1,279 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
If the captured sailors were merely the operating crews, then they wouldn't necessarily look like SEALs. I suspect that they were dropping some sort of passive sonar devices to monitor Iranian naval traffic around Farsi Island. If special operations forces were involved, they either deployed before the Iranians arrived, or someone was supposed to be picked up, but could not be on account of the Iranian Navy intercepting the boats. There's no way to be sure, unless by some happenstance the operational order is published.
Giving the neocons a new name is really just playing their own game. I prefer to identify them by their actions -- "Ye shall know them by their fruits."
Yes, you're right, they are not involved.
The problem, of course, is that the police shot and killed a black kid with a toy gun. No one here is defending that tragedy. Your whining point that the white guys with rifles haven't also been shot dead is perverted thinking.
Federal farm subsidies are the gift of the liberal god, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
That's awfully brave of you to demand that people roll over and get slaughtered, so they can have your respect.
For all of the brutality that the police employ against minorities -- and there is a lot of brutality -- perceived criminals generally do not garner much sympathy, even among their fellow racial brethren. The protests in Ferguson had merit on account of the militarized reaction by the authorities, but the race-baiters who controlled the protests could not shed their true character, and eventually the Mizzou absurdities were bound to happen. And so, we have ranchers who had some bad luck with fighting fires being convicted as terrorists, while privileged blacks at Mizzou shrieked in horror at poop swastikas of murky provenance and stood by as their race-baiting handlers made open threats against other racial minorities who tried to provide journalistic coverage of the protests. Anyone with an ounce of common sense sees the difference.
Rich apparently thinks that if you're self-employed or are engaged in agriculture -- broadly defined -- then you're a deadbeat, because you don't have a rigid employment structure in which you are locked in and held accountable by someone, or worse, that you're a kulak. Instead, he apparently envisions wage slaves as being gainfully employed, because their labor can be held rigidly accountable. The Bolsheviks who unleashed the terror famine on the Ukrainian peasants in the 1930s used similar ideas to propel the violence.
There is no telling to what degree the witnesses were themselves pressured to turn state's witness with threat of prosecution under the anti-terrorism statute. That tactic is hardly unheard of.
The terrorism at play in the Hammond situation is the government's enactment of an anti-terrorism statute that clearly usurps the Habeas Corpus provisions of the US Constitution, as well as the application of such draconian measures in a relatively minor dispute in civil law (i.e., the setting of back fires that spread onto government land). The mere fact of citing the name of the heinous law invokes the term "death penalty" and thus is an act of terrorism, because it communicates the notion that you can be executed for having a dispute with the government grounded in civil law. Governments can indulge themselves in terror, as well as individuals and non-governmental groups, e.g. the Bolshevik Red Terror. As for the leftists who are drooling at the prospect of slaughtering the Hammonds on sight, they merely confirm what has long been known about left-wing ideologies, i.e. they're murderous. Until the Hammonds actually shoot at someone, all they've done is conduct a sit-in.