Bluegrassrivals

It is reported that around 100 American citizens are fighting for ISIS. Should the US kill them, if given the chance, or try to grant them their "American rights". This is not a loaded question, I am seriously wanting opinions. Thoughts? I'll go ahead and tell my thoughts, if they are conspiring to kill "real" Americans, do what is necessary, and get permission later.

Kill them. No questions asked. If you have undeniable proof. Meaning 100%, not 99%, then torch them. There as useless as the real Allah warriors.

Kill any and all ISIS members, God will sort em out.

continue to use drone strikes... they have renounced their citizenship

Yeah, once they have chosen to fight for ISIS, isn't that automatically denouncing their citizenship?? After all, you gonna participate in a jihad against America and STILL want the rights afforded to citizens???

Actually, that sounds about par for the course.

If you fight against the USA then you have given up your American rights. So just put them 6 feet under.

This could be a thread where just about everybody agrees. It hasn't been too awful long ago that there were a couple of threads where some on BGR were against killing American citizens, even while on foreign soil.

This is pretty easy, you absolutely kill each and everyone one and then identify them. Trace their background back here and arrest more that are involved with these so called American citizens, it's just a title to them it has no true meaning.

Granny Bear Wrote:If you are attempting to equate Benghazi with the crisis that ISIS has created; then you are either drunk, high or crazy. Perhaps all of the above.

I wasn't. I just remember a thread where someone didn't think American terroists, on foreign soil, should be killed. I suck at the search feature, so I don't even try it anymore.

^ I'm not great at finding that stuff either but here is one thread I found where it was discussed a bit.

http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...ight=Drone

Mr. Onion Head Wrote:^ I'm not great at finding that stuff either but here is one thread I found where it was discussed a bit.

http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...ight=Drone

Thanks for posting this Onion Head. I had forgotten about it but, I really enjoyed reading.

^ I think this is a common ground thread.

If we know who they are pull their passports make it impossible for them to travel back to US, then hunt them down, they are now public enemies AND KILL THEM.

nky Wrote:If we know who they are pull their passports make it impossible for them to travel back to US, then hunt them down, they are now public enemies AND KILL THEM.

I believe that's already in the patrotic act

^ just because it's law doesn't mean the current administration is obeying/following/enforcing the law

nky Wrote:^ just because it's law doesn't mean the current administration is obeying/following/enforcing the law

how do you know they are not

vector Wrote:how do you know they are not

Because the administration isn't spiking the football over it. If they were doing anything toward these traitors the administration would be tooting their horn

They have no rights, period. If they want to be terrorist's then they should be treated as such.

nky Wrote:Because the administration isn't spiking the football over it. If they were doing anything toward these traitors the administration would be tooting their horn

you mean like bush 2 did landing on that aircraft carrier banner over his head

Mission Accomplished

vector Wrote:you mean like bush 2 did landing on that aircraft carrier banner over his head

Mission Accomplished

Which was subsequently eclipsed by Obama's having pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory when he withdrew all our troops out of Iraq over the protestations of his generals. I'll take landing on an aircraft carrier any day over the trail of carnage which has ensued and of which in the minds of many, is attributable to this administration. At least George W was right---

"In early 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama was pushing a plan to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq and abort the “surge” strategy that had yet to take hold and end the raging sectarian struggle. President George W. Bush believed that a precipitate U.S. troop pullout would lead to increased chaos, bloodshed, and eventual terrorist victories. Given the recent dramatic events in Iraq, it looks like Mr. Bush knew what he was talking about.

In January 2007, Senator Obama introduced S 433, “The Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007,” that would have prevented the troop surge and begun a year-long U.S. military withdrawal. This would, he believed, “pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence.” Oddly enough, with Iraq now in turmoil Mr. Obama is saying the use of force to counter the ISIS offensive would be insufficient without some form of political settlement to reduce the violence, which was facilitated by the withdrawal of U.S. troops in the first place."
http://buzzpo.com/remember-george-w-bush...ma-wanted/

"Here's a statistic you don't hear much about from the mainstream media: 73 percent of troops deaths in Afghanistan have occurred under President Obama's watch thanks to new rules of engagement ."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlic...a-n1817119

vector Wrote:you mean like bush 2 did landing on that aircraft carrier banner over his head

Mission Accomplished

So the men and women on board the USS Abraham Lincoln didn't accomplish their 10-month mission (which was the longest for a carrier since the Vietnam War) ? :okay:

nky Wrote:So the men and women on board the USS Abraham Lincoln didn't accomplish their 10-month mission (which was the longest for a carrier since the Vietnam War) ? :okay:

Abraham Lincoln and the carrier battle group and airwing helped deliver the opening salvos and air strikes in Operation Iraqi Freedom. During her deployment, some 16,500 sorties were flown and 1.6 million pounds of ordnance used. Sea Control Squadron 35 (VS-35), the "Blue Wolves", was instrumental in delivering over 1 million pounds of fuel to these strike aircraft, one of the largest aerial refueling undertakings by a carrier aviation squadron in history. The carrier returned home in May 2003, in the process receiving a visit from President George W. Bush before officially ending Abraham Lincoln's deployment by docking at San Diego before returning to homeport in Everett, WA. Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush's assertion—and the sign itself—became controversial after guerrilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, both military and civilian, have occurred since the speech.[11] The White House said their services constructed the banner. As explained by Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, "The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea. The idea popped up in one of the meetings aboard the ship preparing for its homecoming and thought it would be good to have a banner, 'Mission Accomplished

sdo who was spiking the football hint white house idea

No credit for the cut and paste? President Bush went to congratulate the crew, guess he should have went golfing instead.

nky Wrote:No credit for the cut and paste? President Bush went to congratulate the crew, guess he should have went golfing instead.

You know as well as everybody else that he wasn't just congratulating that one ship. Bush was saying mission accomplished on major military operations against Iraq, as every analysis at the time stated. Bush even stated as much himself.

The crew of the ship put it up. It was celebrating their return home. Their mission was accomplished.

nky Wrote:The crew of the ship put it up. It was celebrating their return home. Their mission was accomplished.

It is widely accepted that it meant an end to conventional military operations. Spin much? Bush said it was "an end of major military operations in Iraq". Do you dispute what Bush said?

It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mission-acco...-whodunit/

nky Wrote:The crew of the ship put it up. It was celebrating their return home. Their mission was accomplished.

white house idea