Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I mean, what if Oregon ordered its own National Guard not to let the Texas National Guard in?

I don't think anyone would escalate like that, but how would that go down?

Posted
6 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Surprisingly Trump did actually mention OBL and predicted a future terrorist attack in that 2000 book. In separate chapters

That's not exactly a feat of prognostication, as the World Trade Center had already been bombed in 1993.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's not exactly a feat of prognostication, as the World Trade Center had already been bombed in 1993.

He enjoyed having nyc’s tallest building. He knew OBL. 
ipso facto he funded 9/11. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's not exactly a feat of prognostication, as the World Trade Center had already been bombed in 1993.

Here’s the book’s single mention of bin Laden, in a section criticizing US foreign policy: “Instead of one looming crisis hanging over us, we face a bewildering series of smaller crises, flash points, standoffs, and hot spots. We’re not playing the chess game to end all chess games anymore. We’re playing tournament chess – one master against many rivals. One day we’re all assured that Iraq is under control, the UN inspectors have done their work, everything’s fine, not to worry. The next day the bombing begins. One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”

That is clearly not any advice to anyone about bin Laden. And it contains an acknowledgment that bin Laden had already been targeted by then-President Bill Clinton (after the 1998 terror attacks on US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya).

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
Quote

 and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”

Now where have I seen that before.  It's so hard to put my finger on it.  

  • Like 1
Posted

So does @Enchubben approve of and want this administration going to “war” against their own people? Because that’s what Stephen miller is doing and Fat Boy is okay with it.

 

just need it on record that @Enchubben is okay with the American government attacking Americans

  • Like 1
Posted

I’d also like to know if @Enchubben is okay with the proud boys and other nazi militia members going in under the guise of “ICE” and basically disappearing and killing minorities in communities in LA, Chicago, etc.

 

You know, just getting it on record and stuff

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, cmontexas said:

13 shootings this weekend in DFW

And a pretty significant number of them in Ft. Worth proper, which is about as red as a city gets in TX.

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here’s the book’s single mention of bin Laden, in a section criticizing US foreign policy: “Instead of one looming crisis hanging over us, we face a bewildering series of smaller crises, flash points, standoffs, and hot spots. We’re not playing the chess game to end all chess games anymore. We’re playing tournament chess – one master against many rivals. One day we’re all assured that Iraq is under control, the UN inspectors have done their work, everything’s fine, not to worry. The next day the bombing begins. One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”

That is clearly not any advice to anyone about bin Laden. And it contains an acknowledgment that bin Laden had already been targeted by then-President Bill Clinton (after the 1998 terror attacks on US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya).

 

Trump hasn't changed his writing style at all in 25 years. lol. Like I wrote earlier, what are the chances that Trump even got past the forward when he was handed the book he "wrote"?

Posted
3 hours ago, TexArcher said:

I mean, what if Oregon ordered its own National Guard not to let the Texas National Guard in?

I don't think anyone would escalate like that, but how would that go down?

Wonder the same.  What is the legality of a state authority arresting a federal actor there?  Feels like following a knowingly illegal order is the same as acting without any legitimate authority, i.e., subject to ordinary criminal laws.  so the feds can be arrested for (on the serious end of the spectrum) some kidnapping-like charges if they actually do ICE-like tasks down to things like trespass.

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, ImNotMarkinson said:

Wonder the same.  What is the legality of a state authority arresting a federal actor there?  Feels like following a knowingly illegal order is the same as acting without any legitimate authority, i.e., subject to ordinary criminal laws.  so the feds can be arrested for (on the serious end of the spectrum) some kidnapping-like charges if they actually do ICE-like tasks down to things like trespass.

As a general proposition, it is legal for state authorities to arrest federal agents/officers for commission of crimes, subject to the usual strictures of arrest/indictment.

That's where the criminal removal thing that Trump tried to use comes into play.  That's so the federal officer can get a federal hearing of whatever immunity defenses s/he has.

I think what might be a more interesting scenario is if home state guards, deployed legimately by the governor, attempt to block the "entry" of non-native guards deployed without gubernatorial consent and under dubious federal control.  Doesn't even have to be shooting, just a good ol standoff.

Edited by TwiceHorn


×
×
  • Create New...