Ron Paul claims US government will do a drone strike on traitor Edward Snowden. - Polidicks

In case nobody already posted. The article states he " is worried " . This is quite different from what the OP says in which OP titled the thread " Ron Paul Claims " It's a bit misleading and sensationalist if you ask me.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41006463](who, also an American citizen, was killed by a drone strike a week earlier) [/QUOTE] Why do people always bring up the whole "HE WAS A CITIZEN!!!!" thing, yeah sure he was, he was also a fucking terrorist.

[QUOTE=Jarate Lover;41006564]If he dies, he'll probably become a martyr of sorts.[/QUOTE] That won't really inspire anybody to take action except for maybe a radical tea partier blowing up a Fema office.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;41004150]A drone strike in the middle of Hong Kong. Get real. The US government isn't that damn stupid to launch a hellfire missile in the middle of a super densely populated area.[/QUOTE] You do know he may not even be in Hong Kong anymore?

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41008188]That won't really inspire anybody to take action except for maybe a radical tea partier blowing up a Fema office.[/QUOTE] It'd inspire more people to protest. I wonder how the media would respond.

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;41008227]It'd inspire more people to protest. I wonder how the media would respond.[/QUOTE] Well many pundits and guests on Fox news has already called for the execution of the whistleblower and have declared not supporting your government unpatriotic.

so basically ron paul thinks we're willing enough to start WWIII w/ china so we can kill one whisteblower

He's probably already dead, if they're going to kill him.

"A traitor" Yeah right.

[QUOTE=BloodYScar;41007946]You wasted a war thats going on for 10+ years plus thousands of civilian lives on one man.[/QUOTE] Haha, thousands. [editline]12th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;41008169]Why do people always bring up the whole "HE WAS A CITIZEN!!!!" thing, yeah sure he was, he was also a fucking terrorist.[/QUOTE] He wasn't tried in a court. We have to rely on the Obama administration telling us he was a terrorist so he had to die in a drone attack. Even after the fact they won't reveal the details of the operation, just that terrorists were involved.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;41008169]Why do people always bring up the whole "HE WAS A CITIZEN!!!!" thing, yeah sure he was, he was also a fucking terrorist.[/QUOTE] The kid wasn't a terrorist, why did they assassinate him? Also, the phrase, "terrorist" is very loose. With that mentality you could pretty much rationalize a killing a lot of people.

US wouldn't risk a drone strike. To much fallout. China and Hong Kong are huge economic assets, and they wouldn't take kindly to the collateral that would be bound to happen. Most likely, Snowden would be sniped out, or just disappear all together.

[QUOTE=Amez;41003366]Saying a drone strike will kill him is already ridiculous, but a freaking cruise missile?[/QUOTE] You are aware that Tomahawk missiles were the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_(August_1998)"]preferred weapon of assassination[/URL] before the development of the Predator/Reaper drones, right? The drones were built not just to be cheaper, but because the time-to-target on a cruise missile is too great if the target isn't planning on hanging around for a few hours. That aside, it takes only a few seconds of thought to realize that we don't exactly have military bases in Hong Kong from which to launch such an attack. Ron Paul is being Ron Paul as usual.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;41009744]The kid wasn't a terrorist, why did they assassinate him? Also, the phrase, "terrorist" is very loose. With that mentality you could pretty much rationalize killing [u][b]anybody[/u][/b].[/QUOTE] That's more like it. Terrorism is, for lack of a better term, a Ghost Enemy. Because anyone who disagrees with the group crying 'Terrorism' can be a terrorist. Anyone that uses ANY kind of [i][hostile][/i] force. The same goes for the term "Insurgent", it's word play and is used as a political staging to demonize one's enemy. Primary because of the way War has been portrayed over the media. Hell, our own troops could be considered "Insurgents" and "Terrorists" in these countries, we do much the same with which we blame them for (spare suicide bombings).

[QUOTE=Keys;41012630]That's more like it. Terrorism is, for lack of a better term, a Ghost Enemy. Because anyone who disagrees with the group crying 'Terrorism' can be a terrorist. Anyone that uses ANY kind of [i][hostile][/i] force. The same goes for the term "Insurgent", it's word play and is used as a political staging to demonize one's enemy. Primary because of the way War has been portrayed over the media. Hell, our own troops could be considered "Insurgents" and "Terrorists" in these countries, we do much the same with which we blame them for (spare suicide bombings).[/QUOTE] A terrorist is a civilian operating outside of a conventional war who deliberately attacks civilian targets with the goal of reducing the peoples' confidence in their leaders. That's a pretty focused definition, wouldn't you say?

[QUOTE=catbarf;41013066]A terrorist is a civilian operating outside of a conventional war who deliberately attacks civilian targets with the goal of reducing the peoples' confidence in their leaders. That's a pretty focused definition, wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE] Not if our government has anything to say about it, really. In the eyes of the politicians that run the country, anyone that has any sort of physical aggression towards us is branded a terrorist or insurgent, whether it's correct terminology or not and whether they actually fit the bill of a terrorist or not. It's already become such a catch-all term that 'terrorist' is thrown around liberally when muslims or islamists are involved thanks to stereotypes, and it's just getting uglier from there.

[QUOTE=catbarf;41013066]A terrorist is a civilian operating outside of a conventional war who deliberately attacks civilian targets with the goal of reducing the peoples' confidence in their leaders. That's a pretty focused definition, wouldn't you say?[/QUOTE] Oh sure, Like... Digital Terrorists, who hack your emails and steal your information so they can go on wild boat cruises and steal government files. Domestic Terrorists, who are comprised of citizens (ie US), and lash out against the government and 'public order'. Islamic Terrorists, who abduct you from your Hotel and hold you ransom, but then just behead you on live television to show their defiance. Financial Terrorists, who screw with records, steal money, and provide instability to the economic system Air Terrorists, who hijack planes with box cutter knives and small arms to prove a point, or to use the aircraft as a weapon Toothpaste Terrorists, who put flouride in your toothpaste to reduce your intelligence and pull the wool over your eyes. (Haw Haw) I mean seriously, shall I go on? The term "Terrorist" can be fit to anyone or anything, hell it doesn't even have to be a citizen (which is a fallacy because EVERYONE is a Citizen from SOMEWHERE). We've labeled military criminals terrorists for their acts just the same as some citizen or foreigner. Its a (to steal the term from elsewhere) 'False Enemy'. Hell there doesn't even have to be a threat, but you can claim Terrorists are doing X and causing Y to scare the public in line with your goals. I mean, we can't say "The Nazi's bombed the Twin Towers, and are causing havoc in the World Economy." Of course they aren't, anyone with half a brain knows the Nazis/[insert any group here] aren't around. But Terrorists...? There's no face to Terrorists. It's too easy to abuse. [sp]Its also timeless[/sp] [b]edit:[/b] Maybe it was a bad example, or i'm just dumb-hurt; but here's how i look at it from the definition; [quote]"operating outside of a conventional war who deliberately attacks civilian targets with the goal of reducing the peoples' confidence in their leaders"[/quote] So lets say all these conspiracies are true and the Government is out to get us all. I rise up and start a resistance group that works to undermine the ruling power and expose their wrong-doings by attacking information and financial sources. Because of this, I could probably be labeled as a "Terrorist" because I am operating, outside of conventional warfare, and am seeking to undermine the people's confidence in their leaders. A few hundred years ago, they would have called me a Patriot, which was someone who stood up for his people and rising Country as opposed to a Loyalist, who sided with England. But now, it would likely be labeled Terrorism, and why so? Likely to demonize and downgrade their image, because no one wants to be labeled as a Terrorist, which has such a negative cannotation. You get my drift?

There's no way we'd use a drone on him, he's not an innocent Pakistani child.

[QUOTE=Keys;41013287]So lets say all these conspiracies are true and the Government is out to get us all. I rise up and start a resistance group that works to undermine the ruling power and expose their wrong-doings by attacking information and financial sources. Because of this, I could probably be labeled as a "Terrorist" because I am operating, outside of conventional warfare, and am seeking to undermine the people's confidence in their leaders. A few hundred years ago, they would have called me a Patriot, which was someone who stood up for his people and rising Country as opposed to a Loyalist, who sided with England. But now, it would likely be labeled Terrorism, and why so? Likely to demonize and downgrade their image, because no one wants to be labeled as a Terrorist, which has such a negative cannotation. You get my drift?[/QUOTE] If you're killing innocent people to send a message to the rest, you're a terrorist. If you're robbing banks and hacking into corporate servers, you're not a terrorist. Do you have any examples of non-terrorists being branded terrorists?

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;41008169]Why do people always bring up the whole "HE WAS A CITIZEN!!!!" thing, yeah sure he was, he was also a fucking terrorist.[/QUOTE] because somehow being an american citizen makes your life more valuable

Well, it would be very, VERY suspicious if he suddenly showed up dead in the next few years. Of course, given the huge pain in the ass of holding and trying Bradly Manning, the administration may well say "Fuck it, it's easier to kill than capture him" just like they do every other supposed terrorist. I don't think it'll happen, but that dude better watch his ass.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;41008169]Why do people always bring up the whole "HE WAS A CITIZEN!!!!" thing, yeah sure he was, he was also a fucking terrorist.[/QUOTE] because it's unprecedented killing a citizen of your own country without a trial because you feel he's a threat do you not see how awfully fucking terrifying that is and to the topic, paul is pretty dumb to say that pretty sure CIA will have that covered without a loud drone

[QUOTE=catbarf;41014157]If you're killing innocent people to send a message to the rest, you're a terrorist. If you're robbing banks and hacking into corporate servers, you're not a terrorist. Do you have any examples of non-terrorists being branded terrorists?[/QUOTE] That's the point, and I think you're missing it. "Do you have any examples of non-terrorists being branded terrorists?" Where is the comparison to use for this? As it stands I don't know of anyone who was branded a Terrorist and then had the remark removed and could be used for example. On the other hand, it is really hard to define a "Terrorist" versus a "Non-Terrorist", when as it stands, a Terrorist could be [i][u]anybody[/i][/u]. The [url=http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suspicious-activity/]National Terror Alert website[/url] lists several things to spot Terrorists by; -- Note-taking -- Drawing -- Annotating Maps -- Using Binoculars -- They only let you into the apartment or house with plenty of prior notice -- Unusual or unexpected mail When you think in terms of a Terrorist, it may sound legitimate. But have you ever gotten a package you didn't recognize or didn't expect? How many of your friends (or their families) would be okay with you just showing up out of the blue all the time at their house? Tourists annotate maps, and don't always look like tourists, Drawing can be done anywhere, and note-taking could be anything. Its just [u]way too broad[/u]. And in my opinion, incites an unnecessary fear. [ See Post-9/11 TSA/NSA expenditures. We've wasted Billions on security built about Fear, and the system is so flawed it wouldn't pass a 3rd-rate jeweler examination] We see "Terrorism" and "Terrorists" as this rogue enemy on the Horizon that we're fighting abroad, but spare for 9/11 and a few other attacks at home, we really have never had to come in contact with said Terroristas. People say Iraq and Afghanistan, but these people have always existed in this cyclical state and have been fighting between religious groups for ages. We put our troops in a Hornets nest and labeled the 'insurgents' who want us out as 'Terrorists', as if its some radical group that spawned from nowhere to fight us. It's not just [i]Al'Qaeda[/i] but the Shi'ite, Sunni, and so on as well. Its the chaos of the world, and we're treating it as if its [u]our personal enemy[/u]. When it is not, and its used as an excuse to unlawfully invade other countries to monopolize on their resources and state of affairs. [b]Edit:[/b] And to wind this in with Snowden and Paul, If he hadn't been so public about everything, something tells me he would have been taken out and labeled a Domestic Terrorist or Enemy of the State, which is what Ron Paul was getting at I believe.

[QUOTE=supersnail11;41014962]because somehow being an american citizen makes your life more valuable[/QUOTE] so do you disagree with having safety nets protecting the little man against the government or do you think it's bullshit how those rights only extend to US citizens?