Articles

Sunday, March 10, 2013

The Dreaded Drone

At the end of last week we were consumed by the question of whether the President of the United States can order a drone strike on an American in the United States.

But why ask that question only about a drone?

Suppose that Obama decides that he wants Rush Limbaugh gone once and for all. He gives the order and B-52s from the 11th Bomb Squadron at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana are dispatched to put an end to the talk show host once and for all.

The B-52s arrive over Rush Limbaugh's Palm Beach compound in under two hours and begin to pound away at his 2 acre estate dropping 2,000 pound bombs until absolutely nothing is left standing. Every building has been destroyed, the staff is dead, the golf courses are wrecked and there is no sign of life.

The 11th returns to base and receives a congratulatory call from Obama on a job well done.

Why can't this happen?

For one thing it doesn't make much sense. If Obama ever gets that determined to take down Rush, Team O will put together some ex-Feds turned private investigators to plant evidence of a Federal offense and then bring in the FBI. It's a lot cheaper and less likely to make even Obama's most loyal lapdogs balk at wrecking Palm Beach.

Federal prosecutors have nearly as good a track record at getting their man, innocent or guilty, as drones do. And they raise a lot fewer questions. Even mad dictators in totalitarian states aren't known for sending air strikes to take out individual critics. Not unless they have no control over the territory that they are in.

So why not send in the B-52s to get rid of Rush Limbaugh? Because despite last week's filibuster, military operations in the United States are far more restricted than law enforcement operations. The odds of a member of the United States Air Force killing you outside of a bar fight is very slim, but the odds of a member of a local or state police force killing you are far higher.

When it comes to the Federal government killing Americans, the civilian law enforcement side is far more likely to kill you than a USAF Staff Sergeant taking out Taliban across the border in Pakistan.

Every Federal agency has its own SWAT Team which is why every Federal agency is also buying up huge amounts of ammunition.

That means that you are far more likely to be shot by a SWAT team from the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General than by a drone operator from the 3d Special Operations Squadron in New Mexico (Motto: Pro Patria, Pro Liberis - For Country, for Freedom.)

The DOE's private police force has the authority to use lethal force, conduct undercover operations, including electronic surveillance, and may not have drones, but does have 12 gauge shotguns and far more authority to use them on you than the Staff Sergeant in New Mexico does.

The Department of Energy has two SWAT Teams. The National Parks Service has four. And if any of them do shoot you, it will not result in congressional hearings or collateral damage. Law enforcement officers kill hundreds of Americans every year. One more won't be a big deal. And the militarization of the police and the proliferation of Special Response Units in the Federal government are a far more serious concern than being taken out by a drone while sitting in a Starbucks.

Military operations in the United States are fairly tightly constrained and while that line has blurred at times, it's still a much more difficult and controversial process. Today's military is far less likely to be deployed against civilians than in 1932 when General Douglas MacArthur and Major George Patton led a fixed bayonet charge across Pennsylvania Avenue to dislodge unemployed protesters to protect President Hoover. And that is because Federal law enforcement has been militarized to such a degree that it can cope with just about anything short of a full-fledged civil war. And whatever it doesn't have now, it will soon enough.

But let's get back to the B-52s bombing Rush Limbaugh's mansion. We all know that's not likely to happen. But the idea of flesh and blood pilots climbing into planes and dropping bombs across Palm Beach has too much reality to it. The power of the drone is that it appears to be inhuman. It's a new technology and it can do anything.

What seems unlikely to happen with B-52s seems eerily possible with a Predator drone. A strange shape that's still somewhat mysterious. A killer robot in the sky.

That mystique around the drone has been partly created by the anti-war movement, the same way that the anti-gun movement has built a special mystique around the assault rifle. Like the assault rifle, the drone is not an evil killing machine. It's not that fundamentally different than the first missiles guided by an operator to their target... and those have been around for a while.

The mystification of weapons dehumanizes people. It makes the debate about the weapons, rather than about the people. And once the weapons are invested with a sinister power, then they come to seem evil... and the people who defend them also begin to seem evil.

What kind of a sick person would buy an assault rifle? What kind of demented mind would defend using a drone? Once you make the weapon seem evil, you can then make anyone who uses it seem evil by association.

The anti-war movement did that with nuclear weapons. Then it extended that aura of menace to nuclear power plants. Now it's doing it with drones.

Armed drones are used abroad because they allow for targeted strikes inside hostile territory while eliminating military casualties. Surveillance drones are going to be used extensively at home, and that is a serious issue, but armed drones are not likely to be because the United States is not hostile territory.

An armed drone makes a lot of sense if you want to kill an Al Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan across territory controlled by the Pakistani Taliban whose weapons would seriously endanger a SEAL Team. It makes no sense if you want to take down someone having a Doubleshot Mocha Frappucino at Starbucks. Until the United States becomes hostile territory for Federal law enforcement, there would be no reason to use an armed drone. And if the United States does become hostile territory, then it is highly unlikely that whoever is running things in Washington by then would care about the finer points of the Posse Comitatus Act in the middle of a civil war.

The only realistic point in time in which drones are being used to assassinate Americans inside the United States is a state of civil war where military force is already being used on a large scale against Americans and the debate will have become moot and will be settled with guns.

Unlike the militarization of civilian law enforcement, military drones are not a threat to Americans. We're not losing our freedom because of the 3d Special Operations Squadron in New Mexico. We are losing it because the Department of Education not only has its own police force with the powers of arrest, but because it is part of a vast Federal bureaucracy with nearly unlimited regulatory powers.

Joining in the anti-war crowd's demonization of the military distracts from the real issue, which is not that military drones are coming to get us, but that human drones are voting in blocs and coalitions for a vast unfunded nanny state.

We aren't dealing with fascism, we're dealing with bureaucratic collectivism. Rather than a militarized society, what we have is a socialized society. The people who run it don't care much for the military. They prefer nudges and regulations. They wipe out entire industries with the stroke of a pen leaving few other options.

The enemy isn't a United States Air Force Staff Sergeant downing a Mountain Dew and then looking for a Toyota pickup truck filled with armed men and a goat in Waziristan. It's the people behind the government counter that you have to deal with on a daily basis and your neighbor who has all their numbers and loves informing on people who aren't behaving themselves the way that the TV says they should.

The enemy is in the non-profit think-tanks that come up with the latest 'nudge' to socialize people and the latest billionaire who gets bored and wants to treat an entire city like his employees. It's the news anchors whose big ambition is to read things in a serious voice from the teleprompter and all the people who automatically repeat back what they hear on the news.

The enemy is every bright-eyed boy and girl who leave college determined to make the world a better place by eliminating all the things and people they have been told are bad. The enemy is the entire system of education and entertainment that shaped them into human drones on a mission of progress.

The enemy isn't operating a Predator or Global Hawk over Afghanistan. The enemy is right here.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

So you don't find it unusual that when the President, Attorney General and candidate for CIA chief are all asked a simple question about the constitutionality of a drone strike on Americans on American soil and they all retreat to the comfort of non-answers and rhetoric to buy time?

Shouldn't that be a simple, "NO, it would not be Constitutional".
Had they collectively answered in that manner, this would be a non-issue and Rand Paul would be working on getting a dinner date with Hagel.

You're right about the quasi-military groups within various federal agencies. In my opinion, they are an enemy, along with many voters.

Fascinating commentary as always, but I disagree that drones are no threat.

A deep bow in your direction,
Mike

Edward Cline said...

Daniel: love how you quashed the objections of the anti-drone contingent by raising the absurdity of eliminating Rush Limbaugh in Palm Beach with a B-52 strike. Federal prosecutors working to eliminate Limbaugh with trumped up charges of nefarious behavior or speech would be a far more effective means of taking down someone deemed an "enemy of the state," or of Obama, or of Hillary Clinton, or John Brennan. Or even of Eric Holder.

You also point out that your friendly local police force's jurisdictional authority can be overridden by federal authority and that force can be drafted to act in the federal government's name, as well. Why use any federal agency's SWAT team, whose members cost perhaps $85K a year per member, when a strike can be achieved by dragooning local guns with or without a warrant at perhaps $35K per year? That's cost effectiveness. Predator and surveillance drones cost at least $1 million each. No cost effectiveness there at all. Nailing an enemy of the state with a drone as he sips his latte in a Starbucks while he WiFi's on Facebook or Twitter is not a realistic scenario. It isn't even realistic to Obama and Company. Devils are more practical and cunning than that.

"That means that you are far more likely to be shot by a SWAT team from the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General than by a drone operator from the 3d Special Operations Squadron in New Mexico (Motto: Pro Patria, Pro Liberis - For Country, for Freedom.)" That's what the anti-drone contingent should be worried about. If the government is preparing for a civil uprising against the current rĂ©gime – and the reports of all the federal agencies stocking up on ammo seem to indicate little else, unless they're expecting an invasion by the North Koreans or Canada or Mexican reconquista – being shot by a fellow American swaddled in SWAT armor for violating a speech diktat is a better likelihood than being incinerated by a drone-launched Hellfire missile. Unless it's during a civil war.

Dan said...

The US .gov doesn't send SWAT teams or federal agents to plant evidence on the people they are currently killing with drones...they just proclaim the person a threat and bomb them. They do this repeatedly over the course of years till society creates a gestalt belief
structure that states if someone was bombed
by a drone they must have been a terrorist or
enemy combatant. Proof of such is neither requested nor offered....and certainly isn't required. After the conditioning phase which
is underway...and which is mutating from "it's ok to do this to enemy combatants in other country's" to "it's ok to do this to enemy combatants anywhere". Soon the mutation will proceed to "it's ok to do this to enemy combatants in America". Once that mutation and conditioning is complete assassination at will from above and without due process can and almost certainly will commence.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Mike, the question actually was answered. A drone is no different than any other use of military force on American soil and has to occur under the same parameters.

You can use a drone under the same circumstances you can use a B-52.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Edward.

Yes it doesn't really make much sense to use drones on Americans in America. If they really want to get someone, all they need to do is start accessing government files the way Hillary did in the original Clinton Admin.

The way the Mohammed filmmaker got put away is a good example. Just make some phone calls to the right people in the justice system, find a pretext and lock him up.

And we may actually get to the point where such tactics are being used wholesale against critics.

But it doesn't make any sense that a drone, instead of a whole bunch of cops, would have been sent for the Mohammed filmmaker.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Dan,

the United States carried out massive bombardment of enemy cities and civilians during WW2 and subsequent wars.

So why didn't the gestalt set in that it's okay to bomb American cities?

Americans and the military can tell the difference between Americans and foreign enemies.

Just about anyone can.

Anonymous said...

It is not just drones. It is killing citizens without benefit of formal charges and trial. Drone, jet, bomb, whatever suits your fancy it is wrong.
Joyce Jackovitz

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Joyce,

Americans aren't being killed domestically, except by law enforcement.

If you mean Al Qaeda terrorists being killed in the Middle East or Pakistan, some of whom have American citizenship, they're members of an enemy force, no different than German soldiers with US citizenship during WW2.

Charges only apply to people in criminal proceedings, not to enemies on a battlefield.

Elise Ronan said...

You are rather positive that at some point our government will not turn to the military to support their positions. Posse comitatis can be overridden with a mere vote from the Congress. It is not hard to imagine such a scenario. It has happened to every great democracy throughout time. So the questions of the Constitutionality of actions by our elected leaders are always important and should be asked regularly. For you to imply that an imperial presidency would stop with the IRS or the FBI to harass someone is being a bit naive and I never thought of you as naive.

As far as our education system...both of my sons are in college. I am not afraid of what they are taught or the ideas that they are learning. They have a healthy respect for the Constitution but also understand that the Constitution is not sacrosanct. It is not a holy article but man-made. As my youngest reminded us the other day, the Constitution can be amended. It is a living, breathing document that as Madison wrote in the federalist papers,(paraphrased) was left vague so that future generations can tailor it to their needs. You may not like what the younger generation stands for yet I have never heard of one of them that did not find the Bill of Rights an important piece of our heritage. It is not the educated young you need to worry about. It is those who blindly follow any political philosophy, conservatives included, without asking questions.

Dennis Latham said...

I read a ridiculous article yesterday about a supposed decades long telephone research study(using grants, of course)which claims that gun ownership in the US is the lowest it has ever been, and that most people don't want or own guns. It claims the 320 million guns owned by people in this country are owned by many individuals who have large amounts of weapons. They claim people do not want to protect themselves with guns. The researchers are idiots living off government money and a biased media. Probably 98% of the people will lie about having guns over the phone either because they can't legally own one or don't want anyone to know. An Obama voter or other Liberal will lie because it's not politically correct. It's the same with the government and their drones and their massive ammunition buys. The excuse of target practice for their private police doesn't cut it, and I believe they have crippled the civilian ammunition industry and I believe they will use drones on us, given the chance. Their biggest stumbling block is trying to disarm us first. They will use someone with a small nuke to wipe out a city and declare a national emergency and blame Middle East terrorists or the ever present North Korea that shows up as a diversion when things are not going good in DC. They will kill you without thought if you get in their way and put out enough bull to make you look like the worst person alive.

Edward Cline said...

It astounds me that some readers here (and on other weblogs) first, can't make the simple distinction between a serial killer arrested and tried and possibly executed via civilian criminal courts, and a soldier waging war against us abroad in a definable battlefield (e.g., Pakistan, Afghanistan); and second, voice the objection that, because we don’t order drone strikes against a Ted Bundy or Bernard Madoff, we shouldn’t order drone strikes against terrorists abroad, but strive to capture them and put them on trial. The individual criminal only metaphorically wages war against others in this country; civilian institutions are established to identify, arrest, incarcerate, prosecute and sentence him. The individual enemy soldier need only face one government institution, the military, because he has with others taken up arms against the government and the whole civilian population. The enemy soldier acts as the enforcer for another government and its ideology. In the case of Muslim terrorists, suicide bombers, and the like, there is no one government he represents, but he does subscribe to an ideology common to all enemy governments, Islam.

In both scenarios, the criminal and the military, the government ideally employs retaliatory force against individuals initiating force. But there the purposes diverge. We arrest criminals in order to pursue justice and possibly offer their victims some recompense in that way, and incidentally preserve a civil society. We use force against enemy soldiers and their governments without consideration of whether individual soldiers are guilty; if they're carrying guns and taking action against our forces, or just operating radios or acting as supply clerks, then they face the risk of being killed, wounded, and captured. There are no procedural niceties possible or feasible in out-and-out warfare. To impose them on our own soldiers, as the ROE have been on American troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is to practically guarantee they will be killed, because the enemy is not bound by the same "rules." That's become apparent, yet the ROE are still operational, to the cost of our forces.

It would be interesting to see how many anti-drone advocates would become Alvin Yorks once they grasp the distinction between the "war" on crime and literal warfare.

playertwo said...

what is left out of most drones convers is that the overwhelming strategy of militaries since about korea has been to use the killbox and press to shape the battlespace. we dont take things from people, we get bodycounts and report them in the news. the drone shrinks the killbox. we have more control and arent drawn in by the enemy. who cares if we kill his human shields. the message is two fold. the west is technologically advanced but morally inept, this is what the jihadis tell the collaterals. but we tell them, why get promoted to the head homer if youre just going to get zapped? what the left wants it to take out our concentrated answer to the war by welfare problem. we cant afford what is called "war" now. just like britain which caused it downfall, we cant afford all these stupid involvements. so we have a solution that works pretty well. it works so well that it even pulls in republicans to overreact to it. drone on, i say, just keep them pointed out,not in. if the presstitutes and the enemy cant handle it, who cares?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Elise,

the government may well turn to the military to shut down domestic unrest, but that would likely require something on the level of a civil war, at which point every weapon of war will be used as it was in the Civil War

I have a major problem with viewing the Bill of Rights as something to respect, rather than to completely keep to, it essentially invalidates it as a guarantee and makes every right subject to constant threats of referendum or judicial activism

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Dennis,

some no doubt have learned to lie, but there is also the impact of immigration. Look at the demographic shift in Virginia and what happened in the last two elections.

IgorR said...

This whole debate reminds me of how a year ago in a Republican presidential debate Stephanopoulos kept pestering Romney about his stance on the states overturning contraception, and how Romney was totally befuddled by this line of questioning as having no connection to reality. This turned out to foreshadow the upcoming "Republican war on women". Same here. This stupid debate is not about using drones on the American soil but about Rand Paul's opposition to the war with Jihadists.

I know that Daniel purposefully decided to just deal with the logic of the drone question in isolation, but once again I ask: why would you care about the promises and constitutional determinations of people who are capable of firing drones on innocent Americans? Either they will do it when the time comes regardless of any promises, or they won't, but their answers today mean nothing.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Edward,

the distinction between criminal and enemy fighter has been blurred by the anti-war crowd all along

the distinction is rather obvious

someone breaking into a liquor store is a criminal

a member of an organized group with foreign state sponsors trying to kill as many Americans as possible in order to defeat and destroy the United States in a protracted conflict is an enemy fighter

this incidentally was also a Cold War issue

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

playertwo,

it's an effective enough strategy at keeping the enemy off balance by draining away the experienced leaders in any group

officer assassination on an international scale

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

IgorR,

that's an excellent example and that's what we're dealing with here/

A non-issue constructed to push something else.

And as you've said, at the point in time that drones would actually be used to 'assassinate' Americans in the United States, the Constitution would be null and void.

It's like demanding that the administration disavow any plans to dismantle all the states and impose national martial law and execute critics.

If they're going to do that, then they aren't going to admit to it now and they aren't going to be bound by any law once they do.

If the goal is to actually keep things like that from happening, there are far smarter places to push back to weaken government authority.

Carl Stevenson said...

Any "study" can be designed so as to give the desire result. (Or the "researcher" can simply lie and cook the books, like the "global warming" folks.)

Carl Stevenson said...

Our rights are G-d given, not grants to us by the ruling class. They are NOT subject to negotiation, popularity contest, or a vote. We will have to fight to retain them, because the ruling class is ever intent upon taking them away.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." - Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackston, W. Virginia Board of Education v. Burnette, 1943

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Carl,

indeed it can. But at the same time the country is changing. Fewer households are married and fewer are religious. And we do need to push back against that.

DenisO said...

Finally a logical argument. The Rand Paul hit piece was probably the longest ad hominum attack I've ever read. The thinking was so shallow, I couldn't believe it came from someone I thoroughly respected.
No one is perfect, indeed.

Edward Cline said...

Daniel: You replied to me that "… the distinction between criminal and enemy fighter has been blurred by the anti-war crowd all along.…the distinction is rather obvious…." Yes, this is true. What astounds me is that otherwise intelligent and well-informed individuals (strangers and individuals of my personal acquaintance) can't make that obvious distinction and have bought into the blurring of the differences. I keep imagining the bizarre scenario based on the anti-drone premise of our going to war against the Nazis and Japanese, and instead of striving to eliminate the enemy, we sent cops to try to handcuff every Nazi and Japanese to bring them to trial in the U.S., because it was morally "improper" to shoot back at them. And, yes, if things get ugly in the U.S., the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be suspended and all bets will be off. The government will do what it can to quell "civil unrest," including targeting individuals and groups with drones.

davy crocket said...

Here's something that may be of interest. What if a drone ws hacked? The Iranian hacker group parastoo, which means "bird", released this a few days ago,(sorry about the all caps but this is the way it was released)-IN TECHNICAL PART OF OUR LAST MESSAGE WE TALKED ABOUT HOW PARASTOO GOT INTO C4ISR
(note- C4ISR is the concept of Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) SYSTEMS BELONG TO NATO AND USED A VSAT-BASED ATTACKS TO CONTROL AND "PARASTOOJACK" A DRONE,LONG TIME AGO .NOW THAT WE SLOWLY ARE WORKING THROUGH THE ROUTE
AND PARASTOOS,CYBER RESISTANCE GROUPS,AND PEOPLE WHO ARE TIRED OF IMPERIALISTIC SHIT BEING FED US AS POLITICS FOR A LONG TIME,IN OUR NEXT MESSAGE WE WILL RELEASE A VIDEO OF HOW THE ATTACH TO IDIRECT-CONTROLLED C4ISR SYSTEM HAPPENED AND HOW PARASTOO BROKE INTO A FIPS 140-2
SECURE SATCOM ON THE MOVE . IT DEMONSTRATES,IN A LIMITED WAY THAT PUBLIC WWW CAN HANDLE , WHAT DID WE MEAN BY "AN EASY SPORT" IN OUR LAST MESSAGE .IDIRECT DAYS ARE OVER FOR A LONG TIME , AND NOW WE ARE CLOSING ITS FILE FOR GOOD,GIVE A BIT DATA
ABOUT THE JFK TEST AND TRY TO SPEAK "SERIOUSLY" TO VICE PRESIDENT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY.DO NOT SUPPORT ZIONIST-LED PLOTS. IT IS "SERIOUS"

from another source-"We have received a tip from a Persian observer and a source that the recent OP at JFK was done by Parastoo based on their last publication and since, based on their expressions on an underground forum, Joe Biden made statements at AIPAC that made them more angry. There is evidence Parastoo is a role player in #OPISRAEL and the upcoming wave. The JFK Lulz was a Joint OP done by people involved with these groups with Parastoo providing the “know-how” and others bringing logistics to the gang.The info they leaked was certainly actionable, so does this now mean they have not only the specific threats, but even further evidence of their drone compromise skill? It really comes down to what gets reported about the incident, perhaps the JFK drone was just a lost specimen or in a Roswell-style moment in time, turns out to be a weather balloon or something. Perhaps the attribution to Parastoo is just opportunistic, perhaps there’s someone out there just trying to scare up some reactions, but maybe- just maybe this is something that has some real implications to it."

Then there is this-Various aggressive hacking teams are planning to launch a massive cyber attack on Israeli domains. AnonGhost told Cyberwarzone that they will initiate the attack on the 7th of April.

#opIsrael is an operation that is going to start on the 7th of April. AnonGhost says that the hacking teams have decided to unite as one entity and that Israel should be getting prepared to be "erased" from the internet.
The implications abound. Opinions?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

The possibility of drones being hacked is obviously there and it's a security risk. It would be reasonable to push for not having armed drones operational within range of American civilian areas for that reason.

Anonymous said...

I doubt the US gov't has any intentions of using drones on US soil especially when other measures can be used to silence/discredit Americans who are critical of US policies.

There are the age old practices of planting evidence/declaring the person paranoid or a conspiracy theorist/declaring a high profile media figure as a cult leader of sorts and his fans as members of a cult/gang/right or left wing militant organization.

The Internet pretty much puts everything within federal jurisdiction since it is interstate. Will the lines between an enemy fighter and criminal be blurred in terms of prosecution?

Most likley.

I keep thinking of how many Israeli settlers have been charged with incitement for their involvement in perfectly peaceful protests.

Anything that can be viewed as inciting the public to think and object to gov't action in the US can also be considered a crime. Want to clamp down on the First Amendment? Easy. Label it hate speech or incitement and viola, bye bye First Amendment.

Want to expose the abuse through video evidence? Face eavedropping charges for recording a cop in public making incriminating statements.

Nah. The gov't doesn't need to resort to drones on US soil when all they have to do is abuse existing laws and implement COINTELPRO tactics to discredit people and organizations and cause infighting.

Keliata

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Incitement is an excellent tool. Roll into hate crimes the way that the Euros have and you can lock up someone for just about anything.

Anonymous said...

B-52 carpet bombing can't be written off as a natural gas leak and explosion the way a missle from a drone can. The same people ordering drone attacks will control the results of the subsequent "investigation." Results that will show the aforementioned "gas leak" or premature detonation of "bomb making materials."

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

A drone is rather hard to write off.

If you're going for kills that are easier to write off, just about any conventional method of killing someone, including a bullet to the head is easier to write off.

Marcel said...

It's important to factor in that these are strange times where those who are supposed to protect and serve have become judge ,jury and executioner saving the collapsing,overweight bureaucratic system court and prison cost.
In a nation that executes it's unborn,unwanted baby bumps it's only natural for the plague of death to spread to every living thing.
Maybe DHS are spiking the coffee beans on a national level where a suicidal man with scissors is granted his wish with a barrage of lead by the local police where before they took the time to calm him down ?
"Police in St. Petersburg shot and killed a man Sunday evening they say was suicidal and threatening two officers with a pair of scissors."
They said that because he had dowsed himself with gasoline,they couldn't use their tasers because it might cause a spark that could ignite and kill the man so they shot him up dead instead.
This is the new Schizophrenia America where the nuts are in charge.

Anonymous said...

Forget the drones. Remember Waco, when the military made recon flights and army tanks were used to collapse the walls of the compound? The law has been under assault for years.

We face the Marxists and they wish to destroy Constitutionalists. Prepare for what is on the horizon. This will not be a civil war.

112 said...

The point of this is Rand Paul is a Nazi like his father and opposes strikes against terrorists as he always has, and the so-called republicans on TV and the radio are phonies who will sell themselves out for a taste of the spotlight. He just knows how to say it inn a way the people like.

Your points are correct, but your purpose should not be for anti-war activists to look elsewhere, but that Rand Putz is a far-leftist undercover phony republican traitor.

What is you main point, in all of this? SWAT wouldn't be a problem if we had real republicans, unlike Rand Putz and Mitt Rhiney to vote for.

soflyte said...

Rand Paul is no Nazi. You dont even get how you cheapen down the meaning of that title do you?
Putting America first is not being a Nazi.
For people like 112 anyone who does not walk in lockstep with his ideas seems to qualify as Nazi.

Yank lll said...

"The enemy is every bright-eyed boy and girl who leave college determined to make the world a better place by eliminating all the things and people they have been told are bad. The enemy is the entire system of education and entertainment that shaped them into human drones on a mission of progress."

Programmed by their communist apparatchik scumbag teachers in every school you've ever seen..
Finally someone else says it in public..

yank lll

112 said...

Don't you ever tell me about cheapening those beasts, I don't speak without reason. Ron Paul received funding from the Nazi stormfront website. He took pictures with those NAZIS and was smiling and proud because he is a NAZI and so is his son. Saying he "puts America first" is a meme, and though it couldn't cheapen America, it certainly cheapens you.

I was going to bother with posting all the links to verifiable fact, but enough is in this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o3kvKPFAzgQ

Someone who supports Islamofascists, and holds the same position as his father who is openly funded by Nazis is a Nazi. He supports Fraudestinians murdering innocent Jews in terrorist attacks. The Hitler admiring Fraudestinians are WORSE than Nazis, and it is a COMPLIMENT to call thier supports Nazis, because they deserve worse than any Islamic terrorist or Nazi, because scumbag lying traitors like Rand Putz and his Nazi father are what allow them to grow in the modern world.

Lastly, you don't know me, and you certainly never will be given the opportunity by myself. Next time you assume something about someone you don't know, be prepared for them to assume that you are a idiotic drug-addled looser with only the verbal diarrhea of ignoramuses in his head who isn't worth s--t on his own boot, and is a general waste of time to everyone.

How many Jews should the terrorists Rand Putz supports kill before it is clear that Rand Putz puts America before everything? What about Americans? Surely, America comes before them.

Go back to talking to hippies who will accept your memes as fact. When you make ignorant assumptions about someone because you ignorantly say they said something ignorant on a topic you are ignorant of, you force them to make a fool out of you, or risk looking like the fool to other ignoramuses.

Anonymous said...

"Those who drone, will be droned." In the long run, drones are a pro-freedom technology every bit as useful as the battle rifle.

112 said...

Not "those who drone will be droned". Those who nuke won't get nuked. They also won't get massive soldier casualties. Those who drone don't get allu ack boomed.

Post a Comment