Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kremlin is now saying that NATO planned the attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4049216/Russian-ambassador-s-assassination-Turkey-organised-NATO-secret-services-provocation-challenge-Moscow-claims-Kremlin-senator.html

And really, why not? The US under Trump won't say anything different. Trump would say "I don't know who did it, maybe it was NATO", even after intelligence briefings tell him who was actually behind it.

Trump has a whole lotta power for a guy who isn't even in office for a month.

DP. What does the above have to do with Trump having power?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kremlin is now saying that NATO planned the attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4049216/Russian-ambassador-s-assassination-Turkey-organised-NATO-secret-services-provocation-challenge-Moscow-claims-Kremlin-senator.html

And really, why not? The US under Trump won't say anything different. Trump would say "I don't know who did it, maybe it was NATO", even after intelligence briefings tell him who was actually behind it.

Trump has a whole lotta power for a guy who isn't even in office for a month.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More from NY Times:

The gunman, wearing a dark suit and tie, was seen in video footage of the assault shouting in Arabic: “God is great! Those who pledged allegiance to Muhammad for jihad. God is great!”

OK maybe that's not radical Islamic terrorism, let's call it Sinn Fein or Shining Path.

You happy now?

? OK, so when Sinn Fein was bombing the UK should we have said that all Catholics were terrorists, and they were the enemies?

Back in the 70's or thereabouts some Puerto Ricans bombed a restaurant in NY. IRA was an internal conflict. Radical Islamic terrorists are not internal conflicts. Sunni and Shiite fighting predates us even knowing where those places are on a map. India v Islam helped create Pakistan?

Many Americans helped fund the IRA. Should the UK govt have consindered these Americans to be terrorists, too?

In any case, that PP is the one who called out Sinn Fein, not me. I was just using that PPs logic.

Pakistan was created as a result of the British empire collapsing, when they left India.

I know, let's blame the British. My British DH oftens says this sort of as a joke.

Peter King is a terrorist.

Anonymous wrote:Kremlin is now saying that NATO planned the attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4049216/Russian-ambassador-s-assassination-Turkey-organised-NATO-secret-services-provocation-challenge-Moscow-claims-Kremlin-senator.html

And really, why not? The US under Trump won't say anything different. Trump would say "I don't know who did it, maybe it was NATO", even after intelligence briefings tell him who was actually behind it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More from NY Times:

The gunman, wearing a dark suit and tie, was seen in video footage of the assault shouting in Arabic: “God is great! Those who pledged allegiance to Muhammad for jihad. God is great!”

OK maybe that's not radical Islamic terrorism, let's call it Sinn Fein or Shining Path.

You happy now?

It's actually a pretty smart diversion on the part of the gunman - it links Assad and Putin as oppressors against Islam. The gunman is trying to unite ISIS, the Syrian rebels, and other ethnic-religious groups (e.g., the Kurds) against the regime. Erdogan may even get tied into the mix.

Well Putin already has problems with the Chechens (who are fighting for the rebels in Syria) - and they were already aligned with ISIS. So...yea...this might bring the issue to Putin's front door.

Kremlin is now saying that NATO planned the attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4049216/Russian-ambassador-s-assassination-Turkey-organised-NATO-secret-services-provocation-challenge-Moscow-claims-Kremlin-senator.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't need any help killing criminals who had attacked us.

The more important question is why criminals attacked us. It's known as blowback, which is a consequence of liberal and neocons love of interventionism.

Extricating ourselves from entangling alliances is more crucial today than it was when our prescient Founding Fathers told us to stay the hell out of them, for now we could confront the reality of nuclear annihilation because of a stupid act of a NATO country.

Can you explain how this works int he 21st Century? Should we just stop doing business with anyone overseas? And should all of our internet companies stop allowing their services to be used in foreign countries? How does that even work? Do we isolate our internet? Because as soon as it's possible for us to digitally connect with other countries, we are going to have to deal with them through our government in one way or another.

(guy who doesn't understand the difference between free trade and mutual defense alliances which obligate us to go to war whenever an ally is attacked)

Girl, and yes, I do understand the difference. And I also get that there is a de facto link between trade and taking on a global role in other aspects of international relations. I don't think that pulling out of NATO will prevent us from possibly helping out our friends and trade partners with military support in some circumstances. It will be a decision made in the US's best interest, and with global trade those interests will sometimes mean we want to intervene militarily. If you think NATO is a bludgeon that other members use to push the US around, you really don't understand the reality of US foreign policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More from NY Times:

The gunman, wearing a dark suit and tie, was seen in video footage of the assault shouting in Arabic: “God is great! Those who pledged allegiance to Muhammad for jihad. God is great!”

OK maybe that's not radical Islamic terrorism, let's call it Sinn Fein or Shining Path.

You happy now?

? OK, so when Sinn Fein was bombing the UK should we have said that all Catholics were terrorists, and they were the enemies?

Back in the 70's or thereabouts some Puerto Ricans bombed a restaurant in NY. IRA was an internal conflict. Radical Islamic terrorists are not internal conflicts. Sunni and Shiite fighting predates us even knowing where those places are on a map. India v Islam helped create Pakistan?

Many Americans helped fund the IRA. Should the UK govt have consindered these Americans to be terrorists, too?

In any case, that PP is the one who called out Sinn Fein, not me. I was just using that PPs logic.

Pakistan was created as a result of the British empire collapsing, when they left India.

I know, let's blame the British. My British DH oftens says this sort of as a joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We didn't need any help killing criminals who had attacked us.

The more important question is why criminals attacked us. It's known as blowback, which is a consequence of liberal and neocons love of interventionism.

Extricating ourselves from entangling alliances is more crucial today than it was when our prescient Founding Fathers told us to stay the hell out of them, for now we could confront the reality of nuclear annihilation because of a stupid act of a NATO country.

Can you explain how this works int he 21st Century? Should we just stop doing business with anyone overseas? And should all of our internet companies stop allowing their services to be used in foreign countries? How does that even work? Do we isolate our internet? Because as soon as it's possible for us to digitally connect with other countries, we are going to have to deal with them through our government in one way or another.

(guy who doesn't understand the difference between free trade and mutual defense alliances which obligate us to go to war whenever an ally is attacked)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More from NY Times:

The gunman, wearing a dark suit and tie, was seen in video footage of the assault shouting in Arabic: “God is great! Those who pledged allegiance to Muhammad for jihad. God is great!”

OK maybe that's not radical Islamic terrorism, let's call it Sinn Fein or Shining Path.

You happy now?

? OK, so when Sinn Fein was bombing the UK should we have said that all Catholics were terrorists, and they were the enemies?

Back in the 70's or thereabouts some Puerto Ricans bombed a restaurant in NY. IRA was an internal conflict. Radical Islamic terrorists are not internal conflicts. Sunni and Shiite fighting predates us even knowing where those places are on a map. India v Islam helped create Pakistan?

SoS Kerry says the USA will help Russia and Turkey investigate:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-russia-diplomat-kerry-idUSKBN148266

From Reuters-Turkish officials suspect link to the US based Gulen group from the assassin police officer. How PC has the US been on that group? Add to it's title jihadist since what were the chances he'd get out alive? Positioned on wall behind the Russian Ambassador. Screaming allu ahkbar. If it was just political and not cultural or religious why a suicide certain attack and Islam call?

Also suspected terrorist also attack in berlin. Truck driven into crowd at Christmas Market. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/terror-attack-feared-berlin-lorry-9486771

OK, so the Turks are investigating ties to Fethullah Gulen and Russian media is positing possible CIA ties. Pick your own convenient narrative!

Anonymous wrote:More from NY Times:

The gunman, wearing a dark suit and tie, was seen in video footage of the assault shouting in Arabic: “God is great! Those who pledged allegiance to Muhammad for jihad. God is great!”

OK maybe that's not radical Islamic terrorism, let's call it Sinn Fein or Shining Path.

You happy now?

It's actually a pretty smart diversion on the part of the gunman - it links Assad and Putin as oppressors against Islam. The gunman is trying to unite ISIS, the Syrian rebels, and other ethnic-religious groups (e.g., the Kurds) against the regime. Erdogan may even get tied into the mix.

Anonymous wrote:More from NY Times:

The gunman, wearing a dark suit and tie, was seen in video footage of the assault shouting in Arabic: “God is great! Those who pledged allegiance to Muhammad for jihad. God is great!”

OK maybe that's not radical Islamic terrorism, let's call it Sinn Fein or Shining Path.

You happy now?

? OK, so when Sinn Fein was bombing the UK should we have said that all Catholics were terrorists, and they were the enemies?

Anonymous wrote:We didn't need any help killing criminals who had attacked us.

The more important question is why criminals attacked us. It's known as blowback, which is a consequence of liberal and neocons love of interventionism.

Extricating ourselves from entangling alliances is more crucial today than it was when our prescient Founding Fathers told us to stay the hell out of them, for now we could confront the reality of nuclear annihilation because of a stupid act of a NATO country.

Can you explain how this works int he 21st Century? Should we just stop doing business with anyone overseas? And should all of our internet companies stop allowing their services to be used in foreign countries? How does that even work? Do we isolate our internet? Because as soon as it's possible for us to digitally connect with other countries, we are going to have to deal with them through our government in one way or another.