, 08/04/2012 - 15:45 | Link to Comment Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

@ James,

Absolutely!  And it's an Economic System based on Fraud and Deception.  The American People never agreed or consented in mass toward a system via The Act of 1871. 

There needs to be mutual consent.  There hasn't been.  Congress has lied and perpurtrated a fraud upon The American People. 

It's null and void.   

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!