Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 07:49:00 AM
Dude, you are not making any sense whatsoever.  Your posts are incoherent.

And you betray your nation by supporting others who stole classified information and put at least PART of it out for others to see. There is no excuse strong enough to support that betrayal. All incoherency is YOURS.

QuoteWhy are you reflexively defending State power?  You admit that nothing Greenwald published thus far from the Snowden leaks has harmed national security in any way.

Don't you DARE put words in my mouth by saying I said that.
 

QuoteFurthermore, you can't provide ANY evidence that Snowden gave any security secrets to any foreign power.  So you resort to speculation that MAYBE he gave secret intelligence to the Russians or Chinese or MAYBE some yet-to-be-published story harms national security.

You haven't produced proof he has not. The volume of material taken and Snowden's stay in Russia strongly suggest he paid for his temporary asylum there with more of the stolen secrets. Once he ran out of what the Sovs want, they tired of him and now he's seeking Swiss asylum instead. One hopes the Swiss Guards don't need our nuke secrets, but for two blintzes and a cappuchino they might afford it anyway.

Quote"Treason" is one of those words that has lost its meaning.

To leftist trash, perhaps. To decent Americans it means taking that scum to a wall and putting bullets into his chest. Goodbye and good riddance.

Quote from: quiller on September 22, 2014, 07:59:18 AM
And you betray your nation by supporting others who stole classified information and put at least PART of it out for others to see. There is no excuse strong enough to support that betrayal. All incoherency is YOURS.

Don't you DARE put words in my mouth by saying I said that.
  You haven't produced proof he has not. The volume of material taken and Snowden's stay in Russia strongly suggest he paid for his temporary asylum there with more of the stolen secrets. Once he ran out of what the Sovs want, they tired of him and now he's seeking Swiss asylum instead. One hopes the Swiss Guards don't need our nuke secrets, but for two blintzes and a cappuchino they might afford it anyway.
To leftist trash, perhaps. To decent Americans it means taking that scum to a wall and putting bullets into his chest. Goodbye and good riddance.

You have a whole lot of anger it seems.  Have you considered talking to a therapist?  On this thread alone you have advocated dropping bombs, shooting people, and you've called people all sorts of derogatory names. 

You do understand that it is impossible to prove a negative right?  Suppose I ask you to prove to me that you are NOT a racist?  I guess I'll just ponder out loud that "quiller might be a racist.  I think quiller is a racist who hates all non-white people.  I'll continue to say that until someone proves conclusively that he is not a racist."  This would be absurd and unfair but that is precisely what you are doing with Edward Snowden. 

Conservatives usually hate be labeled as racists by the left.  They can't stand when the left pulls the race card and stereotypes conservatives.  If someone is to call someone a racist, they had better have proof. 

Similarly, if you are going to call Snowden a traitor you had better have some proof that he provided classified information to a foreign government.  If you continue to call Snowden a traitor because you haven't been provided proof that he didn't provide security secrets to an enemy, then I guess I'll continue to call you a racist because you haven't provided proof that you aren't.  It is impossible to prove a negative.  The burden of proof is always on the accuser. 

Here are the facts as they stand today:

1.  Snowden didn't choose to go to Russia.  His plan was to go to South America for asylum.  He was trapped in the Russian airport because the US government moved so quickly to prevent him from proceeding to his original destination.  The United States government trapped Snowden in Russia.  And you somehow think that Snowden was in cahoots with the Russian government from day one, contrary to all the facts.

2.  All the information we have suggests that Snowden didn't hold on to ANY of the classified documents.  He provided all the information to Greenwald and other journalists as long as two years ago.  Since then it is the journalists who have been going through the documents and determining which documents to publish and which to not publish.  And, it should be made extremely clear, there are many documents that Greenwald and others have chosen NOT to publish because the information contained could harm national security.  There is no evidence that Snowden has any of these documents or ever took them to Russia or even Hong Kong.  He knows full well that a foreign government could coerce him or threaten him if he had a laptop with all the documents on it. 

If for no other reason than for his own safety, he logically chose to give the documents to journalists and then not have anything to do with them after that.


Finally, do you care about the US Constitution or not?  I thought Tea Party conservatives were founding fathers, small government types.  Snowden revealed to you that your government was systematically shredding the Bill of Rights in secret.  The information he leaked has provided the impetus to actually change the policy and protect our privacy. 

Are you honestly saying that government secrecy is more important to you than your allegiance to the Bill of Rights and US Constitution?

Sweeping aside your vebose ignorance, I reiterate --- you root for the traitors.  That material was classified. What has yet to be released may contain items far more dangerous to our national security --- and probably does, or else Snowden would not have gone to Russia and stayed there under their protection.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 07:40:17 AM
ISIS have killed three journalists.  Three.  Granted they killed them in a horribly brutal way and make incendiary videos showing the beheadings.  You said something quite bizarre.  You said that since they killed some innocent people we don't have to concern ourselves with how many innocent people WE kill?  I would assume you would want to hold the United States to a higher moral standard than ISIS?

Here is why we shouldn't go to war.  In the first place you have no moral right to rob me at gunpoint (which is taxation) to fund your favored war.  I don't support this war and there are many Americans who agree with me.  We don't want to support it financially or in any other sense and you should never be allowed to coerce us into supporting violence that we morally object to.

In the second place what about the opportunity cost in diverting huge amounts of resources to a new Iraq War?  If the purported goal is keeping us safe, why wouldn't we spend more money and resources dealing with the crime rate in Chicago, for example?  How many people are killed by homicides every year?  How many people are victims of rape?  And this happens within our borders not halfway around the world. 

Do you understand how by diverting resources towards a war effort, we necessarily reduce their availability to deal with domestic threats?  How many Americans will die from preventable causes because a lack of resources, defense services, police protection or whatever?  There are finite resources and why should we divert a huge number of resources towards military intervention simply because THREE people were killed by ISIS?

You don't have to convince me that ISIS are extreme and brutal.  We all know that.  What is less clear though is why the cost in money, lives and resources is worth it in relation to every other threat that Americans face every year.  And that says nothing about the morality of forcefully stealing MY money to pay for a war that I strongly morally object to.

I get it. You morally object to a war. Fine. However, it is very naive to not do anything about a group that openly wants to kill Americans and has done so. You indicate they use what we do as a recruiting tool. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that point. Therefore, our only option is to wipe them out. These people are not going away. One of the main reasons they have made the imprint in Iraq is the Idiot in Chief withdrew all our troops there. How did that work out as far as getting this crowd to leave Americans alone?

Quote from: quiller on September 22, 2014, 09:45:19 AM
Sweeping aside your vebose ignorance, I reiterate --- you root for the traitors.  That material was classified. What has yet to be released may contain items far more dangerous to our national security --- and probably does, or else Snowden would not have gone to Russia and stayed there under their protection.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?  Snowden didn't choose Russia as a destination.  He was trapped there.  What he IS choosing is to not spend the rest of his life in a jail cell, so he can continue to be a part of this debate.  The fact that Snowden will leave as soon as he is able to seek asylum in another country just shows that he has no special allegiance to Russia. 

Also, saying "you root for the traitors" is just a meaningless statement.  You have to first prove that Snowden is a traitor.  You have to define your terms.  Just because some bureaucrats claim that material is "classified" doesn't mean that such material SHOULD be classified.  In a free society the government is transparent and the people have their privacy.  Today, the people have no privacy and the government operates in secret.

A patriot is one who stands up and defends the people AGAINST the abuses of a tyrannical State. 

Quote from: supsalemgr on September 22, 2014, 12:25:05 PM
I get it. You morally object to a war. Fine. However, it is very naive to not do anything about a group that openly wants to kill Americans and has done so. You indicate they use what we do as a recruiting tool. I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that point. Therefore, our only option is to wipe them out. These people are not going away. One of the main reasons they have made the imprint in Iraq is the Idiot in Chief withdrew all our troops there. How did that work out as far as getting this crowd to leave Americans alone?

You think the big problem is that we left Iraq?  The seeds for this chaos were planted the minute Bush and Cheney (and Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld) lied us into the Iraq War eleven years ago.  Would you have had us stay there forever?  Our military destroyed that country and we unleashed a civil war between the various factions.  Whether we left now or in one hundred years, the end result would be roughly the same.  We created a power vacuum and extremists and radicals filled it.  The entire concept of "nation building" is ludicrous. 

You conservatives are always looking at world events as if they happened in isolation.  It's like wack-a-mole.  Some radical group pops up somewhere and you never stop to think what policies and geopolitical events led to their rise.  You never think how our previous military interventions and wars create unintended consequences.  You just think about the threat you perceive in the present and how we need to stomp it out, to hell with the long term consequences.

How on earth do you know that the other neighboring nations who also hate ISIS won't deal with them without us?  Most Americans never even heard of ISIS three months ago now we are supposed to believe that this very small and new group of radical Muslim fanatics are an existential threat to us?  Why don't we step back and give someone else the opportunity to deal with a problem in the world for once?

It is not impossible that someday ISIS could potentially grow to become a genuine national security threat.  But remember that Al Qaeda were only able to galvanize support for the attack on the World Trade Center because they could point to sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s which killed over half a million children.  Bin Laden mentioned our base in Saudi Arabia, the so-called "holy land" and our unconditional support for Israel in their subjugation of the Palestinian people.  Without those real, genuine grievances felt broadly throughout the Muslim world, Al Qaeda could never have been able to get the support to recruit suicide pilots to fly planes into the towers.

The way we weaken ISIS is to leave the region and permit their neighbors to deal with them.  ISIS really have no friends.  They are surrounded by countries that hate them.  Let them deal with the problem.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 01:07:01 PM
You think the big problem is that we left Iraq?  The seeds for this chaos were planted the minute Bush and Cheney (and Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld) lied us into the Iraq War eleven years ago.  Would you have had us stay there forever?  Our military destroyed that country and we unleashed a civil war between the various factions.  Whether we left now or in one hundred years, the end result would be roughly the same.  We created a power vacuum and extremists and radicals filled it.  The entire concept of "nation building" is ludicrous. 

You conservatives are always looking at world events as if they happened in isolation.  It's like wack-a-mole.  Some radical group pops up somewhere and you never stop to think what policies and geopolitical events led to their rise.  You never think how our previous military interventions and wars create unintended consequences.  You just think about the threat you perceive in the present and how we need to stomp it out, to hell with the long term consequences.

How on earth do you know that the other neighboring nations who also hate ISIS won't deal with them without us?  Most Americans never even heard of ISIS three months ago now we are supposed to believe that this very small and new group of radical Muslim fanatics are an existential threat to us?  Why don't we step back and give someone else the opportunity to deal with a problem in the world for once?

It is not impossible that someday ISIS could potentially grow to become a genuine national security threat.  But remember that Al Qaeda were only able to galvanize support for the attack on the World Trade Center because they could point to sanctions against Iraq during the 1990s which killed over half a million children.  Bin Laden mentioned our base in Saudi Arabia, the so-called "holy land" and our unconditional support for Israel in their subjugation of the Palestinian people.  Without those real, genuine grievances felt broadly throughout the Muslim world, Al Qaeda could never have been able to get the support to recruit suicide pilots to fly planes into the towers.

The way we weaken ISIS is to leave the region and permit their neighbors to deal with them.  ISIS really have no friends.  They are surrounded by countries that hate them.  Let them deal with the problem.

"How on earth do you know that the other neighboring nations who also hate ISIS won't deal with them without us?  Most Americans never even heard of ISIS three months ago now we are supposed to believe that this very small and new group of radical Muslim fanatics are an existential threat to us?  Why don't we step back and give someone else the opportunity to deal with a problem in the world for once?"

I don't know for sure, but being a realist I am going to follow the principle that the past is the best indicator of the future. Based on that experience I have surmised they will not or do not want to take care of ISIS. We had not heard much about ISIS as Obama and his legions, including the MSM, chose not to inform the American people. BTW, they have known about this crowd for a couple of years. Don't you understand, Obama has already stepped back and let others handle. Remember, he is the one that wants to "lead from behind".

You probably won't answer this question, but I bet you voted twice for Obama and a blind follower.

Quote from: supsalemgr on September 22, 2014, 02:09:46 PM
"How on earth do you know that the other neighboring nations who also hate ISIS won't deal with them without us?  Most Americans never even heard of ISIS three months ago now we are supposed to believe that this very small and new group of radical Muslim fanatics are an existential threat to us?  Why don't we step back and give someone else the opportunity to deal with a problem in the world for once?"

I don't know for sure, but being a realist I am going to follow the principle that the past is the best indicator of the future. Based on that experience I have surmised they will not or do not want to take care of ISIS. We had not heard much about ISIS as Obama and his legions, including the MSM, chose not to inform the American people. BTW, they have known about this crowd for a couple of years. Don't you understand, Obama has already stepped back and let others handle. Remember, he is the one that wants to "lead from behind".

You probably won't answer this question, but I bet you voted twice for Obama and a blind follower.

I'll answer.  I don't hide from questions about my political beliefs.  I never voted for Obama.  I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 and I voted for Gary Johnson in the general election.  I am an anarchist libertarian, otherwise known as a voluntarist.  I believe in the free market, in commodity money (i.e. Gold standard or similar), and above all else I believe that aggression is always immoral.  Therefore I oppose the State. 

I have a special interest in opposing war because, of all the terrible and destructive things that governments do, war is the worst and most destructive. 

Theoretically, I would have some common ground with small government conservative types but unfortunately it would seem that we are pretty far apart on a lot of important issues, war and militarism being just one.

Could you explain exactly what a bombing campaign against ISIS is supposed to accomplish?  Terrorism is one of the most successful methods of fighting a large nation state because they have no formal military to defeat, no single nation to take over.  Terrorism is a tactic, an idea.  A group like ISIS feeds off propaganda and sensationalism.  The biggest goal of any radical terrorist group that is fighting a military superpower is to lure that military into a protracted conflict that bleeds them dry financially and in human life, while at the same time providing new recruiting possibilities through labeling the superpower as an occupying force that is "at war with Islam".

You don't have to be a lefty to oppose war and imperialism.  Libertarians have been the most consistent in opposing US wars.  And there used to be a tradition of conservatives who were consistently opposed to imperialism and non-defensive wars.  They criticized the left for starting all these foolish wars, from Woodrow Wilson getting us into World War I, FDR into WW2, Kennedy and Johnson into Vietnam.  These weren't Republican wars, at least not at first. 

I could take your position seriously if you could articulate a coherent and defined goal that you think will be accomplished through airstrikes?  When those airstrikes are inevitably insufficient to destroy ISIS will you support Ground Troops?  Do you really think it is possible to destroy ISIS?  Or will we make new radicals as fast as we kill them?

If you don't take my ethical argument against war seriously, what about a utilitarian argument?  What about a sober cost/benefit analysis?  What is it worth in money spent or lives lost to avenge the deaths of three journalists?

Don't we have enough problems to worry about in THIS country?

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 04:39:51 PM
I'll answer.  I don't hide from questions about my political beliefs.  I never voted for Obama.  I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 and I voted for Gary Johnson in the general election.  I am an anarchist libertarian, otherwise known as a voluntarist.  I believe in the free market, in commodity money (i.e. Gold standard or similar), and above all else I believe that aggression is always immoral.  Therefore I oppose the State. 

I have a special interest in opposing war because, of all the terrible and destructive things that governments do, war is the worst and most destructive. 

Theoretically, I would have some common ground with small government conservative types but unfortunately it would seem that we are pretty far apart on a lot of important issues, war and militarism being just one.

Could you explain exactly what a bombing campaign against ISIS is supposed to accomplish?  Terrorism is one of the most successful methods of fighting a large nation state because they have no formal military to defeat, no single nation to take over.  Terrorism is a tactic, an idea.  A group like ISIS feeds off propaganda and sensationalism.  The biggest goal of any radical terrorist group that is fighting a military superpower is to lure that military into a protracted conflict that bleeds them dry financially and in human life, while at the same time providing new recruiting possibilities through labeling the superpower as an occupying force that is "at war with Islam".

You don't have to be a lefty to oppose war and imperialism.  Libertarians have been the most consistent in opposing US wars.  And there used to be a tradition of conservatives who were consistently opposed to imperialism and non-defensive wars.  They criticized the left for starting all these foolish wars, from Woodrow Wilson getting us into World War I, FDR into WW2, Kennedy and Johnson into Vietnam.  These weren't Republican wars, at least not at first. 

I could take your position seriously if you could articulate a coherent and defined goal that you think will be accomplished through airstrikes?  When those airstrikes are inevitably insufficient to destroy ISIS will you support Ground Troops?  Do you really think it is possible to destroy ISIS?  Or will we make new radicals as fast as we kill them?

If you don't take my ethical argument against war seriously, what about a utilitarian argument?  What about a sober cost/benefit analysis?  What is it worth in money spent or lives lost to avenge the deaths of three journalists?

Don't we have enough problems to worry about in THIS country?

Just keep looking the other way. 
ISIS Pays Foreign Fighters $1,000 a Month: Jordan King

snip~
ISIS militants are paying foreign fighters $1,000 a month, King Abdullah II of Jordan said Monday. The king pointed out that the sum is equivalent to middle-class or upper-middle-class income in Jordan, underscoring the challenge of fighting the militant organization and its allure for would-be jihadists. Analysts have estimated that ISIS has at least 10,000 foreign fighters.


more @
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/isis-pays-foreign-fighters-1-000-month-jordan-king-n209026

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 09:40:32 AM

1.  Snowden didn't choose to go to Russia.  His plan was to go to South America for asylum.  He was trapped in the Russian airport because the US government moved so quickly to prevent him from proceeding to his original destination.  The United States government trapped Snowden in Russia.  And you somehow think that Snowden was in cahoots with the Russian government from day one, contrary to all the facts.

2.  All the information we have suggests that Snowden didn't hold on to ANY of the classified documents.  He provided all the information to Greenwald and other journalists as long as two years ago.  Since then it is the journalists who have been going through the documents and determining which documents to publish and which to not publish.  And, it should be made extremely clear, there are many documents that Greenwald and others have chosen NOT to publish because the information contained could harm national security.  There is no evidence that Snowden has any of these documents or ever took them to Russia or even Hong Kong.  He knows full well that a foreign government could coerce him or threaten him if he had a laptop with all the documents on it. 

EHHHHHHHHHH wrong...now would you like to try behind door #2?

Snowden went to HK first, whatever his intent was with "journaists" is irrelevant, he knew damn well that whatever he had in his possession was a bargaining chip for safe passage and perhaps asylumn in HK and for your infomation the Chinese Govt knows EvERYTHING that goes on in "the Special free economic zone" of HK trough their unoffical watch dogs the Traids (Chinese oirganized crime).

Unless you are the amazing Kreskin you have no idea what Snowden had in his possession, I can speculate (as you are doing) and say it is likely something of interest to the Chinese (the number one hack artists in the world) otherwise they would have tossed him out from the begining or better yet have one of the Traid gangs take him for a midnight swim with more chains than he could carry.

I can speculate as much as anybody but what I see is more and more sophisticated hacks Coming FROM CHINA AND RUSSIA aimed at identity theft and targeting American commerce such as Target....gee you thinkl there might be a possible maybe connection since that little weasel Snowden might possibly maybe kinda sorta mighta maybe showed 'em HOW to bypass security.

Your defense of Snowden WHO TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION HE WIPED HIS SKINNY ASS WITH demonstrates just how wrong headed our national concience has become to such matters as
TRAITOROUS ACTS by GOVERNEMENT OFFICIALS of which Scumbag Snowden was one....no wonder Obamao can lie his ass off, Hillery can berate congress while being questioned on Benghazi and Lerner can conveneintly hit the delete button

Now in an earlier post you put on your Perry Mason face and started preaching about "evidence".....News flash.... according to the US Constitution you claim to know something about I DON'T NEED EVIDENCE....I NEED PROBABLE CAUSE, and when a GOVT EMPLOYEE ADMITTEDLY STEALS GOVT DOCUMENTS OR DATA AND TURNS THEM OVER TO ANYONE
Greenwald, some schmuck in "South America", The Ghost Shadow gang in Kowloon or Putin himself

THATS PROBABLE CAUSE HE COMMITED A CRIME, Probable cause to arrest him, search his possessions (with a warrant) and FIND evidence of exactly what he turned over before I decide to indict him on any number of charges depending on the content of said information.

So it doesn't matter if all he stole was data on the sex life of a flea, IF IT WAS GOVT PROPERTY its a crime.

Case closed

back Up Re-group or continue to make a fool of yourself.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 22, 2014, 06:10:02 PM
EHHHHHHHHHH wrong...now would you like to try behind door #2?

Snowden went to HK first, whatever his intent was with "journaists" is irrelevant, he knew damn well that whatever he had in his possession was a bargaining chip for safe passage and perhaps asylumn in HK and for your infomation the Chinese Govt knows EvERYTHING that goes on in "the Special free economic zone" of HK trough their unoffical watch dogs the Traids (Chinese oirganized crime).

Unless you are the amazing Kreskin you have no idea what Snowden had in his possession, I can speculate (as you are doing) and say it is likely something of interest to the Chinese (the number one hack artists in the world) otherwise they would have tossed him out from the begining or better yet have one of the Traid gangs take him for a midnight swim with more chains than he could carry.

I can speculate as much as anybody but what I see is more and more sophisticated hacks Coming FROM CHINA AND RUSSIA aimed at identity theft and targeting American commerce such as Target....gee you thinkl there might be a possible maybe connection since that little weasel Snowden might possibly maybe kinda sorta mighta maybe showed 'em HOW to bypass security.

Your defense of Snowden WHO TOOK AN OATH TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION HE WIPED HIS SKINNY ASS WITH demonstrates just how wrong headed our national concience has become to such matters as
TRAITOROUS ACTS by GOVERNEMENT OFFICIALS of which Scumbag Snowden was one....no wonder Obamao can lie his ass off, Hillery can berate congress while being questioned on Benghazi and Lerner can conveneintly hit the delete button

Now in an earlier post you put on your Perry Mason face and started preaching about "evidence".....News flash.... according to the US Constitution you claim to know something about I DON'T NEED EVIDENCE....I NEED PROBABLE CAUSE, and when a GOVT EMPLOYEE ADMITTEDLY STEALS GOVT DOCUMENTS OR DATA AND TURNS THEM OVER TO ANYONE
Greenwald, some schmuck in "South America", The Ghost Shadow gang in Kowloon or Putin himself

THATS PROBABLE CAUSE HE COMMITED A CRIME, Probable cause to arrest him, search his possessions (with a warrant) and FIND evidence of exactly what he turned over before I decide to indict him on any number of charges depending on the content of said information.

So it doesn't matter if all he stole was data on the sex life of a flea, IF IT WAS GOVT PROPERTY its a crime.

Case closed

back Up Re-group or continue to make a fool of yourself.

There is absolutely no question that Snowden committed a crime.  Revealing classified information to anyone not authorized to view that information is a crime under US law.  However, Snowden also took an oath to defend the US Constitution, which is the highest law in the land.  Since the government was systematically violating the Constitution with its mass collection of metadata and warrantless surveillance programs, Snowden had a choice to make.  He chose to honor the higher law and break the lower law.

The question was not whether Snowden broke the law.  The question is whether he committed "treason" and, more importantly, whether we as Americans should view him as a patriot and hero or as a despicable criminal. 

You DON'T have probable cause that Snowden gave any secret documents to any foreign government. 

Are you opposed to all government abuse whistleblowers or just Snowden?  Do you view Daniel Ellsberg as a traitor as well? 

Are you honestly saying that you would prefer to remain in total ignorance about the mass surveillance programs that the US government was conducting indiscriminately on all Americans?

One of the Snowden documents details a program whereby the government would intercept orders for internet routers, unpack the boxes and install secret backdoors and hacks on the router that would permit them to intercept all your internet traffic.  Then they would repackage the box and ship it to you with you having no idea, thinking that the box came directly from the seller.

Do you really want to live in a world where the government is doing that sort of thing to American citizens in secret?  You really want to live in an Orwellian dystopian future?

For EVERY positive legislative effort to reign in the NSA snooping and every reform to reassert the Bill of Rights and regain the privacy of all American citizens, you can thank Edward Snowden.  Without him this debate would not be happening and the Bill of Rights would continue to be shredded in secrecy.

There is really a warped set of values that would compel you to defend State secrecy to the detriment of your own civil liberties, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 12:46:47 PM
Also, saying "you root for the traitors" is just a meaningless statement.  You have to first prove that Snowden is a traitor.

You alleged this treasonous piece of crap was a hero, but you have yet to prove that, yet insist I prove the opposite (a far stronger case than your laughably weak position).

  You have to define your terms.

QuoteJust because some bureaucrats claim that material is "classified" doesn't mean that such material SHOULD be classified. 

Oh, I am ever so glad you bravely took it upon yourself to decide which things should and should not be secret. So if it makes you feel good if you do break the law, then by your twisted standards it is OK to do so? Har, har, har.....

The left in this country are trash. Snowden was a traitor and should be executed upon his return.

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 04:39:51 PM
I'll answer.  I don't hide from questions about my political beliefs.  I never voted for Obama.  I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012 and I voted for Gary Johnson in the general election.  I am an anarchist libertarian, otherwise known as a voluntarist.  I believe in the free market, in commodity money (i.e. Gold standard or similar), and above all else I believe that aggression is always immoral.  Therefore I oppose the State. 

I have a special interest in opposing war because, of all the terrible and destructive things that governments do, war is the worst and most destructive. 

Theoretically, I would have some common ground with small government conservative types but unfortunately it would seem that we are pretty far apart on a lot of important issues, war and militarism being just one.

Could you explain exactly what a bombing campaign against ISIS is supposed to accomplish?  Terrorism is one of the most successful methods of fighting a large nation state because they have no formal military to defeat, no single nation to take over.  Terrorism is a tactic, an idea.  A group like ISIS feeds off propaganda and sensationalism.  The biggest goal of any radical terrorist group that is fighting a military superpower is to lure that military into a protracted conflict that bleeds them dry financially and in human life, while at the same time providing new recruiting possibilities through labeling the superpower as an occupying force that is "at war with Islam".

You don't have to be a lefty to oppose war and imperialism.  Libertarians have been the most consistent in opposing US wars.  And there used to be a tradition of conservatives who were consistently opposed to imperialism and non-defensive wars.  They criticized the left for starting all these foolish wars, from Woodrow Wilson getting us into World War I, FDR into WW2, Kennedy and Johnson into Vietnam.  These weren't Republican wars, at least not at first. 

I could take your position seriously if you could articulate a coherent and defined goal that you think will be accomplished through airstrikes?  When those airstrikes are inevitably insufficient to destroy ISIS will you support Ground Troops?  Do you really think it is possible to destroy ISIS?  Or will we make new radicals as fast as we kill them?

If you don't take my ethical argument against war seriously, what about a utilitarian argument?  What about a sober cost/benefit analysis?  What is it worth in money spent or lives lost to avenge the deaths of three journalists?

Don't we have enough problems to worry about in THIS country?

I have never posted that I thought airstrikes would achieve our goal of defeating ISIS. I have repeatedly said we need to kill them without putting forth any specific strategy. I would leave that to the military. I respect your belief we should do nothing and "hope" the threat will go away. I just don't think that is realistic.

Color me unsurprised.... Now Oliver Stone appears to be the first among several film projects involving this treasonous trash.

http://deadline.com/2014/09/edward-snowden-joseph-gordon-levitt-oliver-stone-movie-838084/

Quote from: jrodefeld on September 22, 2014, 07:21:38 AM
Do you ever stop to really consider how ISIS rose to power?  What factors led to the chaos and dysfunction we are now witnessing?  You would find that our military intervention has a great deal to do with the problems in that region of the world.  There would still be problems in that part of the world of course. 

But too many conservatives act as though these national security "threats" just pop up out of nowhere and are entirely unprovoked.  If, as is demonstrably the case, our ill conceived Iraq War that Bush and Cheney got us into, created geopolitical instability and allowed for the rise of radical extremists like ISIS, then why don't we hesitate to cause further interventions?

If we intervene, ISIS gains a recruiting tool.  The truth is that ISIS is now very weak.  They are not popular even with other middle eastern nations.  Iran hates ISIS, as does Pakistan.  One sure way to make them more popular in the broader Muslim world is to go to war with them.  If they are seen as fighting off a foreign occupier, then they would gain sympathy from people who would otherwise oppose them.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

When you say the reason to go to war is "to protect our interests" I have to disagree.  That is far too vague a statement.  What are "our" interests?  See, I'm a lot more clear.  The only just war is a defensive war.  Every individual has the right to self defense and so logically a group of individuals are permitted to collectively organize for collective defense.  However, no one has the right to use aggression against the person or property of another. 

If ISIS were able to actually launch any sort of attack on the United States, then we would have the right to defend ourselves.  What our government shouldn't be permitted to do is start bombing campaigns against Iraq because ISIS is causing chaos over there.

It would be much better for us to pull our military out of the middle east and permit them to try and work out their problems without our constant intervention.  Then I would say that Americans who are still concerned should wage a propaganda "war" of sorts, and give the people who live in the middle east the knowledge to reform their society.  Send the moderates John Locke and Murray Rothbard literature.  Inform them about Natural Rights and the non aggression principle, about free markets and sound money.  Maybe they would listen and maybe they wouldn't.

But our military is not a useful tool to bring about change in the middle east.  And, let's be honest, the agenda is not really about keeping you safe from the threat of ISIS.  Our "leaders" have far different goals and interests than you or I.  War profiteering, Israeli lobbying and the desire for natural resources play a large role in determining our foreign policy.

What factors led to ISIS? hmmm let me think... ISLAM
US military interventions is the cause of instability? Hmm oh right so that's why China is annexing SE Asia sea's and Russia is invading Ukraine.
Bush and Cheney created the geopolitical instability (bullshit term btw) so Iraq invaded Kuwait and the Arabs invaded Israel because of Bush, I see...
So if we attack ISIS which is raping shia women, the shia men will start loving ISIS? I see....
Ah the only just war is a defensive war, yeah we should have let those North Koreans enslave all of Korea, that would have been "just"...
If leftist in the west who lives in capitalist wealth protected by private property rights dont bother to read Locke, then what in  the world makes you think muslims would?
The only change I want to see in the middle east is total annihilation of Islam, only then will there be peace.

You think too highly of the Mohammedans.