ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Obama openly aiding Muslim terrorists

This action is unlikely to help convince those who believe the man is still a secret Muslim that they are incorrect:
President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Some elements of the Syrian opposition are associated with radical Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, which was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Shanksville, Pa., in 2001. Assad’s regime is backed by Iran and Hezbollah.

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would “waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction.” Those two sections prohibit sending weaponry to countries described in section 40(d): “The prohibitions contained in this section apply with respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism,” Congress stated in the Arms Control Export Act.

“For purposes of this subsection, such acts shall include all activities that the Secretary determines willfully aid or abet the international proliferation of nuclear explosive devices to individuals or groups or willfully aid or abet an individual or groups in acquiring unsafeguarded special nuclear material,” the law continues.
 "The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he “determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States.”" Either Obama is lying and arming terrorists is not in the national security interests of the United States, or worse, those interests are in direct opposition to the national security interests of the American people.

Labels:

129 Comments:

Anonymous Piers Morgan September 17, 2013 9:09 AM  

I told you the NRA was dangerous.

Anonymous DrTorch September 17, 2013 9:12 AM  

Remember when the Iran-Contra affair was a big scandal?

It's kinda funny now.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:14 AM  

I believe you have misread the situation (or the original author). Pres. Obama has claimed that Syria used a weapon of mass destruction, aka, gas. To ship weapons to Syria, the government has to waive the restrictions on exporting weapons to **Syria**. There is no distinction between the government, and rebel forces within it. Syria is the object of the classification that prevents exporting arms to the Rebels.

The opposition are almost certainly terrorists, however, and Muslim, so that part is correct in that we are supporting them. Stupidly, of course.

The law is designed to prevent States who sponsor terrorism from purchasing weapons on the international market, and then transferring them to domestically based terrorist groups, who will use them in international terrorism acts. That's the key part of 40(d): "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism".

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother September 17, 2013 9:18 AM  

Dh,

Maybe true in theory, but in practice Obama is arming our enemies.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:23 AM  

Remember when the Iran-Contra affair was a big scandal?

It's kinda funny now.


Criticize Obama for this, I agree. But the vast difference is that Pres. Obama at least appears to be following the letter of the law on Syria. He didn't just start a war without Congress approving. He's notified Congress of his intent to supply weapons. It's a big improvement not in outcome, but in democratic process. A President has submitted his war making urges to Congress. Sure, Congress are still a bunch of blood thirsty monsters without souls or care for the damage they cause, but it's still a big step forward for a country that just lived under the unitary executive, whose war making authority allow him to legally crush the testicles of an 8-yr old boy.

Iran-Contra, on the other hand, violated a long list of black-letter laws, and was done in secret. But the bigger problem is that Pres. Reagan was most likely in the dark to what was happening. That's the scandal.

Anonymous Tallen September 17, 2013 9:23 AM  

Fast & Furious 2: Al Qaeda Edition

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:27 AM  

Maybe true in theory, but in practice Obama is arming our enemies.

Agreed. Congress should shut it down. But sadly they want it more than he does. The Vampire Duo of McCain and Levin are all for it. It's the same stupid stuff that led to us having to invade Afghanistan.

I was just pointing out that, say, if Canada was taken over by a dictator, and that dictator supported international terrorists, he would have to waive the same rules to supply the government-in-exile with weapons. The prohibition has to do with the government of the country, not the rebels.

It's also stupid. If I were Assad, and the US was arming the other side of the civil war inside my country, I would view the US engaged in war against me. I would declare war on the US and fight asymmetrically against the US and it's allies. Which is almost certainly what will happen now.

Anonymous Salt September 17, 2013 9:38 AM  

I do hope background checks are done on those Syrian rebels so weaponized. No strawman sales allowed either.

"Will you be carrying your weapon while riding your camel?"

Blogger buzzardist September 17, 2013 9:43 AM  

Obama has already been very plain in making the case for intervention in Syria that this is a humanitarian effort aimed at punishing Syria's government for using chemical weapons on its own people. (Let's set aside for a moment the question of whether or not the Syrian government actually did this.) As such, the president has essentially admitted that intervention in Syria is not in the interests of American security. Perhaps he can try to make a convoluted case that an atrocity anywhere is a threat to American security, but this claim is absurd unless he can clearly show that an Assad-controlled Syria would launch an attack against the U.S. or support terrorists who do, and that Assad would be more dangerous in doing so than the people he's fighting against. Considering that many of those fighting against Assad are avowed terrorists who have carried out attacks on the U.S., Obama cannot make this case.

Once again, the president blatantly dismisses the law and disregards Congress.

If Congress is smart, they will never write another law with waivers in it again, except that those waivers can be requested by the president and have to be voted on by Congress. Congress is supposed to be the strongest branch of the federal government, but instead it's become the weakest. This fall was entirely of Congress's own doing as the legislative branch has ceded ground to the executive and judiciary. At moments, Congress fails to act because of partisanship. At other moments, Congress acts, but only in the vaguest, most compromising terms as members try to write bills for the lowest common denominator in order to corral enough votes for passage. At still other moments, Congress simply behaves lazily, avoiding meaningful legislation and action out of a misguided sense of political preservation--put the hard decisions onto the president or the courts. It all adds up to Congress abdicating its role. Not only has Congress ceded most of its power to other branches, it has created more and more power for those other branches, particularly for the executive and the bureaucrats, even as Congress has taken a back seat in wielding the powers it claims for others in government.

Put election of senators back to the states. Expand the House so that each representative represents only about 50,000 or 60,000 people. Fire 3/4 of the Washington bureaucrats, and let Congress take a more assertive role in setting national policy. Start by impeaching presidents like this one who openly flout the law.

These things will never happen, but they are what needs to happen if America's system of government is going to be preserved.

Anonymous VD September 17, 2013 9:43 AM  

But the vast difference is that Pres. Obama at least appears to be following the letter of the law on Syria. He didn't just start a war without Congress approving. He's notified Congress of his intent to supply weapons. It's a big improvement not in outcome, but in democratic process.

I'm willing to give credit to Obama for correctly following the legal process. That's not my criticism of him. My criticism of him is that he is, legally or not, attempting to arm Muslim terrorists who have declared themselves to be at war with the American people. And, as you said, taking measures against another country that have historically been considered casus belli.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 September 17, 2013 9:51 AM  

I think it is pretty clear that the Obama administration wants to arm terrorists and criminals and not regular people. They know full well the implications of gun control and completely understand the concept of only criminals having guns.

It's just another welfare system where good citizens depend on the government for their needs. Criminals and police have guns, so people need government to protect them.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 9:53 AM  

That's not my criticism of him. My criticism of him is that he is, legally or not, attempting to arm Muslim terrorists who have declared themselves to be at war with the American people. And, as you said, taking measures against another country that have historically been considered casus belli.

Yup. It always amazes me that there isn't anyone near a Senator or WH spokesperson who has the brains to ask what preparations we are making against Syria's legitimate and entirely appropriate expected retaliation for our interference in an internal sectarian war. Listening to the vampire Senators talk about our intelligence agencies talk about being comfortable knowing which sub-groups to arm and which ones not to arm is like listening to the police decide which street gangs are not so bad and which ones help old ladies cross the street.

Blogger JartStar September 17, 2013 10:03 AM  

whose war making authority allow him to legally crush the testicles of an 8-yr old boy.

Is this rhetoric or did this happen?

Anonymous Roundtine September 17, 2013 10:06 AM  

With this law waived, they can deliver a small scale nuke captured off the Russian black market and deliver it to Al Qaeda. They will set it off in Israel, blame Hezbollah, and there will be the pretext to take out Iran.

Anonymous Catan September 17, 2013 10:11 AM  

Criticize Obama for this, I agree. But the vast difference is that Pres. Obama at least appears to be following the letter of the law on Syria. He didn't just start a war without Congress approving.

I don't believe for one second that dh actually believes this.

Dh, tell us with a straight face that Obama wouldn't break a law if it were politically advantageous for him to do so.

Seriously, why do you give Obama accolades that you yourself know he doesn't merit? It's almost like you are consciously trying to fool yourself into believing that the law matters and that it actually binds your masters, to the point of clapping like a seal every time a scrap is thrown on the table.

That Obama "followed the letter of the law" in this situation shouldn't give anyone one iota of relief, because once it's advantageous for him to break the law, he's going to do just that.

Anonymous Porky September 17, 2013 10:12 AM  

And we still haven't gotten all the dirt on the arms we sent to Libya.

Anonymous Brother Thomas September 17, 2013 10:16 AM  

He arms illerate psychopaths.

And he seeks to disarm you.


Blogger Scott September 17, 2013 10:17 AM  

It should be obvious by now that Obama (and most democrats) can get away with anything. The MSM has demonstrated that no scandal is too heinous to bury. And stop blaming congress. Sure they're pathetic, but the American people are at best idle observers, but on average are ignorant idiots. They'll still be idiots after the collapse everyone seems to be craving.

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 10:17 AM  

Is this rhetoric or did this happen?

It was mentioned in the Bush administration's justice department torture memos.

Anonymous Krul September 17, 2013 10:23 AM  

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to “vetted” opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

So, um, why is he saying this, exactly?

Why doesn't he just, you know, DO it - supply weapons to the terrorists - and NOT tell anybody? Isn't that normally the way it's done?

Anonymous Van September 17, 2013 10:32 AM  

So, per dh's explanation, the law only applies to the uS providing weapons to governments who may then give them to terrorists; it doesn't say anything about the uS giving weapons directly to terrorists.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 10:32 AM  

Is this rhetoric or did this happen?

Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.


John Yoo, who was in the DOJ, provided the legal basis saying basically the Commander in Chief could do anything under the umbrella of his war making authority.

That Obama "followed the letter of the law" in this situation shouldn't give anyone one iota of relief, because once it's advantageous for him to break the law, he's going to do just that.

I don't know what happened, but two weeks ago, before Obama decided to go to Congress, it appeared that we were going to start bombing Syria like any minute. Then for some reason, Obama changed course and decided to bring the authorization to Congress, where it died, and now we've slid down this diplomatic route with Putin and Syria and inspections and whatever.

So, I mean, it's possible that Obama felt that it would better for him politically to not bomb Syria and let it die in Congress, it's possible that Obama felt that it would be better for him politically to let Congress kill the thing for some other reason.

But to the outside, right now, it looks like we were going to bomb Syria, without Congressional approval, probably under the auspices of the War Powers Act. And he didn't do it.

Same thing with weapons transfers. In past administrations, we just send weapons where ever want. The Reagan administration had the problem of funding - they didn't have the money to do the arms deals. Right now the CIA, NSA, military has uncontrolled, unregulated, unseen funds that they can do whatever they want with. It was within the ability for them to do whatever they wanted, but it appears that they are briefing Congress, transparently telling people what is happening.

What IS important is that a President has turned against war making because there was not support for it in Congress. 10 years ago John Yoo and the neoconservatives were writing legal memo's saying that the President could do anything he wanted as Commander in Chief. Domestic spying? No problem. Torture? No problem. Rendition? No problem.

Whether through incompetence, malice, idiocy, or wisdom, Obama has significantly scaled back the war making authority of the Presidency and that's (a) in line with what the founders built into the seperation of powers and (b) good for the whole world.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 10:34 AM  

Why doesn't he just, you know, DO it - supply weapons to the terrorists - and NOT tell anybody? Isn't that normally the way it's done?

Right, it's normally done illegally. Afganistan, Iran-Contra, Pakistan - all illegal.

So, per dh's explanation, the law only applies to the uS providing weapons to governments who may then give them to terrorists; it doesn't say anything about the uS giving weapons directly to terrorists.

There are also prohibitions against selling weapons to non-state groups that are designated terrorist organizations, but I believe those can also be undo on the executive order level by removing those names from the list of terrorist organizations.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 10:35 AM  

And we still haven't gotten all the dirt on the arms we sent to Libya.

They'll be killing Americans for generations.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 10:36 AM  

Catan--

he's going to do just that.

Forgot one important thing. I think Obama is quite scared of the House. Which is just about right, he should be. All President's should be.

Anonymous liljoe September 17, 2013 10:36 AM  

To ship weapons to Syria, the government has to waive the restrictions on exporting weapons to **Syria**. There is no distinction between the government, and rebel forces within it. Syria is the object of the classification that prevents exporting arms to the Rebels.

Oh I see now, he just needed to sidestep the law to get the weapons to the rebels who are inside Syria, not directly to the terrorist groups...*ahem* "rebels". I'm totally on board with the prez now that's cleared up. Nice try, Vox

Anonymous Noah B. September 17, 2013 10:37 AM  

Obama may be able to waive this particular provisions of law, but given the repeated argument that the congressional authorization to use force against Al Qaeda was the legal equivalent of a declaration of war, Obama is still arming a group with which the United States is at war. That's treason.

Anonymous Catan September 17, 2013 10:43 AM  

Dh, did you miss the executive branch saying repeatedly that it didn't need Congress, and was just asking out of some sort of courtesy?

Obama hasn't ceded any authority. This was never about Congress, it's about the fact that Zero has miniscule public support for his war. So, he found a way out.

The only limit on power is political will, and political consequences. This had nothing to do with any law, or respect for separation of powers. He had no popular support, so he punted.

There is no benevolence in Obama's actions.

I think Obama is quite scared of the House.

He is scared of popular will turning on him. Nothing else.

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 10:44 AM  

Forgot one important thing. I think Obama is quite scared of the House. Which is just about right, he should be. All President's should be.

Except that the house is going to, once again, roll over on the debt ceiling, government shutdown, and funding obamacare.

Anonymous zen0 September 17, 2013 10:44 AM  

krul ponders:
Why doesn't he just, you know, DO it - supply weapons to the terrorists - and NOT tell anybody? Isn't that normally the way it's done?

That's already been done. That's what Benghazi was about. When things screw up because illegal things take more steps to do, the best option is to just make it legal and avoid any more pitfalls.

Its called "Administrative Convenience".

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 10:46 AM  

Except that the house is going to, once again, roll over on the debt ceiling, government shutdown, and funding obamacare.


Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

Anonymous Van September 17, 2013 10:47 AM  

Dh-

Just a little humor regarding the liberal mindset. A law that specificaly limits fedgov (especially the President) is interpreted as narrowly as possible, while any law empowering fedgov is interpreted so broadly only a moron could actually believe what he's saying.

Totally unrelated, I'm curious to hear your explanation regarding how the War Powers Act would allow the President to take action in Syria without Congressional authorization.

Anonymous Catan September 17, 2013 10:48 AM  

By the way, dh, if he were scared of the House, he wouldn't immediately threaten Govt shutdown in response to funding that doesn't include Obamacare.

If he were truly scared of the House, wouldn't he be trying to compromise or work out a deal with them?

See, the "scared of the House" theory holds no water. Did you miss the last election, when Obama pushed the House around constantly? A Senate that's regularly tabled House bills without even considering them?

These aren't things you do to a body you are "scared" of.

Where is this evidence for this assertion, beyond simply extrapolating it from this singular instance?

Anonymous Van September 17, 2013 10:49 AM  

Assuming you believe so, you may not have been making the argument yourself.

Anonymous Fred September 17, 2013 10:50 AM  

Surprised that 'Nate' hasn't spouted his usual drivel by now on this, making excuses for the criminal traitorous President and his staff.

Anonymous Benghazi September 17, 2013 10:51 AM  

Yep, Obama sure convinced me he's on the up and up.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 10:57 AM  

Obama may be able to waive this particular provisions of law, but given the repeated argument that the congressional authorization to use force against Al Qaeda was the legal equivalent of a declaration of war,

I think you are actually quite wrong with your legal theory. The law you are talking about is the AUMF, passed 9/14/2011:

"That 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."

Al Qaeda is not mentioned, notice.

Obama is still arming a group with which the United States is at war. That's treason.

It's actually quite not.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

So for one, Al Qaeda is our enemy so long as Obama or the President says so.

Secondly, and this is why the AUMF, and the idea of going to war against an ad-hoc group like Al Qaeda is too stupid to describe, is that there no definition of Al Qaeda that is definitive. If some group of Syrian rebels says they are Al Qaeda, are they? If I say I am Al Qaeda, am I? What if I say you are Al Qaeda? If you and I make a boy scout troop, but the government say it's actually Al Qaeda, is it?

Conceptually it's stupid to arm rebel groups fighting in a civil war we have no stake in. Of course we all know why we would do so. It's yet another proxy war being fought for Israel and against Iran.

But being stupid doesn't make it Treason.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 11:04 AM  

Totally unrelated, I'm curious to hear your explanation regarding how the War Powers Act would allow the President to take action in Syria without Congressional authorization.

The War Powers act is probably unconstitutional. But no Congress has had the fortitude to actually establish that. Previous Presidents, including Obama, have defied it without Congress taking any actions (Obama in Libya, Clinton is Kosovo, Bush arguably in Pakistan).

The act was intended to restrain the President, but it leaves a loop hole saying the President can send troops on an emergency basis, but then give Congress notice within 48 hours, and that after that he can only retain military action for 90 days. The practical implication is that the President can start and fight any war he wants if he thinks it will be over and done with in 90 days or less.

The law is probably unconstitutional for two reasons: a. Congress can't delegate it's essential function to the Executive; b. War making was intended to be an enumerated power of Congress, regardless of the length of the engagement.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 11:07 AM  

These aren't things you do to a body you are "scared" of.

Where is this evidence for this assertion, beyond simply extrapolating it from this singular instance?


The House does not have support to impeach Obama over anything domestically. And Obama has them over a barrel because they are too stupid to fight effectively (and have bad leadership).

Obama is scared of the House on Syria, because (a) the Country elected Obama to get us out of Iraq and Afganistan and (b) no one gives a crap about Syria. If Obama moves on Syria without Congress, the House would have an easy impeachment route that would garner a lot of left-wing support.

Blogger JartStar September 17, 2013 11:07 AM  

Whether through incompetence, malice, idiocy, or wisdom, Obama has significantly scaled back the war making authority of the Presidency and that's (a) in line with what the founders built into the seperation of powers and (b) good for the whole world.

I go with disinterest. I think he's looking for ways to get out of going to war as he'd rather hit the links, but there's enough internal pressure to make him do so.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 17, 2013 11:08 AM  

Either Obama is lying and arming terrorists is not in the national security interests of the United States, or worse, those interests are in direct opposition to the national security interests of the American people.

It is the latter.

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 11:08 AM  

FredSeptember 17, 2013 10:50 AM

Surprised that 'Nate' hasn't spouted his usual drivel by now on this, making excuses for the criminal traitorous President and his staff


Are you talking about a different Nate than the one who posts here?

Anonymous Benghazi September 17, 2013 11:11 AM  

Why not Tea Party terrorists... they have been identified and processed by IRS. What is Obama waiting for... ON THE BOXCAR IS ON THE BOXCAR !!!1!!!!111!!!!

Anonymous BillB September 17, 2013 11:16 AM  

The President is empowered to execute the law. The President has no authority to waive or otherwise not execute the law as written. But We the freaking lazy, dumbaz People of America have let the President do as he pleases with impunity. We get what we deserve. Impeachment is a simple political process. It is not at all a criminal process. Historically, simply moving funds allocated for one object and spending on a different object resulted in the impeachment of the executive. Again, the 2s2pids of the US have given us the problems we have.

The Framers were 100% correct when they said the people were 2s2pid to select a President and then created what is supposed to be a totally independent elective body with no input from the People. The People give us Presidents like BO and W and BillyBob and Bush Sr and FDR and Truman and Wilson and Lincoln and the others who violate their oath of office with no regard to honor and doing what is right.

The Framers were knowledgeable about humans so far beyond any person living today. That in itself is proof that YHWH loved us at one point.

Anonymous Van September 17, 2013 11:18 AM  

Dh-

You haven't actually read the WPA, have you? Or is this a good example of what I said above: since it empowers the President, it must be interpreted as broadly as possible.

As actually written, the WPA was intended to reinforce Congress's authority and rein in the Executive. The President may only make war without Congressional approval if the uS is attacked or under imminent threat of attack - circumstances where going to Congress is nearly impossible. He doesn't have a 90-day blank check.

Blogger James Higham September 17, 2013 11:26 AM  

The double negatives - not convince that he is not - are a bit much for a poor Brit over here. think the idea was that Obama aids terrorism. Check. :)

Blogger Nate September 17, 2013 11:40 AM  

"Surprised that 'Nate' hasn't spouted his usual drivel by now on this, making excuses for the criminal traitorous President and his staff."

What the hell are you babbling about Moron?

I don't defend this idiot in chief.

Blogger Nate September 17, 2013 11:42 AM  

Fred.

You have accused me of defending this president and his staff. And have even used the word "usual" as if it is a common practice of mine.

Proved 2 examples of my comments defending the President and his staff...

Or retract.

And while you're retracting... it would be good to go ahead and include the admission of your own epic stupidity.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben September 17, 2013 11:47 AM  

This is a treasonous act and Obama should be impeached. Of course that won't happen.

Next time Obama pushes gun control this should be the response.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 11:54 AM  

You haven't actually read the WPA, have you? Or is this a good example of what I said above: since it empowers the President, it must be interpreted as broadly as possible.

I have read it. I 100% agree with you that the President has interpreted it broadly - aka - this isn't a restriction, it's license to fight any war without Congress for up to 90 days. It is 100% clear that Congress intended the opposite - to restrict the President from making war without Congress, except in actual national security emergencies - invasion, attack, etc. I give immense credit to Pres. Bush for getting authorization on Sept 14, 2011 to conduct war, I give no credit to Congress for passing something so open ended and horribly vague.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 11:55 AM  

The President is empowered to execute the law. The President has no authority to waive or otherwise not execute the law as written.

You would have to read the law. The law empowers Obama to waive sections of the same law from applying. Congress wrote it that way.

So you are actually wrong.

Anonymous Noah B. September 17, 2013 11:58 AM  

"So for one, Al Qaeda is our enemy so long as Obama or the President says so."

You're overlooking the obvious fact that Obama himself has asserted that Al Qaeda is the enemy identified in the AUMF by continuing drone strikes and other retaliatory measures against them. He simply can't have it both ways, with Al Qaeda simultaneously being the enemy and not being the enemy.

His actions unequivocally constitute treason.

Anonymous Eric C September 17, 2013 11:58 AM  

What the hell are you babbling about Moron?

I don't defend this idiot in chief.


I didn't know if he was being sarcastic, was speaking of a different Nate, trolling, or if he is just really stupid.

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 12:04 PM  

Nate has been accused of being an Obama apologist.

I assume that this will be followed by accusations that he is a fan of the steelers, King Lincoln, Canadian whiskey, soccer, glocks, and Apple products.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein September 17, 2013 12:08 PM  

For Nate and his fellow Obamanites:

Please help President Obama start WWIII

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 12:13 PM  

Did you know he's friends with Jay Z?

Blogger River Cocytus September 17, 2013 12:33 PM  

Yep; instead of going through the trouble of giving the President line-item veto, they've just written the line item veto into the laws.

Anonymous Van September 17, 2013 12:42 PM  

Dh-

Understood; we're on the same page.
----
Regarding the President's ability to waive aspects of a law, or to promulgate regulations that have the effect of law - this should be considered unconstitutional, but Congress has been transferring legislative power to the Executive for some time.

Anonymous kh123 September 17, 2013 12:54 PM  

"But being stupid doesn't make it Treason."

I'm surprised those of the Vichy gov't didn't use this line after the war.

Anonymous Dr. J September 17, 2013 12:59 PM  

Is it possible for me to register or identify as a Syrian insurgent/rebel to get Barry to ship arms to my home? I think some of the rabbits attacking our vegetation are allied with Assad.

Nate, I figure an Obama lover such as yourself might have the inside track on this process?

Anonymous Van September 17, 2013 1:20 PM  

Very disappointed in Nate. First he recommends Guinness Black Lager (swill), now he's outed as an Obamaphobe.

Anonymous CarpeOro September 17, 2013 1:28 PM  

Perhaps it is just a poorly worded article, or one making assumptions. The line about "vetting" of the different groups sticks out. Just because someone or group is vetted doesn't mean an assessment was made that they were to be trusted, even in the context of a particular situation. Reminds me that all the members of the Clinton administration had background checks. The only problem was near half were rated as unreliable or failing the checks.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 1:38 PM  

You're overlooking the obvious fact that Obama himself has asserted that Al Qaeda is the enemy identified in the AUMF by continuing drone strikes and other retaliatory measures against them. He simply can't have it both ways, with Al Qaeda simultaneously being the enemy and not being the enemy.

I disagree. The key is "and affiliated groups". It goes back to what is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is whoever the government say it is.

A bunch of rebels in Syria saying they are affiliated with Al Qaeda is not the same as people we are blowing up in Pakistan or Afganistan. He can in fact have it both ways because the AUMF is almost criminal vague.

Blogger Nate September 17, 2013 1:41 PM  

I'm still waiting for evidence of my supposed apolgetics.

Anonymous Noah B. September 17, 2013 1:57 PM  

"Al Qaeda is whoever the government say it is."

Then you have no belief in objective reality. Reasoning with you is therefore not possible.

Blogger Markku September 17, 2013 1:59 PM  

If Al Qaeda is indeed a branch of CIA, then damn straight it is whatever the government says it is. It is that by definition.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 1:59 PM  

Then you have no belief in objective reality. Reasoning with you is therefore not possible.

Al Qaeda isn't an objective thing, it's a label. I believe in objective reality. Can we not agree that Al Qaeda is a label, it's not an orange, a bannana, a Fiat 500 or a football?

There is no legal definition of Al Qaeda. There is no objective measure of whether or not you are are Al Qaeda. There is no declaration of war against Al Qaeda. There is no plan to arm Al Qaeda in Syria. It all hinges on labels. Would you not agree?

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 2:02 PM  

The line about "vetting" of the different groups sticks out

There you go. This is exactly why this plan is stupid. We still look at guerilla's like nation-state actors. Like there is a leader, he will get the guns. There is a secretary who takes minutes and there is a vote on new members. Once an official member, the leader gives you an American gun.

The reality is that guy we deliver guns to on the runway turns and sells them to the guy who needs them, or gets killed in 10 seconds, to have his weapon taken by the next guy, and then the next guy, and then the next guy. And then a Mexican drug lord uses it to kill an American.

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 2:05 PM  

Hey guys...if we set up a group...call it Al Ilk...and say we're Syrian rebels, will Obama buy us guns?

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2013 2:05 PM  

THERE WAS NO ATTACK ON WASHINGTON DC on 9/11/01. For God's sake, the Pentagon is in VIRGINIA folks (for better or worse).

Blogger Markku September 17, 2013 2:07 PM  

will Obama buy us guns?

Of course, because otherwise we'll rise in ilkifada.

And give them a molonoscopy.

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2013 2:07 PM  

@VOX: Those of us who don't have accounts with "social network" type outfits can no longer put comments on here. Too bad.

Blogger Markku September 17, 2013 2:09 PM  

@VOX: Those of us who don't have accounts with "social network" type outfits can no longer put comments on here. Too bad.

Yes We Can!

Sí, se puede!

Select in "Comment as:" Name/URL, type in whatever name, and leave URL empty.

Anonymous Golf Pro September 17, 2013 2:12 PM  

Procedural. Nothing more. Like marking your ball on the green in a tournament.

Blogger Markku September 17, 2013 2:16 PM  

A proper Whatever name would, for example, be Scalzquee McRapealot.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box September 17, 2013 2:21 PM  

The purpose of all our brave new wars is to set the stage for the next one...How ever else do you expect the Khazar-Papist cabal to keep effeminizing America & expanding their debt-based currency empire?

Anonymous Noah B. September 17, 2013 2:32 PM  

"It all hinges on labels. Would you not agree?"

Absolutely not. The law must first be interpreted in a way that makes sense, if possible. You have deliberately chosen a nonsensical interpretation of the AUMF, that is, that the president can arbitrarily decide whether or not to kill a particular individual. Such a position would place the executive above the rule of law and is obviously wrong.

To the degree that the AUMF granted the president authority to determine who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, it was implicitly understood that such determination would be made on the basis of objective evidence, not on personal whim.

Anonymous Noah B. September 17, 2013 2:35 PM  

"It all hinges on labels. Would you not agree?"

Or, if it does all indeed hinge on labels, and the people say Obama has committed treason, then he has committed treason.

Anonymous patrick kelly September 17, 2013 2:54 PM  

@SomeFunnyGuy: "Hey guys...if we set up a group...call it Al Ilk...and say we're Syrian rebels, will Obama buy us guns?"

That inspires visions of T-Shirts with "Al Ilk" on the front over a badass ninja with a pirate eyepatch, and on the back "Warren Burning Since 20(whenever)" on the back over images of terrified lavendar wabbits hopping around a torched warren....

Anonymous patrick kelly September 17, 2013 3:01 PM  

@Josh:"Nate has been accused of being an Obama apologist.

I assume that this will be followed by accusations that he is a fan of the steelers, King Lincoln, Canadian whiskey, soccer, glocks, and Apple products."

What's wrong with Canadian whiskey? R&R might not be top shelf, but I find it very drinkable at $15 a half gallon. The Reserve is only a couple bucks more.

Gotta' give our beloved President for not starting WWIII......yet......

As for Glocks, they just feel funny.....the diverse, vibrant direction of the US is leading to Futbol replacing the NFL eventually......kinda' ambivalent about iFag devices.........

Any other dust I can kick up?


Anonymous teddles September 17, 2013 3:04 PM  

What's wrong with Canadian whiskey?

Other than the fact that it is swill, not a thing!

Anonymous Sigyn September 17, 2013 3:14 PM  

I assume that this will be followed by accusations that he is a fan of the steelers, King Lincoln, Canadian whiskey, soccer, glocks, and Apple products.

You mean he isn't?

Anonymous Porky September 17, 2013 3:14 PM  

There is no legal definition of Al Qaeda.

There does not need to be. "Unlawful combatant" works just fine.

"Imminent threat" also comes in handy from time to time.

You can forget about the Geneva Convention, legal precedent, international law etc. We are well into Newspeak by this time. Minipax has the final say in such matters.


Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 3:15 PM  

Absolutely not. The law must first be interpreted in a way that makes sense, if possible. You have deliberately chosen a nonsensical interpretation of the AUMF, that is, that the president can arbitrarily decide whether or not to kill a particular individual. Such a position would place the executive above the rule of law and is obviously wrong.

It is not my interpretation, it is that of both the Bush administration, the Obama administration, and on several occasions, various circuit and district Courts throughout the US. In Hamden v. Bush it was the first time they rejected a claim of authority under the AUMF.

To the degree that the AUMF granted the president authority to determine who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, it was implicitly understood that such determination would be made on the basis of objective evidence, not on personal whim.

That's an assumption which if was tested, would have to be reviewed. The AUMF has an elastic clause, which authorizes the Executive to do whatever he wants - he deems appropriate - to protect us against individuals, organizations, or countries involved in 9/11.

The bottom line is:

1. There is no such legal thing as Al Qaeda.
2. There is no such legal thing as the Syrian Rebels.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 3:17 PM  

Porky--

There does not need to be. "Unlawful combatant" works just fine.

True, the problem is that this also covers the CIA and the entire NSA.

Anonymous Anonymous September 17, 2013 3:21 PM  

old white guy says..... obarma needs to be charged with treason and hanged.

Anonymous Porky September 17, 2013 3:24 PM  

True, the problem is that this also covers the CIA and the entire NSA.

Why is that a problem?

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 3:28 PM  

Why is that a problem?

It's only a problem when talking about how to treat unlawful combatants. When the terrorists blew up half the CIA station in Iraq, it was scene as wrong. But really it was a fair target - they were unlawful combatants, spy's, subject to summary execution.

Blogger Markku September 17, 2013 3:33 PM  

When the terrorists blew up half the CIA station in Iraq, it was scene as wrong.

I suppose the question is on the assumption that such a scene was wrong.

Anonymous Josh September 17, 2013 3:34 PM  

The bottom line is:

1. There is no such legal thing as Al Qaeda.

2. There is no such legal thing as the Syrian Rebels.


Easily fixed by creating several LLCs in Delaware or Nevada.

Anonymous VD September 17, 2013 4:01 PM  

@VOX: Those of us who don't have accounts with "social network" type outfits can no longer put comments on here. Too bad.

Sure you can. Name/URL. Leave the URL blank.

Anonymous Noah B. September 17, 2013 4:05 PM  

1. There is no such legal thing as Al Qaeda.
2. There is no such legal thing as the Syrian Rebels.


That doesn't necessarily work in Obama's favor. If he doesn't even know the enemy is, how can he be sure he's not aiding them? This would be the easiest conviction ever.

Blogger JohnG September 17, 2013 4:21 PM  

>1. There is no such legal thing as Al Qaeda.
>2. There is no such legal thing as the Syrian Rebels.

On 1, that would be like saying a McDonalds franchise isn't McDonalds. On 2, I think Bashar would disagree, it would seem that umpteen thousand of those supposed 100,000 dead people were being a tad rebellious.

I also disagree with the proposition that Al Qaeda is who the govt says it is - the govt says vets and people with Ron Paul and 'don't tread on me' bumber stickers are potential terrorists too, doesn't make it true. There are a lot of minor bands of barbarians that claim AQ affiliation that aren't AQ - but the guys that say they are AQ generally are for real...especially in places that have a lot of drone traffic.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 4:26 PM  

I suppose the question is on the assumption that such a scene was wrong.

Sorry about SCENE versus SEEN. Stupid. But yeah, this was handled carefully by the government, but in the media and in the eyes of the public this was terrorism, not a justified strike against a foreign military power.

Anonymous Porky September 17, 2013 4:31 PM  

When the terrorists blew up half the CIA station in Iraq, it was scene as wrong. But really it was a fair target - they were unlawful combatants, spy's, subject to summary execution.

Doesn't matter. The more vague and broad the better for Minipax.

As you know, the ultimate goal is to be able to classify domestic dissenters as "unlawful combatants" or an "imminent threat". They've tested this on foreign soil and there has been little backlash. We all know what the next test is. Then it's boot/face stomping' time!

What an exciting time to be a leftist, eh?!?


Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 4:35 PM  

That doesn't necessarily work in Obama's favor. If he doesn't even know the enemy is, how can he be sure he's not aiding them? This would be the easiest conviction ever.


No, not really. Remember, there must be two witnesses to the overt act of aiding the enemy. And, as we found out in the case of PFC Manning, whatever overt act you undertook must be clearly aiding a clear enemy. He was not convicted of treason because even though his actions aided the enemy, they were not calculated to do so, and the path to aiding the enemy was not overt.

Unless you just bend the definition there is no path to treason.

On 1, that would be like saying a McDonalds franchise isn't McDonalds.

That's a great example. Go to a McDonald's francise, slip and fall. Who do you sue? McDonalds, the worldwide corporation? Or Joe's Deluth McDonalds Inc, the local francishee who has three locations in the Greater Deluth area? Answer, you try to sue both, but the judge lets the big one off the hook. Now, uncover that the mothership told the little guy to not worry about dry floors, because hey, it's just a little water, and the mothership comes back in (aka, infamous McDonalds scalding coffee case).

As far as the Syrian rebels, sure, there are people fighting him, but it is very difficult to create a definition of who they are, short of naming commanders/leaders. Which is exactly why the US has failed to defeat Al Qaeda in 10 years of vastly superior fire power. We can happily keep killing the newly minted leader, but at no point does it matter. Because it's not like these people are keeping minutes and following by-laws. It's an ad-hoc group of terrorists. There isn't even strong evidence that all branches of Al Qaeda even know they are linked to the infamous "Al Qaeda".

It's why you really can't talk about this type of stuff in civilian legal terms. It quickly falls into the realm of the absurd. And it's why, if we are going to do something in Syria, it would be better for everyone if it was just a conventional style invasion. At least then we would be fighting against a proper enemy, with a proper leader, and a proper battlefield.

Anonymous dh September 17, 2013 4:37 PM  

As you know, the ultimate goal is to be able to classify domestic dissenters as "unlawful combatants" or an "imminent threat". They've tested this on foreign soil and there has been little backlash. We all know what the next test is. Then it's boot/face stomping' time!

Yup. That is probably where it's heading. You have secret blacklists that already working great to deny you the ability to travel effectively, nationwide drivers licenses that can be accessed coast-to-coast and can be used to prevent you from boarding a bus, or driving in peace.

The net is closing in.

Anonymous Noah B. September 17, 2013 4:46 PM  

"Remember, there must be two witnesses to the overt act of aiding the enemy."

Obama is doing it right out in the open. There are millions of witnesses. Slam dunk.

Blogger Markku September 17, 2013 4:50 PM  

Sorry about SCENE versus SEEN. Stupid.

I would rather say psychologically interesting. That you would choose such an oddly specific homonym and produce a sentence that is correct both syntactically and semantically, except for a missing "a".

I don't mean to be an asshole, I mean genuinely interesting. Not "interesting".

Anonymous Noah B. September 17, 2013 4:51 PM  

"As far as the Syrian rebels, sure, there are people fighting him, but it is very difficult to create a definition of who they are, short of naming commanders/leaders."

And Neptune isn't really a planet, it's just a bunch of molecules.

Blogger JohnG September 17, 2013 5:00 PM  

@dh

That's not entirely true either, we didn't beat AQ for ten years, because their leadership is residing in a refugee camp (Palestinian style - electric and water) north of Peshwar, pretty sure we've got a 10-digit grid (location down to the meter). The gov't/military won't accept the heat for blowing up a house in a refugee camp, or a madrassa (where Haqqani hangs his hat) in Miram Shah. Meaning that the bad guy leadership can recruit, fundraise and give directions to their heart's content. We're plenty capable of assigning names to leadership, tracking, and whacking the mid and lower level guys that cross the border back into AFG - seems to be the only thing that keeps SOF from being drunk 24/7. It's a leadership problem on our side as to why we haven't come remotely close to anything victorious.

Syria would be ok if we just melted the entire place...doing anything in there is a choice between awful and dreadful.

Anonymous ericcs September 17, 2013 5:25 PM  

dh: "I disagree. The key is "and affiliated groups". It goes back to what is Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is whoever the government say it is."

Mmmm, let's see, dh is parsing language like a typical leftist, he's covering for other leftists who play semantic games to get what they want, and yet somehow we're supposed to believe that dh is not a 'typical' leftist just because he tries to sound oh-so-reasonable.

In my humble estimation, 'ol dh has lots and lots of "yes, but.." platitudes to offer. I guess that makes him a yesbut.

Anonymous paradox September 17, 2013 5:55 PM  

Nope, I'm not convinced. I believe Obama to a Marxist atheist just like his mother. However, I do believe Obama would ally himself with Muslim terrorists for political gain.

Anonymous Pox Vay September 17, 2013 5:59 PM  

http://poxvay.blogspot.com/2013/09/vox-on-gun-control-and-obamas-terrorism.html

Anonymous The Anti-Gnostic September 17, 2013 7:17 PM  

Syria would be ok if we just melted the entire place

Would it be too much to ask we spare the 2M+ Christians and holy sites there since 35 A.D.? Frankly, we should be arming the Syrian government. Bashar was an ophthalmologist in London. He is not anti-West and is pro-Christian.

Blogger Some dude September 17, 2013 8:51 PM  

Obviously he is arming terrorist groups on the Syrian border because they love Israel. Because as we all know, Obama is a Jew-loving Israel supporter under the total control and domination of ZOG, and these are magical terrorists, who hate Israel in a really loving way. After they win their war and take control of the Syrian chemical stockpile, they will send missiles of chemical love to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Because this is all one big giant Jew plot to control you by killing ourselves.

Another tip-off that the US is totally under the domination of the Jew-lobby is the fact that the US has it's embassy in Tel Aviv instead of the actual capital of Israel - Jerusalem. Because you see, giving the middle finger to someone is a mark of service, not domination.

Or something.

Anonymous Pox Vay September 17, 2013 10:43 PM  

The President is NOT aiding terrorist or arming anyone. Vox never posted the update to the article he quoted.

"This action will allow the U.S. Government to provide or license, where appropriate, certain non-lethal assistance inside or related to Syria. This includes: 1) chemical weapons-related personal protective equipment to international organizations, including the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, for the conduct of their operations; 2) chemical weapons-related life-saving assistance for organizations implementing Department of State or U.S. Agency for International Development programs to strengthen local Syrian health care providers’ ability to prepare for and respond to any use of chemical weapons; and 3) defensive chemical weapons-related training and personal protective equipment to select vetted members of the Syrian opposition, including the Supreme Military Council, to protect against the use of chemical weapons. This action is part of longstanding and ongoing efforts to provide life-saving chemical weapons-related assistance to people in need in Syria."

Of course most of the conspiracy right-wing nutbags on this site won't believe the NSC spokesperson's quote. But it's worth noting.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic September 17, 2013 11:03 PM  

Obviously he is arming terrorist groups on the Syrian border because they love Israel.

He is arming terrorist groups because of the confluence of interests of Sunnis in a second Mohammedan/Ottoman conquest with Jewish Zionists who fear more than anything to be surrounded by stable, technologically advancing Arabic polities.

Obama is surfing on the the silly rage-against-the-machine rhetoric he's been steeped in from birth, and the natural instinct of a son to take on the mantle of his (absent) father, also a Sunni.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic September 17, 2013 11:08 PM  

Of course most of the conspiracy right-wing nutbags on this site won't believe the NSC spokesperson's quote. But it's worth noting.

LOL. It's beyond theater into parody. The deteriorating chemical weapons stocks are scheduled to be dismantled. And do you really think the rebel rabble are going to bother with bulky NBC gear? President Cornball is being played like a fiddle.

Anonymous ericcs September 18, 2013 12:12 AM  

re Pox Vay...

In lieu of reasoned debate, as a typical leftist you resort to cherry-picking, ad hominem, and argumentum ad auctoritatem. Regarding the latter, you
1) automatically believe that an NSC spokesperson is supplying the complete and unadulterated truth, and
2) automatically believe everything that the State says and does because it is the sole respository of whatever it is you laughingly call "morality", even though that government has repeatedly and consistently proven to be full of deliberate lies.

Sorry, chucko, but you're fooling neither Vox not the regular contributors on this site. As a propagandist and a troll, you need to go back home to the basement and practice a little more. Good luck with all that.

Anonymous dh September 18, 2013 12:28 AM  

Mmmm, let's see, dh is parsing language like a typical leftist, he's covering for other leftists who play semantic games to get what they want, and yet somehow we're supposed to believe that dh is not a 'typical' leftist just because he tries to sound oh-so-reasonable.

Yeah, it is parsing language. The ones claiming treason are doing so based on semantics of three important things: who is Al Qaeda, and who are the people that Pres. Obama is arming, and semantics of who are or are not at war with. Saying "dh is parsing" is a whine, because to make any sort of case, you also have to parse.

Karl Denniger, who makes a a strong emotional case [link: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223932] takes a different tack, which is that attacking an enemy of our enemy is treason. That case is even more difficult to make. He also incorrectly claims that "Al-Qaida is a declared enemy of the United States". It is correct in that the Pres (both Obama and Bush) have said "We are at war with Al Qaeda", but it is not literally true in that we are at war with Al Qaeda. The reason being, the Al Qaeda is not a thing which you can be at war with.

Using Dennigers' or other definitions of "treason" here is like saying that Obama has committed treason by doing blow - after all, we are at War with Drugs!

Lew Rockwell has made a nice post about the problems with being "at war" with Al Qaeda. Link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/is-the-u-s-at-war-with-al-qaeda/

So, yes, while I AM happy that Obama was humiliated and defeated on his unilateral plans to bomb Syria, and I AM happy that he took it to Congress where it has apparently died, I am also convinced that unless something else happens, there is no way to say that Obama has done anything treasonous in dealing with the anti-Assad rebels - whether they or not they are associates, compatriots, friendly with, or associated with "Al-Qaeda".

Anonymous dh September 18, 2013 12:34 AM  

And Neptune isn't really a planet, it's just a bunch of molecules.

Except that a planet has an accepted definition: "a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star".

What is the definition of Al Qaeda? And how does that relate to Syria?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 18, 2013 1:28 AM  

The Israel lobby has a dominating influence in American politics. (The 29 standing ovations during Benjamin Netanyahu's hard-line speech to Congress should have been all anyone with sense needed to see to know that.)

Israel calls for Assad's fall. This is absolutely official and on the record. All elements of organized Jewry, acting as a united front, keep pushing for an American war of annihilation against Syria. (With Iran to follow in due course.) There is no other constituency for this war in American politics.

Syria has fought Israel but not America. Al Qaeda fights America but not Israel.

Hence, America provides armed support for Al Qaeda against Syria.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 18, 2013 1:53 AM  

Politically, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. America's disproportionately Jewish and Jewish-influenced ruling class is the strong; America's non-elite white population, which suffers systematic legal discrimination and has no official positive identity nor explicit political representation for its interests, is the weak.

In America and internationally, whites are suffering genocide by non-white mass immigration and forced integration, because that is the will of the ruling class, including both Jews and non-Jews, many white themselves. (For example: British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who pushed through mass immigration without informed popular consent, by stealth and deception. This is a top-down process, where rules have deceived and over-ruled the white masses. And the rulers are mostly white, though with the peculiarity that they regard specific Jewish interests, for example the suppression of antisemitism, as legitimate, but they regard specifically white interests, such as the suppression of antiwhitism, as illegitimate or unthinkable.)

The violence and injustice done to Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis and so on is obvious, and the Arab and Muslim world has the means to complain about it, and does.

Though white genocide is happening without violence, and though whites unlike Middle Easterners have no states and no mass media of their own advocating explicitly for their group interests and articulating their grievances, genocide by mass immigration and forced integration in all white countries and only white countries is far more significant in the long run than Middle Eastern wars.

This is the real treason: the genocide of the posterity of the Founding Fathers, for which the United States of America and its constitution exists, and the larger genocide of their race.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 18, 2013 1:56 AM  

This is not a partisan issue. (Except for people who make everything a partisan issue). If John McCain had been elected instead of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008, there is every reason to think the same process would be going ahead.

Anonymous ericcs September 18, 2013 2:26 AM  

dh (and all leftists):

"...but your side did it first..."

"Definitions for me, but not for thee."

And these tired approaches of yours are supposed to be definitive, or even convincing? Why should anyone waste their time with such disingenuous excuses for reasoned debate?

Anonymous Noah B. September 18, 2013 11:16 AM  

"What is the definition of Al Qaeda?"

A loosely organized group of Sunni jihadists fighting to overthrow governments to impose Sharia law, often killing civilians indiscriminately in the process.

"And how does that relate to Syria?"

They constitute a large fraction of the rebels in Syria.

Anonymous dh September 18, 2013 2:37 PM  

And these tired approaches of yours are supposed to be definitive, or even convincing? Why should anyone waste their time with such disingenuous excuses for reasoned debate?

I haven't asked anyone to do anything. A commenter made a demand of me, and I am willing to take up his offer, but I won't do so until the terms are clearly set and I know when to claim victory or defeat. That's not reasonable or unreasonable, that's just basic common sense.

Anonymous dh September 18, 2013 2:59 PM  

A loosely organized group of Sunni jihadists fighting to overthrow governments to impose Sharia law, often killing civilians indiscriminately in the process.

This is a good definition.

They constitute a large fraction of the rebels in Syria.

Now you are getting somewhere. The full-list of groups active in Syria like a Monty Python skit. Someone obviously has been trying to keep Wikipedia up to date, but it's probably still wildly out of date and/or inaccurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition

The most directly related to al-Qaeda is the Al-Nusra Front, which is a Sunni organization.

They recently merged with the Iraqi "branch" of al-Qaeda, which Al-Jazeera did a nice job covering: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/201349194856244589.html

The Iraqi organization has a long-coloruful history, going back to 2004, which you could read about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq

But the bottom line being, that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi started the group as an umbrella organization of resistance/guerrillas in the post invasion Iraq, and that he swore allegiance to bin Laden's al-Qaeda in 2004. Of course, he was killed in 2006, his successor was killed in 2008, and his successor was killed in 2009.

Meaning, that this organization close to 10 years ago had a leader who was in allegiance to bin Laden, who was killed several years ago.

All of this is show two points:

1. The people who are now affiliated with the Syrian resistance are Sunnis, they use terrorism often, and they are ideologically similar to the successors to bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

2. They are not, however, the same people who had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. They are Iraqi's, Ba'Athists, Sunni's, Saudi's (like bin Laden), Salfi's, and others from across the middle east.

Which leads to the conclusion that these are NOT PEOPLE AMERICA SHOULD BE doing anything with, other than (1) isolating or (2) killing BUT that their activities to convert Iraq, and Syria, and/or other middle-east countries to the Sunni caliphate have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. To the extent that we are "at war" with them is because we are in Iraq.

Anonymous Harsh September 18, 2013 8:39 PM  

Except that a planet has an accepted definition: "a celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star".

Try telling that to Pluto.

Anonymous dh September 18, 2013 11:37 PM  

Try telling that to Pluto.

The IAU is never content to leave well enough alone. The IAU definition of a planet is quite different than what I quoted.

Anonymous Noah B. September 19, 2013 12:04 PM  

Which leads to the conclusion that these are NOT PEOPLE AMERICA SHOULD BE doing anything with, other than (1) isolating or (2) killing BUT that their activities to convert Iraq, and Syria, and/or other middle-east countries to the Sunni caliphate have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. To the extent that we are "at war" with them is because we are in Iraq.

The question of whether or not these are the people we "should be" at war with is not the point. We are at war with them, and Obama has accepted this fact by continuing to wage war against them. Except when, for some mysterious reason, he finds it desirable to arm them.

Anonymous Nihilus September 19, 2013 8:14 PM  

@Titus Didius Tacitus

The fuck are you talking about? "White genocide"? First, "white genocide" is a logical absurdity. "White" being a complete social construct.

Now if you were to say Polish genocide (are they white?) or Italian genocide (are they still considered white?) or Afghan genocide (whiteness coming soon (Hey, Steve Jobs was an Arab )) you could begin to construct an argument. Right now you just sound silly. Insane?

Only in Murka are Spaniards and Germans the same people and should give a shit about each other. Or maybe you just meant WASPs?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 20, 2013 2:10 AM  

Nihilus: "The fuck are you talking about? "White genocide"? First, "white genocide" is a logical absurdity. "White" being a complete social construct."

Genocide is the elimination of a national, racial, political or ethnic group. (Not necessarily by violence - a planned elimination of the means by which that group sustains itself counts.) Whites are a race. A race is a large extended family with a degree of inbreeding. Whites are such. (Specifically, whites are the large family of peoples descended from Europe - nearly 10% of the world's population, and dropping like a rock due to antiwhite policies.) So whites qualify under the definition of genocide.

In any case, it was already established at Nuremberg that you can't talk your way out of genocide like that. If you are eliminating a group, bad-mouthing it doesn't help your legal position. Common sense applies. Everybody knows whites exist; that's why antiwhites can identify them for hostile treatment such as negative discrimination in education and jobs. "Whites don't exist anyway" is not a valid pretext for supporting white genocide.

Nihilus: "Now if you were to say Polish genocide (are they white?) or Italian genocide (are they still considered white?) or Afghan genocide (whiteness coming soon (Hey, Steve Jobs was an Arab )) you could begin to construct an argument. Right now you just sound silly. Insane?"

As an antiwhite, you are having trouble coming to terms with the idea of genocide when that concept is applied to whites. Genocide refers to ending a groups, such as a racial ethnic or religious group, in whole or in part. Obviously a genocide of Poles or Italians would also be a white genocide, as both Poles and Italians are part of the white race. The same for Russians or Ukrainians.

Nihilus: "Only in Murka are Spaniards and Germans the same people and should give a shit about each other. Or maybe you just meant WASPs?"

Spaniards and Germans are both white. This has been recognized historically and in many countries such as Australia (under the White Australia policy that used to apply.) Blending them both out of existence through mass immigration and forced integration is part of the same white genocide.

Antiwhites are for it, under various pretexts. Decent human beings who are against genocide should be against it.

Anonymous Nihilus September 20, 2013 9:00 PM  

@Titus Didius Tacitus

What percentage of European ancestry does it take to be considered white?

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 20, 2013 9:17 PM  

That's as irrelevant as "what percentage of Jewish ancestry does it take to be considered Jewish?" If you're getting rid of the Jews that's genocide, and if you are getting rid of the whites that's also genocide.

And antiwhites like you, people eager to deny the very existence of white people so that they can be forced out of existence by antiwhite policies, are supporting genocide.

Would you support moving a million blacks onto an Indian reservation and forcing the Indians to "integrate" meaning eventually, ultimately marry? Or would it be obvious in that case that what you were really supporting was genociding that tribe, because it would cease to exist as a racial and ethnic entity?

"What percentage of Indian ancestry does it take to be considered tribal?" would have nothing to do with whether this was genocide. Obviously mass immigration plus forced integration means the end, regardless of exact percentages.

As an antiwhite, what is your problem with white people? Why do you think white children don't deserve to have a future?

Anonymous Nihilus September 21, 2013 12:13 PM  

"Would you support moving a million blacks onto an Indian reservation and forcing the Indians to "integrate" meaning eventually, ultimately marry?"

Lol. Oh I understand now. Those black are coming to get ya. Ha. It's almost like Godwin's Law.

"Genocide refers to ending a groups, such as a racial ethnic or religious group, in whole or in part."

"Whites are a race. A race is a large extended family with a degree of inbreeding. Whites are such. (Specifically, whites are the large family of peoples descended from Europe - nearly 10% of the world's population, and dropping like a rock due to antiwhite policies.) So whites qualify under the definition of genocide."

In the bold you have defined what you believe "white" to be. Per your definition (a specific racial group) I asked: "What percentage of European ancestry does it take to be considered white?". You replied that it is irrelevant. It's not irrelevant. In fact, it is the crux or your argument because, minus murder and childlessness, (of which women with various degrees of European/Middle eastern ancestry experience at the highest rates) "whites" (as you have defined them) are not being eliminated and can not be eliminated. You can't argue that unless you give me those percentages. Pesky genetic sciences getting in the way of your alarmist bs propaganda.

Notice I was the only one to bother replying to your comment. I have to apologize to Vox as this discussion is wildly off-topic.

"As an antiwhite, what is your problem with white people?"

I have no problem with "white people". I am of Portuguese decent myself among other things. What you're feeling may be called projection.

"Why do you think white children don't deserve to have a future?"

????????????? I'm not concered with "white children", just my own.

Also what percentage of non white ancestry does it take before a European isn't white?

"nearly 10% of the world's population, and dropping like a rock due to antiwhite policies.) So whites qualify under the definition of genocide."

I expect that percentage to climb or fall once you give me those numbers.

Anonymous quran learning March 12, 2014 5:49 AM  

Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.

Anonymous Quran Academy Live April 24, 2014 3:27 AM  

I think that this just a blame on OBAMA that he is supplying weapons to opposition didn't he know its effects hmmmm?????

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts