San Bernadino
- Thread starter thør
- Start date
PoppingTom
TEH BRAIN
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Posts
- 7,922
Because they're Pakistani.....that's different.
ISIS yourself
PoppingTom
TEH BRAIN
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Posts
- 7,922
Can't handle the truth ?
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
I get the point, but I am curious as to how you see this playing out in real life with respect to domestic terrorism if the problem persists or, as I suspect will happen, increases?
I cannot deny that my own argument supports yours. If their tactic can't prevail it unarguably mitigates the scope of what constitutes "danger." I take issue at the appropriateness of the word "annoyance," but let's stick with it for now. It is an annoyance we need not nor should tolerate simply by virtue of dimension. It has nothing to do with taking a victory lap or jingoistic hubris. It is an illegal act of internationally based aggression, and the fact that it does not come from a legitimately constituted sovereign nation is no reason to dismiss it.
Traditional American homicide tragically takes innocent lives as a result of horribly mismanaged and usually episodic anger. Terrorism directed at the West targets innocent lives as a matter of policy. The very intent of that policy, no matter its dysfunctional roots removes it, for me, from the mere realm of annoyance. It is abhorrent to bear it for a moment, scope of danger be damned.
And if your sentiment on the matter shall prevail among the American majority, then the very LAST thing we should do is make the ownership and bearing of arms by law abiding citizens more difficult. If we are going to endure this annoyance and allow the cancer to fester, then give me a fighting chance to defend myself in the face of mestization. I dislike guns reflexively. But at some point, cognizant of just what these predators are attempting to do and how they've chosen to do it, I might very well be motivated to arm myself when going out to dinner against the remote but EVER LESSENING remote odds that I might be in danger that is no longer merely annoying.
Much has been made of the fact that no armed citizen has yet repelled a shooter that has inflicted mass casualties. But I predict that if the trend continues, the defense will one day approach the commonality of the crime.
I certainly take no joy in predicting that. Especially since the root causes of gang violence, domestic violence and violence by the mentally ill can be addressed through far more effective means than equivalent firepower OR more stringent gun "control." Both of those measures are tragically poor substitutes for better, but financially intensive, alternatives.
But if we are going to pretend we are not at war against even a miniscule "force" who have declared "war"against us, the few of us who remain and who choose to "soldier on" should retain that right.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
You brought up a point that I've been cogitating on for a while now. Daesh (or ISIS or whatever) is acting as a de facto state in the area under their control. Administering law, public services, collection of taxes, etc. Everything that would constitute a 'State' save diplomatic recognition and the fact that they are operating within the borders of two other sovereign states, only one of which we have relations with.
Theoretically we could formally declare war against them. It will never happen, but in theory we could.
The reason it isn't going to happen is that there is NO WAY this congress is going to grant this president war powers.
Ishmael
NOIRTRASH
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2015
- Posts
- 10,580
If we plucked them from the shrub and caged them some place beautiful and safe, it would render their networks chaos in no time. I'd release them, later, in the Amazon somewhere, where its closer to New York City than the Atlantic Ocean.
I wonder if Nicholas Thalasinos is also the guy Farook reportedly (by some) had angry words with before abruptly leaving the party, only to quickly return and start spraying the place?
If so, I also wonder if Thalasinos was an unplanned trigger who may have inadvertently saved a whole bunch of lives?
Obviously, this pair had much, much more murderous mayhem in mind than just going postal at a company Xmas party: that's clear from their significant arsenal they didn't employ in that attack.
Maybe 14 lives is a lot less than what the jihadis really had in mind elsewhere?
juttjaw
Don't fence me in
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2011
- Posts
- 4,739
So many lives lost over the last year due to 'Mass Shootings'.. Why is this one so fucking important? Because of a foreign name? He was born here.. raised here..
Adam Lanza executed 20 children and 6 adults. He was born here.. and raised here.. You want to make this so political. What was his motive? What does it matter?
The dipshit kids from Columbine made pipe bombs... does this make them Jihadist terrorists? Does it make their sickening lack of humanity an attack of Christian Jihad?
Label it what you want... The FACT is that it happened.. Lets figure out how we can best combat this epidemic. Blaming it on Democrats or Republicans is so narrow minded it makes me sick.
Adam Lanza executed 20 children and 6 adults. He was born here.. and raised here.. You want to make this so political. What was his motive? What does it matter?
The dipshit kids from Columbine made pipe bombs... does this make them Jihadist terrorists? Does it make their sickening lack of humanity an attack of Christian Jihad?
Label it what you want... The FACT is that it happened.. Lets figure out how we can best combat this epidemic. Blaming it on Democrats or Republicans is so narrow minded it makes me sick.
"we", tonto?
How do you propose to stop the intentional killing of 3,000 totally innocent babies every single day in the USSA?
juttjaw
Don't fence me in
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2011
- Posts
- 4,739
ummm... use a condom??
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,288
Human being can be incredibly random. My best guess in this case however is eventually the people who want to handle this as a police action rather than a war action will either take a knee or be successfully shouted down. As dirty a tactic as it is the truth is "Go tell their families that this wasn't an act of war!" is a fairly difficult thing to argue. There is obviously a critical mass where that stops being something you can put off.
It doesn't change the fact that the families are emotional and irrational and really should have little to do with any major decisions but I'm not gonna pretend that's not a tactic that will work if things persist.
I'd also be curious what in your mind qualifies as increase. Are we talking attempts, successes, body counts? Some combination thereof? In this case it's important because there are a few ways of looking at this that I feel are equally valid. As tragic as yesterdays terrorist attack (we have settled on that quasi officially right?) was last I checked no credit is being taken for it at all. Which suggests lone wolf or whatever term we choose to apply. The important detail is that if they are just pissed off about whatever they are pissed off about the utter destruction of ISIS may or may not have any tangible effect on these guys who still don't strike ( at least successfully) with what anybody could call regularity.
I agree that homicide and terrorism are different things with different circumstances all the way around. The point there was however that in sheer numbers of lives losts Dead is dead. The 14 killed yesterday are no less dead than 14 dead from car accidents or murdered during the same period. With each of these things we access the risk, take reasonable action and then file the rest under who gives a fuck. No drunk driving, speed limits, wear your seatbelt, mandatory airbags, crash tests and for fucks sake survivability is a sales pitch for cars! The numbers are still high but we collectively shrug and carry on. With murder we set laws. . .we mostly ignore it honestly but still.
Aside from the "They aren't us" quality I'm not seeing what makes this super duper must act now.
The comparisons to the Nazis and Imperial Japanese just don't actually hold. Sure we're talking about comparable amounts of 'evil' but not remotely similar capabilities. Without wanting to argue to heavily into history most people agree Germany and Japan had at least a decent chance of actually accomplishing some if not all of their goals. They also had actual leaders who would and some of whom were eventually sat down and spoken to. At gun point sure but spoken to. I mean while we both know that when ISIS goes down if the greater issues in the ME aren't solved Al Qaeda 3.0 will emerge. Maybe it'll be less buggy than this one, maybe not. Won't know until we know. By contrast a defeat of Germany was a defeat of the entire problem.
If we were fighting against Catholics, not Christians but Catholics specifically where presumably the capture of the Pope would actually be an end game I'd be all about it. But that's not these guys.
As for the victory lap, while I personally do not agree there is a general feeling it seems that this war is lasting as long as it is because our president(s) insist on fighting with our hands tied. If we wanted we could bomb them back to the stone age end this once and for all and come home. That we are NOT doing this because of a lack of gastrointestinal fortitude if you will. Instead of common sense telling us what will happen in ten to fifteen years when a new generation comes of age who's earliest memory is a drone blowing up mommy and daddy.
Regardless you don't think they currently have the firepower to win. They may someday but shy of suitcase nukes (which as I understand it are not impossible. Just the US and USSR politely agreed not to do that and as far as official records show both sides honored it.) I don't really see any logical way of ISIS or a similarly brutal group getting power that could accomplish it.
My overall point there is that I don't think the majority of Americans view this as a ticking time bomb. If they did one of two things (IMO) would occur. One side would say fuck it and take a knee. If only so that one side could try their thing, fail and get that out of the way. The other is the side with 50%+1 would shout the otherside down and impose its will for better or worse. Either way we wouldn't be quibbling about the details.
I don't dislike guns. Increasingly over the years I dislike pro-gun individuals. That said you raise a point that ultimately with you perhaps the argument could be won. I find you tend to be well thought out and rational but I cannot ask that en masse of people. Regardless that's about FEELING safe more so than being safe. You acknowledge that if the numbers remain steady your chances individually of being attacked are slim to begin with but you want to feel secure. For shits and giggles I'm gonna point out your earlier point about most murders being misguided anger and ask what you think logically MUST happen if a majority of Americans are simply in a position to do more than slap you when they get in the mood. But I don't believe that was your point. Something has to be done to prevent that feeling from taking hold.
I don't really care, for the record, that no armed citizen has yet managed to stop an attack for two reasons. First I like numbers and I've yet to see the numbers suggest and armed populace is going to prevent these things, certainly not in the numbers necessary to justify all the stupid shit that will inevitably happen. Second because I understand feelings enough to understand that people NEED to feel safe.
I'm not really interesting in taking away guns. Speaking from a purely practical standpoint it's not plausible in this country. Certainly the only way it would work out would be if we magically had multiple NRA meetings turn into blood baths because some kid threw a bunch of firecrackers out.
I still don't believe we can be at war with something as amorphous as this. What ever it is, it's not a war. You mention there are other more effective methods and I agree. But we're not gonna do any of them are we. I'd love to throw the book at conservatives here BUT I don't honestly think it's as simple as that.
I have a theory, well a hypothesis strictly speaking, that this is a problem that we collectively like to have. It's basically like the Cold War only currently with lower stakes. It gives us something that we can point at as a real problem. Some unifying enemy that we can all be be scared of.
As for formal war, I don't think we can formally declare war on them under Geneva. Even if we could if you (Ishy) don't think the Congress has the balls to give Obama or Clinton/Cruz/Trump (those are still our most likely based on polling no?) then it becomes moot very quickly.
But I'll play. We declare war. We swoop in crush ISIS/ISIL/Daesh whatever the fuck we're calling them next week. Goddamn P.Diddy didn't change names this often. We recreate the exact same power vacuum we did earlier and simply hope that ISIS was the absolute worst of the bunch and the next group will be kinder and gentler? Is the plan to rinse wash and repeat until we get lucky?
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
It's only Russian Roulette when some whack job like you is out punching holes in them to 'save babies'.
The rest of the world calls it personal responsibility....something your obviously against.
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
They already did. Or at least that is the interpretation that President Bush used to deploy forces in Aghanistan under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF – 2001) and in Iraq under a separate authorization (AUMF – 2002). AUMF 2001 had three notable features that impact the “War on Terror” from its passage by Congress in 2001 up to and including the present day.
1. The Congressional authorization gave broad authority for the use of force against an equally broad scope of enemy targets both respect to those who “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September, 2001 attacks AND with respect to future acts of terrorism by those same perpetrators:
2. The AUMF 2001 specifically exempted the President from certain reporting requirements to Congress imposed by the Wars Powers Resolution passed in 1973. The War Powers Resolution itself was and continues to be a controversial attempt to limit the ability of the President in the arguable lawful exercise of his authority as Commander-in-Chief to use American military force to wage a nonetheless unlawful war presumably evidenced by a failure of Congress to declare war as its Constitutionally reserved prerogative. But the Constitution neither restricts the use of military force to a Congressional declaration of war nor limits the command authority of the President in the absence of same. Further, the history of the United States is replete with “undeclared wars” thus giving support to the premise that virtually all Presidents and all Congresses endorse the sovereign right of the United States to wage war without a formal declaration OF war.
Nevertheless, Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution required the President to,
The AUMF 2001 also contained language declaring itself to have constituted that “specific authorization.”
To argue that Congress was unwilling to extend “war powers” to President Bush in September of 2001 flies in the very face of the sweeping authorization language contained in Section (a) of the legislation as well as the exemption to the reporting requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution.
3. Since the AUMF 2001 had no “sunset provision,” President Obama has used its authority to employ military force against terrorism as had President Bush. Congress has continued to fund military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, the raid on OBL in Pakistan and God knows where else.
More specifically, President Obama signed into law on December 31, 2011 National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA 2012) which, among other things, reaffirmed his authority under AUMF 2001 AND endorsed the long internationally recognized right of indefinite detention of captured illegal combatants under the laws of war.
As noted above and as I should have acknowledged in my last post, United States citizens and legal resident aliens are exempted from indefinite detention under the law of war. Thus, had Sayed Farook and his wife been taken into custody alive it is presumed that they would have been tried under standard United States and State of California criminal statutes.
It is less clear if a United States citizen could today be tried under military tribunal if his criminal act(s) were the result of specific direction by and allegiance to a foreign enemy nation or hostile force, although the 2004 Supreme Court ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld seems to indicate that an American citizen could very well be tried before such tribunal:
Moreover, SCOTUS held in Hamdi, and it went to the very heart of the case, that an American citizen could also be indefinitely detained under the law of war. In other words, Hamdi upholds the very indefinite detention which the NDAA 2012 prohibits.
Thus, while Quirin continues to stand as a legal precedent supporting the trial of American citizens by military tribunal, its corollary support of indefinite detention of American citizens under the same legal theory is precluded by current federal statute. These two countervening facts, the age of the Quirin precedent itself and much controversy surrounding the original decision too complex to explain here argue for a developing legal evolution that will likely make it increasingly difficult to apply a law of war construct to individual American citizens committing violent terrorist acts on American soil, the recent Hamdi affirmation notwithstanding.
This does not and should not, however, diminish such a construct being applied to acts of terrorism launched against the United States from abroad or by foreign agents sent here at the direction of terrorist forces or organizations located abroad.
Those acts are clearly acts of war and should be met with any full retaliatory acts consistent with the law of war as the United States may see fit including indefinite detention of enemy combatants captured and detained in the prosecution thereof.
Last edited:
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
No they didn't, limited scope to conduct combat operations. An out and out declaration conveys powers to subsume the economy without congressional approval.
Survival murder vs discretionary murder. (As if that makes some difference to the dead.) Apparently the current CIC is quite willing to carry out murder in secrecy, but puts on a different face when it's public.
You tired of legalese yet? I am.
Ishmael
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Once again, as if that's something unique to Obama.
You're such a partisan slime ball....
snugglestruggle
...
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2011
- Posts
- 7,373
I knew sooner or later the Jews would get blamed. Authorities said Farooq had a bitter argument with a Jewish coworker over religion 2 weeks ago.
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
In what way is the following language codified under federal law since September of 2001 "limiting"?
"The President is authorized to use ALL necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons HE determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent ANY future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
Incidentally, the Supreme Court has obviously ruled in Hamdi that the AUMF constitutes the legal equivalent of a declaration of war. If it didn't there would have been no legal basis for its recognition of the right of indefinite detention OR the prosecution of American citizens by military tribunal. There is no basis for dispute about what Congress LEGALLY AUTHORIZED.
Moreover, as has been pointed out by legal scholars previously, the authorization to go to WAR against "organizations or persons" in addition to sovereign nations is UNPRECEDENTED. Congress has never used such language before.
Gee, if only they had "taken the gloves off," huh?
Besides, there is absolutely NOTHING about a formal declaration of war that deprives Congress of its funding authority. Congress could have turned off the financial spigot to World War II virtually anytime it chose. Who are you kidding about "powers to subsume the economy without congressional approval." Bullshit!
Outside of that reality, the President has all the authority he needs to send as many troops as he wishes under his authority as CIC to end this thing. The only reason he doesn't or any other President wouldn't is bowing to fickle public opinion about how much blood and treasure should be expended to do that job.
Nor does public opinion tend toward definitive resolve when Presidents employ half measures and self-limiting rules of engagement or subdue one enemy theater of operations and then abandon it for another. In that respect, Sean R. is right to condemn such shortsightedness as a self-defeating military "strategy."
Last edited:
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Let's start with the fact that what you quoted has expired, why else would he seek an extension? And a congressional law is NOT a declaration of war.
Stop it counselor. In so many respects you're the problem, not the solution.
Ishmael
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
Just the fact that the President of the United States has gravitated to gun control in the wake of this issue highlights the one reality, the law does not matter, one way or another, arguing it is just silly, asinine and ancillary, because his ideology is driven by the idea that he, and he alone is uniquely qualified to find diplomatic common ground without resort to any more than a token show of military force in order to throw into the face of the opposition that he is "doing everything they are demanding," the implication being that they oppose him because he is first and foremost black, secondly a Democrat and thirdly that he is more erudite and educated than they are in the nuances of international relations (and whatever else is the topic of the day). He cares not one wit about any dangers coming from abroad including the non-Islamic use of terror by armed criminal gangs created by George W. Bush because they are no a significant threat, just a right-wing boogeyman. He has made it clear that he thinks the greatest threat to the internal peace of this nation is the access to guns of rural white Christian conservatives who are ignorant and backward living in isolated backwaters who do not understand, as he does, how the world really works and are thus afraid of everything and whose proclivity is to lash out in violence against the truly innocent who are only guilty of being a little different than you average county bumpkin.
And judging by the tenor of posts of his supporters here, that has become, aside from abortion, the single most important sacrament of the Left born, mentored and sent forth from their cultural wombs by the intellectual class, educational system, and the cult of celebrity. They have surrendered critical thinking for the truthiness of inner-driven self-reflection and when they look into that mirror, one of the main emotional Freudian gambits is to consider all feelings about truth and justice against the backdrop of, "How will my peers think about me if I even think this, let alone emote it publicly."
What further sickens me about this new cultural paradigm is that the same lot who so admired the courage and action of the First Lady's hash tag campaign to "Save Our Girls" are now using their publications to blast Republicans and Conservatives for offering prayers, because prayers don't solve anything, like the need to confiscate all guns.
Will they also ban the humble pressure cooker?
#/rantwithoutprayingfortheirsalvationletallahsortthemout
And judging by the tenor of posts of his supporters here, that has become, aside from abortion, the single most important sacrament of the Left born, mentored and sent forth from their cultural wombs by the intellectual class, educational system, and the cult of celebrity. They have surrendered critical thinking for the truthiness of inner-driven self-reflection and when they look into that mirror, one of the main emotional Freudian gambits is to consider all feelings about truth and justice against the backdrop of, "How will my peers think about me if I even think this, let alone emote it publicly."
What further sickens me about this new cultural paradigm is that the same lot who so admired the courage and action of the First Lady's hash tag campaign to "Save Our Girls" are now using their publications to blast Republicans and Conservatives for offering prayers, because prayers don't solve anything, like the need to confiscate all guns.
Will they also ban the humble pressure cooker?
#/rantwithoutprayingfortheirsalvationletallahsortthemout
Last edited:
4est_4est_Gump
Run Forrest! RUN!
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2011
- Posts
- 89,007
