Alan Henning 'killed by Islamic State'

[Infinite Chaos]

-- I choose the latter because its none of our business.

When energy sources come from other sources then the ME can be none of our business. The other problem however is radicalised muslims returning from a war zone, trained in terror tactics. They haven't gone to fight the West in Syria and Iraq, they are fighting other muslims and we have to make a decision about their ability to return.

So what?

You don't like him? He's moderate rebel. He fights for freedom. No?..

No, and you'll be saying something different when he returns with his friends to Chechnya.

-- It's crazyness but now USA want Saudi Arabia and Qatar to join the anti-ISIS coalition. I wonder - what kind of co-operation Americans want to get from these regimes? They are the ones who created ISIS, now they declare they fight against it. Crazyness.

The house of Saud will fight it because they stand to lose all their wealth and position. Mind you, your narrative is a bit simplistic - you're talking about groups trained and created by the USA when in fact they were the groups the US was fighting in Iraq previously and who even Al Qaeda distanced themselves from

 

[Wiggen]

The West has a choice, either intervene in overseas conflicts and expose their citizens to revenge attacks or become neutral in world affairs and safeguard their people. I choose the latter because its none of our business.

Good thing you weren't in charge of the US during the Second World War. Had you been, there might not be a Jew or a Chinese person left alive. This Libertarian nonsense of never getting involved in anything that happens in the world, regardless of how outrageous it is, is one (among many reasons) why nobody can take you seriously as a political movement.

 

[jamesrage]

Gaddaf's death was worse.

no one condemned it at the time.

Gaddafe was a piece of **** of dictator who brutalized his people.He got off light and deserved far worse than what happened to him. A British Humanitarian doesn't deserve to have his head cut off.

 

[jamesrage]

[/B]And that is bad why?

Bad only if you don't want your country involved in another war in the middle east.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Gaddaf's death was worse.

no one condemned it at the time.

"Sic Semper Tyrannis"

 

[Wiggen]

Bad only if you don't want your country involved in another war in the middle east.

So the answer is what? Fight them when they come to our streets and start beheading people? Or simply ignore them and hope they have a change of heart and stop beheading and crucifying people? Anybody who thinks all we have to do is simply choose not to participate and we will be left alone is living in a dream world.

 

[MrFirst]

Thanks for your contribution. It's thanks to your country's support for the thug in Syria that all of this is taking place. As usual with Russia, they take a bad situation and make it worse.

That's incredible how the brainwashing works. The USA who invested money in "Syrian opposition", who supported and encouraged this so-called "opposition" in UN Security Council, who gathered all Syrian enemies in the meeting called "Friends of Syria", who tried to knock down Assad through this "opposition", who delivered "non-lethal" equipment for "Free Syrian Army" and, according to some sources, delivered weapons for Syrian "rebels" (CIA begins weapons delivery to Syrian rebels) - now USA blame anyone for terrorists' advance in Syria and in Iraq - they blame Assad, they blame Russia, they even blame Turkey, but only not themselves.

All this time Assad was the main force that counteracted to terrorists in Syria. And all this time USA insisted he must go away and supported terrorists.

Something wrong with this photo?

I have another one:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has endured brutal criticism—media fact checkers, reporters, and political figures have shredded him—for questioning just who McCain posed with.

But a closer look at the situation tells perhaps a different story than McCain’s office or the mainstream media have pushed.

But there’s just one problem with McCain’s office’s story. Now, McCain’s team says the senator didn’t meet with any bad figures but declines to name them, for what seems to be a legitimate reason—although those who are publicly leading combat against ISIS and against Bashar Al-Assad’s regime are probably publicly known figures there.

Alleged ISIS Photo Controversy Engulfs Sen. John McCain

Is it a coincidence that those ones who hate Russia support terrorists?

 

[Ben K.]

The main difference is that western media this time doesn't try to keep silence about massacres made by terrorists. Before, when it concerned Syria, captured soldiers of Syrian government troops, they simply didn't say anything or blame "bloody Assad's regime" instead of telling the truth and showing the Syrian "rebels" as they were. In general that was pure media support of "moderate opposition" in Syria which has never existed in reality.

Of course, when the "moderate opposition" started to chop Brits and Americans into pieces it became a bit more difficult to call them "liberators" and "fighters for democracy and freedom".

Sounds like someone who didnt read, watch or listen to western media.

 

[MrFirst]

No, and you'll be saying something different when he returns with his friends to Chechnya.

The house of Saud will fight it because they stand to lose all their wealth and position. Mind you, your narrative is a bit simplistic - you're talking about groups trained and created by the USA when in fact they were the groups the US was fighting in Iraq previously and who even Al Qaeda distanced themselves from

In Russia our special services kill terrorist, we do not call them "moderate opposition" or anything like this. Instead of making senseless remarks I suggest you to think why this guy stay in Syria or in Iraq but not in Chechnya. The reason is simple - if he returns to Chechnya he will be dead very soon. He is there where he feel comfortable. Thanks to the United States which created safe place for terrorists from all over the world. Leaving Iraq and supoprting terrorists in Syria was smart idea, certainly.

The House of Saud it is Al Qaeda. How they can fight against terrorists if they are terrorists themselves? Maybe Al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency) could fight against Al Nusra which is creation of Qatar? It would be kinda Alien vs Predator. The same Qatar which first allowed to open the embassy of Taliban. The same Qatar which has close ties with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

And you hope these regimes will help you to handle with terrorists??? Ridiculously. You are wether naive or mad.

 

[PoS]

Good thing you weren't in charge of the US during the Second World War. Had you been, there might not be a Jew or a Chinese person left alive. This Libertarian nonsense of never getting involved in anything that happens in the world, regardless of how outrageous it is, is one (among many reasons) why nobody can take you seriously as a political movement.

More neocon silliness coming from you. Why am I not surprised? :roll:

Firstly, WW2 was a just war because America was attacked without provocation by Japan and war was declared by her German ally. Libertarians are all for self defense, what they are against is the country starting and sustaining their own war due to oil and the military industrial complex, something you love to advocate since you dont care about American lives. If you love having an empire so much why dont you join the military?

 

[gunner]

Sounds like someone who didnt read, watch or listen to western media.

I think he missed the part where the media, was swamped with concern as to who it was we were actually backing. Hence, I would go as far as saying, it was the single most reason for not getting involved in Syria.

Paul

 

[gunner]

More neocon silliness coming from you. Why am I not surprised? :roll:

Firstly, WW2 was a just war because America was attacked without provocation by Japan and war was declared by her German ally. Libertarians are all for self defense, what they are against is the country starting and sustaining their own war due to oil and the military industrial complex, something you love to advocate since you dont care about American lives. If you love having an empire so much why dont you join the military?

So, your Libertarianism is based on the perception of a threat?

Paul

 

[Rogue Valley]

In Russia our special services...

Invade neighboring countries.

 

[MrFirst]

Invade neighboring countries.

Tell me when will be your 16th birthday... I'd like to congratulate you...

 

[Rogue Valley]

The annexation of Crimea was the 2014 incorporation of most of the Crimean Peninsula, internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, into Russia.

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Own it.

 

[jamesrage]

So the answer is what? Fight them when they come to our streets and start beheading people? Or simply ignore them and hope they have a change of heart and stop beheading and crucifying people? Anybody who thinks all we have to do is simply choose not to participate and we will be left alone is living in a dream world.

1.The US has the most armed population on the planet and somewhat easy access to firearms. If those cockroaches in human form start beheading Americans in the US then they will provoke more of the population into arming itself and possibly turning the country as whole against Muslims even more.

2.If they attack Americans in the US then and only then we declare war on them and send in gunships,bombers and drones to drop anything from a neutron bomb or below.Maybe even bring back napalm just so those cockroaches in human form can suffer a bit before dying. Once we are done we leave with a care imn the world as to how the vacuum will be filled. We do not rebuild, we do not install a government, and we ban any aid to that region.This sends the message that if you **** with us we will destroy you, make you suffer and leave you to the wolves.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

In Russia our special services kill terrorist

We are well aware of the culture of circumvention of judicial processes.

we do not call them "moderate opposition" or anything like this. Instead of making senseless remarks I suggest you to think why this guy stay in Syria or in Iraq but not in Chechnya. The reason is simple - if he returns to Chechnya he will be dead very soon. He is there where he feel comfortable.

Until he and his brother fighters return home which is what I stated originally..

-- The House of Saud it is Al Qaeda. How they can fight against terrorists if they are terrorists themselves? Maybe Al Qaeda (Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency) could fight against Al Nusra which is creation of Qatar? It would be kinda Alien vs Predator. The same Qatar which first allowed to open the embassy of Taliban. The same Qatar which has close ties with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

And you hope these regimes will help you to handle with terrorists??? Ridiculously. You are wether naive or mad.

I think you misread - I've already stated that Al Qaeda have disowned ISIS, that will mean the same for any Sunni backers within the House of Saud.

As for the lack of sanctions or actions against Turkey, Qatar and any other states that have backed ISIS I can't speak for Western Leaders. I sincerely hope at some point that action is taken and a more coordinated policy is taken.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Until he and his brother fighters return home which is what I stated originally..

Perhaps some of them have returned home....

Chechnya Suicide Bomber Kills 5 Police, Wounds 12

 

[PoS]

So, your Libertarianism is based on the perception of a threat?

Paul

 

[gunner]

To be honest, I'm not at all surprised. You've proved countless times, that you not only have zero clue to what it is you think, you understand to be Libertarianism, but after many requests cannot provide a coherent explanation.

Paul

 

[PoS]

To be honest, I'm not at all surprised. You've proved countless times, that you not only have zero clue to what it is you think, you understand to be Libertarianism, but after many requests cannot provide a coherent explanation.

Paul

You talk about libertarianism and threats, something you claimed I have spoken about but in actuality I have made no mention.

It seems you cannot understand English.

 

[gunner]

More neocon silliness coming from you. Why am I not surprised? :roll:

Firstly, WW2 was a just war because America was attacked without provocation by Japan and war was declared by her German ally. Libertarians are all for self defense, what they are against is the country starting and sustaining their own war due to oil and the military industrial complex, something you love to advocate since you dont care about American lives. If you love having an empire so much why dont you join the military?

You said

So, your Libertarianism is based on the perception of a threat?

Paul

I said

You talk about libertarianism and threats, something you claimed I have spoken about but in actuality I have made no mention.

It seems you cannot understand English.

Concentrate, specifically on the bolded part. If Libertarians are for "self defence" then the magnitude of a perceived threat, is what counts? So, to carry that logic forward; the threat from IS is perceived to be so great in magnitude, scope and barbarity, that America says it is in their own interests (some might say "self defence") to go on the counter attack. Hence Libertarian philosophy (not that you are familiar with any), presented in the way you do, is incoherent and unsustainable.

Paul

 

[PoS]

Concentrate, specifically on the bolded part. If Libertarians are for "self defence" then the magnitude of a perceived threat, is what counts? So, to carry that logic forward; the threat from IS is perceived to be so great in magnitude, scope and barbarity, that America says it is in their own interests (some might say "self defence") to go on the counter attack. Hence Libertarian philosophy (not that you are familiar with any), presented in the way you do, is incoherent and unsustainable.

Paul

Wrong again (as usual)

Firstly, self defense is not about fighting against perceived threats, in this regard we should have never bombed ISIS because it was only AFTER we bombed them that they decided to retaliate. Self defense should only apply after you are directly attacked, not before- thats called naked aggression.

Its clear you have no idea what youre talking about.

 

[gunner]

Wrong again (as usual)

Firstly, self defense is not about fighting against perceived threats, in this regard we should have never bombed ISIS because it was only AFTER we bombed them that they decided to retaliate. Self defense should only apply after you are directly attacked, not before- thats called naked aggression.

Its clear you have no idea what youre talking about.

Are you basing your principles on NAP?

Paul

 

[Rainman05]

Wrong again (as usual)

Firstly, self defense is not about fighting against perceived threats, in this regard we should have never bombed ISIS because it was only AFTER we bombed them that they decided to retaliate. Self defense should only apply after you are directly attacked, not before- thats called naked aggression.

Its clear you have no idea what youre talking about.

This is so wrong.
With both nations and individual people, self-defense doesn't mean riposte, it means anticipation of aggression. That's the only way to correctly defend yourself, you anticipate you will be attacked and you strike before they do. With individuals is because ofc, the first strike may very well the last strike or the one that tips the scale beyond balancing, and with nations it's because you don't want to be caught with your pants down and take damages you could avoid or prevent. Ofc, with nations, it's a lot more complicated because it depends on the attack, the nations, etc. Pearl harbor was a severe attack, but it was hardly crippling or of any importance considering the power of the USA.