General Discussion

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)

114. It makes me think about the possibility ...

Mon Feb 10, 2014, 02:34 PM

Feb 2014

One of the key questions in all of this has been "Why did Snowden steal, and then leak, so much information that had nothing to do with Domestic Surveillance?"

Is it possible that the information on Domestic Surveillance wasn't really the primary target?

Could Snowden's real target have been something in the other, larger set of information?

Imagine you are a foreign government and you want to steal some very specific info about the US's foreign programs, but you don't want it to be obvious that you did so. Why not hide your needle in a haystack. Steal the info you want, along with a ton of other stuff, so the real purpose is obscured. Then, have some one leak bits and pieces unrelated to the primary target.

As you suggest, why would Greenwald start throwing out information about counter-terrorism information that Snowden took, if the primary target was really the Domestic Surveillance information?

In any case, Greenwald isn't helping Snowden here. But now that Greenwald has the all the information, Snowden's future might be even less of a concern for him.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

304 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How the NSA Helps the US Assassinate (Greenwald / Scahill) [View all] Octafish Feb 2014 OP

Did some folks really not know that intelligence efforts help direct military action when it occurs? stevenleser Feb 2014 #1

When did the Democratic Party become the party of assassins? reddread Feb 2014 #2

If you're going to call war "assassination", that happened back when the party was founded ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #92

You rationalize however you like. It's assassination. And the Democratic rhett o rick Feb 2014 #185

+1 dreamnightwind Feb 2014 #202

Sad that's all you got out of it. Octafish Feb 2014 #3

Is the drones program secret? I think its one of the most heavily debated policy items. stevenleser Feb 2014 #10

whats to debate about extrajudicial killings? reddread Feb 2014 #13

Don't tell me, let me guess. You would have been in favor of letting the NAZIs do whatever they want ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #93

What NAZIs? Octafish Feb 2014 #100

There's a new book, just published, with all kinds of details about Operation Paperclip Electric Monk Feb 2014 #121

After the war they weren't trying to kill us... ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #124

ridiculous assertion, yours. grasswire Feb 2014 #122

I guess he wanted to lose the argument. Rex Feb 2014 #143

Thats not what the rule states. phleshdef Feb 2014 #295

So "ridiculous" you can't manage to explain why they are not identical situations... ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #179

The "crime" that these people are being killed for is not terrorism. reusrename Feb 2014 #189

Please read the article rather than just making things up... ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #197

The only evidence they have is metadata. reusrename Feb 2014 #199

Isn't it interesting that some people around here tell us metadata isn't really an invasion... stillwaiting Feb 2014 #206

It really isn't about terrorism at all. Other than the terror carried out during the strikes. reusrename Feb 2014 #219

What sheer desperation made you type that? Rex Feb 2014 #142

Look at item #12... ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #180

Pathetic (nt) malokvale77 Feb 2014 #285

Unanswered questions G_j Feb 2014 #14

Thanks to real journalists, like Jeremy Scahill it is no longer a secret. They sure worked hard to sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #31

It was never a secret. No supposed journalistic superheroes were necessary. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #47

We have a wonderful open government. Who needs real journalists anymore? L0oniX Feb 2014 #61

So true. And Ronald Reagan was a good actor. Octafish Feb 2014 #68

True. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #155

A fairness doctrine would put Fux out of business and kill off the GOP. L0oniX Feb 2014 #157

For the doubters about the reason behind the phone call records, here they can read Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #83

The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Arendt wrote in ''The Origins of Totalitarianism''... Octafish Feb 2014 #128

This what these writers have written, do we ignore what Greenwald has now stated? Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #160

We're not supposed to notice hypocrisy like that from Greenwald, and I'm sure they will consider you stevenleser Feb 2014 #279

I guess this us a problem when we remember what is said ans written. Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #297

Nice variation on the "nothing to see here" talking point. bobduca Feb 2014 #209

You may be right, nothing new, known much befire 2013 but some just seem to be learning Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #238

Thanks to world renowned and respected Journalists, like Jeremy Schahill, the Secret Drone program sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #85

NY Times mentioned Combat drone use in Afghanistan in October 2001 WAY before Scahill stevenleser Feb 2014 #283

Are you aware that WE DUers, read those articles back then and many more? sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #296

It's sad that supposed Democrats would condone drone murders. We are not at war. But some rhett o rick Feb 2014 #186

Funny we found out about the depth and extent of the drone program MyNameGoesHere Feb 2014 #52

No, we didnt. There have been tons of NY Times articles on the subject since 2001. stevenleser Feb 2014 #284

I cannot help your misinterpretation MyNameGoesHere Feb 2014 #289

What you can't explain is why you didn't know this info was out there stevenleser Feb 2014 #299

It may not be secret but it certainly is not one of the most heavily debated policy items cali Feb 2014 #58

Its obvious that it is. All one has to do is put the word "Drones" in a google search. 11.7 million stevenleser Feb 2014 #262

+1 BitSin Feb 2014 #288

LINCOLN WAS SHOT IN A THEATRE! BY AN ASSASSIN! Should fit in good with your show. Autumn Feb 2014 #6

to think assassination used to be a BAD thing? reddread Feb 2014 #37

+1 L0oniX Feb 2014 #63

Did people know that the Military has replaced Due Process regarding killing American Citizens, sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #22

It's lovely that you want to give your opinion on something else, but that is not what I asked. stevenleser Feb 2014 #24

Lol, well if you can give your opinion I don't see why you would object to getting a response to sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #35

If everyone did that, there would be no point to trying to discuss anything. That is why hijacking stevenleser Feb 2014 #42

Irony alert: You hijacked this thread. Is that also "behaving like a troll"? L0oniX Feb 2014 #65

Amazing, isn't it? Whenever someone reduces themselves to name calling, I have always sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #91

. Autumn Feb 2014 #66

Addressing the topic of the OP is 'hi-jacking' a thread? Since when? sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #90

The topic of my thread was, "Did people not know that the military and intel work together to... stevenleser Feb 2014 #263

Your thread? This isn't your thread. sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #278

Yes, as soon as I responded, I started a thread. An OP is not the same thing as a thread. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #281

An OP and a thread are not the same thing. reusrename Feb 2014 #291

You hijacked the OP, and than tried to accuse others who brought the topic BACK on topic sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #294

LOL! Enthusiast Feb 2014 #156

Yes, I know, threadjacking is funny when you support the goals of the threadjacker. stevenleser Feb 2014 #264

Amazing. Just amazing. reusrename Feb 2014 #190

He dares because he's a self-approved bobduca Feb 2014 #211

Yup, I'm right. I was right when I posted that and I am right now. stevenleser Feb 2014 #265

Oh man, I�m not sure where to begin. reusrename Feb 2014 #290

Post removed Post removed Feb 2014 #210

The issue is not that the military works with the intelligence community when it plans its strikes. Maedhros Feb 2014 #94

Yes, actually, that is the entire point of the OP. This is supposedly a big reveal. stevenleser Feb 2014 #268

Innocent people are dying from this shit. Maedhros Feb 2014 #275

Nope. I will do nothing that you ask. stevenleser Feb 2014 #276

Do you know what it's called when someone tries to lead an argument using questions? Look rhett o rick Feb 2014 #187

socratic method? nt arely staircase Feb 2014 #216

Fauxian rhett o rick Feb 2014 #217

hah! reusrename Feb 2014 #292

Take down of the FAIL post. WIN!!! grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #150

Non sequiturs and threadjacking does not constitute a takedown. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #259

You're right but c'mon...let them at least think you didn't thoroughly debunk that point. great white snark Feb 2014 #300

I think that American citizens.... Adrahil Feb 2014 #181

Apparently they didn't Progressive dog Feb 2014 #64

Which is it? reusrename Feb 2014 #193

There is no which there. Progressive dog Feb 2014 #208

You must be joking. reusrename Feb 2014 #221

What was not possible? Progressive dog Feb 2014 #224

Sorry, it's so nutty that it IS rather hard to follow. reusrename Feb 2014 #225

Okay, I don't get how the specific data on Progressive dog Feb 2014 #226

Then you should probably avoid commenting and continue asking questions instead. reusrename Feb 2014 #233

You should avoid answering questions if you don't know the answer Progressive dog Feb 2014 #244

A month ago he's arguing that it cannot be done. reusrename Feb 2014 #245

Yes he was but he knows that Progressive dog Feb 2014 #246

I fear that the enemy are civilians. reusrename Feb 2014 #247

I see no doublethink and Progressive dog Feb 2014 #250

Why would you read it any other way? That's an odd thing to insinuate. reusrename Feb 2014 #252

1984 is not a prophecy, it is fiction. Progressive dog Feb 2014 #253

Sure they can. Of course they can. reusrename Feb 2014 #254

It's not intelligence when you kill civilians and create more terrorists, duh. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #148

^^^^this^^^^ L0oniX Feb 2014 #170

Recommended. Heres another article that fits in nicely with yours. Autumn Feb 2014 #4

Thanks, Autumn! Octafish Feb 2014 #7

So what should be done if these guidelines are in force? randome Feb 2014 #5

Like turning 16-year-old American citizens into bug splat without due process? Octafish Feb 2014 #8

You're apparently bothered by use of data to make it more accurate treestar Feb 2014 #9

ODS? Is that the opposite of Obamaphilia? Octafish Feb 2014 #12

Sad ain't it? Rex Feb 2014 #144

ODS is defending these egregious violation of our Constitution that all these elected officials sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #25

So sayeth Sabrina, Justice of the Supreme Court! ConservativeDemocrat Feb 2014 #96

Well, thank you. But one only needs to be a first grader to, and I know a few, to understand the sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #161

"ODS" is the generic catch-all for anyone who disagrees with Obama mindwalker_i Feb 2014 #99

At least one of our DU attorneys has weighed in and said that this is already congressionally stevenleser Feb 2014 #11

torture was OK, also reddread Feb 2014 #15

yeah thanks to John Woo and his perverted neverforget Feb 2014 #86

Hey, man, if some anonymous lawyer on a web site says it's OK, Maedhros Feb 2014 #98

right you are, the backers of these policies arent going to skimp on procedure reddread Feb 2014 #115

So, if it's OK for NSA to disregard Bill of Rights, it's OK for the president to kill who he wants. Octafish Feb 2014 #16

Those terms and amendments and rights have specific meanings judged by appellate courts and the stevenleser Feb 2014 #20

Would that be the same SCOTUS that decided Bush v Gore 5-4? Octafish Feb 2014 #28

So your attempt at a point is that because an appellate court or the SCOTUS has made mistakes stevenleser Feb 2014 #40

No, that's not my point. Octafish Feb 2014 #51

Actually, that is exactly the point you tried to make. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #274

"made mistakes"? grasswire Feb 2014 #126

Clarence Thomas wasnt a mistake either reddread Feb 2014 #136

Hardly mistakes. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #158

a great example of plonkable rhetoric bobduca Feb 2014 #203

Not really. Arecent court questioned the constitutionality of NSA surveillance programs and SCOTUS Vattel Feb 2014 #191

I'm still waiting for Sanders, Warren, or heck..even Paul to submit a repeal of the AUMF of 9/18/01. msanthrope Feb 2014 #67

Authorized by whom? Congress? Octafish Feb 2014 #74

Sigh....let me explain this...again. The constitutional basis for drones derives from the AUMF of msanthrope Feb 2014 #78

Thanks. In what states do you practice law? Octafish Feb 2014 #81

The United States is not at war with any nation right now. [n/t] Maedhros Feb 2014 #102

PA primarily, 3rd circuit. Am barred in other jurisdictions that I do not currently msanthrope Feb 2014 #109

You haven't studied or practiced law. That's why it doesnt make sense to you. stevenleser Feb 2014 #267

I am a journalist. Octafish Feb 2014 #269

I have several. IT and Journalism are just two. You still aren't a lawyer. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #272

So what? I'm a citizen and I have a right to express my opinion on the law. Octafish Feb 2014 #277

And I have the right to point out that a lawyers opinion matters more. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #280

Not to me and not in a democracy. Octafish Feb 2014 #282

That isn't really the case at all, is it. The AUMF is about the twin towers. Right? reusrename Feb 2014 #201

No...it really is the case. The AUMF of 9/18/01 empowered the President to pursue those msanthrope Feb 2014 #207

So they can target anyone, correct? reusrename Feb 2014 #218

No..only those people whose activities put them under the purview of that msanthrope Feb 2014 #227

Which is everyone, correct? reusrename Feb 2014 #228

Um, no. And why would persons contemplated under the AUMF be charged in an Article III court while msanthrope Feb 2014 #229

Who exactly is identified? reusrename Feb 2014 #230

Can you clarify your inquiry? And I didn't say no one was in custody. nt msanthrope Feb 2014 #232

You are saying that we are only killing folks who have already been identified. reusrename Feb 2014 #234

Um, no. I'm saying we are targeting people already identified. As for how the msanthrope Feb 2014 #235

Um, no. You said they are already established under the authorization. reusrename Feb 2014 #237

I think we are talking at cross purposes here...why not ask me specific questions about specific msanthrope Feb 2014 #239

The specific people that the authorization specifically authorized for killing... reusrename Feb 2014 #240

Wait...are you suggesting that a specific person must be targeted by an AUMF? That's a crapload msanthrope Feb 2014 #243

Declarations of war? reusrename Feb 2014 #293

AlQaeda and it's affiliates. Thus, we had a seperate AUMF for Iraq. Currently, msanthrope Feb 2014 #301

Rinse, lather, repeat. reusrename Feb 2014 #303

Yes. You are correct. All three branches of government have confirmed that persons msanthrope Feb 2014 #304

That is not what I said. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #266

So you supported all of Bush's policies, then. All of them were Congressionally authorized. Thanks, sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #26

No, they weren't. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #33

Which ones were not Congressionally approved of during the Bush years? sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #41

Iraq war conditions were not met, torture was not approved, warrantless wiretapping, etc. stevenleser Feb 2014 #44

Really? Then why has no one been prosecuted for what, if they eg, lied us into war, would be major sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #55

Do you really not know the answer to that question? stevenleser Feb 2014 #260

OFFS ...so that makes it morally ok? jeeze L0oniX Feb 2014 #45

This message was self-deleted by its author neverforget Feb 2014 #84

How about some lawyers who actually know what they are talking about re the US Constitution: sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #163

You can ask the person who posted that directly. They are the attorney. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #261

I don't ask for facts from internet 'experts'. We have plenty of actual experts sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #270

I know msanthrope in real life. She is an attorney, and you have no right to slander her. nt stevenleser Feb 2014 #273

I don't know either of you in RL so to me you are merely strangers on the internet and you have some sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #302

What happens when a cop sees someone pointing a gun at someone and has no recourse but to shoot? randome Feb 2014 #29

The 16-year old American was at a barbecue. Octafish Feb 2014 #38

I understand that. randome Feb 2014 #39

Apparently with Ibrahaim Al- Banna, the strike target. Although reports vary...it seems the strike msanthrope Feb 2014 #69

Which Droned US Citizen was sending Mushroom Clouds our way? And how many bystanders do cops sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #50

Cop shootings are always controversial. So is this, there's no denying that. randome Feb 2014 #53

I don't base my opinions on 'what ifs', I base them on facts. 'Supposing there really were sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #95

I didn't create much of a scenario. It's entirely plausible based on the guidelines in place. randome Feb 2014 #101

Well, you just stated the problem right there. We KNOW there are dead people, bodies, men, women and sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #169

Imaginary "go orders." Imaginary "atrocities." Maedhros Feb 2014 #105

I seriously doubt we are killing people based solely on algorithms. randome Feb 2014 #116

False choice: drones or boots on the ground. Maedhros Feb 2014 #119

You forgot the third choice: let people die and feel no guilt. randome Feb 2014 #120

Again, more imaginary threats. Maedhros Feb 2014 #138

Well what do you expect? Facts and reality? Rex Feb 2014 #145

Remember when progressives and liberals mocked Maedhros Feb 2014 #164

willfully blind questionseverything Feb 2014 #140

False dichotomy fail. How bout we leave them alone and stop creating terror and horror. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #154

Boots on the ground? Why would we have 'boots anywhere' unless we are being invaded with actual sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #220

Faulty analogy. Maedhros Feb 2014 #103

I would think many of the operations prevented have not been directed at the U.S. randome Feb 2014 #111

Our assumption that we are the world's police force, and that we can bust in anyone's door Maedhros Feb 2014 #117

War is very profitable for a select group of 'contractors'. To justify war we need an 'enemy'. sabrina 1 Feb 2014 #222

But you forget about the "nits make lice" meme zeemike Feb 2014 #77

it bothers me questionseverything Feb 2014 #127

Thanks, questionseverything. Octafish Feb 2014 #135

the 503 might just be tons of traffic or a dos attack questionseverything Feb 2014 #139

father of the year that al-Awlaki nt arely staircase Feb 2014 #215

And how does targeting a cell phone fit into those guidlines? SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #27

I honestly don't know. randome Feb 2014 #34

"I honestly don't know" Exactly my point! SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #48

Micro-managing the military is also not the answer, though. randome Feb 2014 #59

How do the loyalists determine who is going to defend what here? bobduca Feb 2014 #212

Because killing innocent people is wrong. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #80

Agree. But when it happens by accident, do we condemn the person who pulled the trigger? randome Feb 2014 #89

If the trigger was pulled on purpose, and the target was unclear, and there may be innocents grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #141

Nobody is able to adequately explain how the people we are blowing up with drones Maedhros Feb 2014 #97

I doubt that killing a few hundred people will do ANYTHING for corporate profit. randome Feb 2014 #104

Unless they are activists interfering with say, privatizing nationalized oil. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #205

They don't need to explain it, they accept and embrace secret wars bobduca Feb 2014 #213

Remember "US persons" means US corporations! So a threat to corporate interests might get you the grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #204

Amy Goodman had them on DemocracyNow.org this AM... ReRe Feb 2014 #17

Thanks, ReRe! Octafish Feb 2014 #19

They always do a transcript... ReRe Feb 2014 #21

Terrorists sell their old phones on Ebay. L0oniX Feb 2014 #36

We have a local charity that gives them to victims of domestic violence. Octafish Feb 2014 #43

Holy Moley! ReRe Feb 2014 #49

Beware of UPS delivery of small box with phone. L0oniX Feb 2014 #57

Not to worry... ReRe Feb 2014 #60

drone operator boot camp psych: �They might have been terrorists,� he says L0oniX Feb 2014 #70

What a effing nightmare... ReRe Feb 2014 #76

K&R woo me with science Feb 2014 #18

Secret Government Privatized Killing Scenarios by AMWAY Octafish Feb 2014 #23

Pro government assassin shills will now proceed to place Jeremy Scahill under the bus. L0oniX Feb 2014 #30

It's weird, watching the change. Octafish Feb 2014 #87

Things have changed here for the worse but in the outside real world, most folks are becoming more xiamiam Feb 2014 #147

So, some dudes in a cave in Afghanistan caused all this and 9/11 too??? blkmusclmachine Feb 2014 #32

Amazing, wot? Here's the guy that's really made out like a bandit. Heh heh heh. Octafish Feb 2014 #166

Octafish, do you think there's a source out there... grasswire Feb 2014 #231

for the public record, link to WSWS on Democratic support for Bush spy powers grasswire Feb 2014 #236

Thank you, grasswire! Octafish Feb 2014 #242

Couple DUers are pals of Mr. Fitrakis... Octafish Feb 2014 #249

Is Greenwald ProSense Feb 2014 #46

Didn't bother to read it did you. SomethingFishy Feb 2014 #54

I read enough to know that ProSense Feb 2014 #82

It makes me think about the possibility ... JoePhilly Feb 2014 #114

"directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens" TheMathieu Feb 2014 #56

Recommend. The AP report along with the revelations from "Intercept" KoKo Feb 2014 #62

Another breathless expose of spy agencies actually spying Progressive dog Feb 2014 #71

Drone Attack Against U.S. Citizen Being Considered Octafish Feb 2014 #72

So he should be treated differently than other Progressive dog Feb 2014 #75

You know who got the Military Industrial Complex started down the counter-terrorism road? Octafish Feb 2014 #79

Based upon the content of your posts, you are anything but "Progressive" Maedhros Feb 2014 #112

Boy does your opinion make me feel bad Progressive dog Feb 2014 #151

Not whining about the existence of the spy agency. Maedhros Feb 2014 #162

The claims from the "journalist" who supported Bush Progressive dog Feb 2014 #167

If you attack the claim, then you must refute the evidence behind the claim. Maedhros Feb 2014 #168

There is no evidence that what the NSA is doing is Progressive dog Feb 2014 #171

As you know, there is ample reason to believe the NSA's data collection is illegal. Maedhros Feb 2014 #173

Endorsements are not evidence Progressive dog Feb 2014 #176

Um, does the 4th amendment ring a bell? Maybe you've heard of it? Electric Monk Feb 2014 #174

Perhaps you've heard of the Constitution and the Progressive dog Feb 2014 #178

The NSA is evidence that the terrorists have won ...and some people are fine with that. L0oniX Feb 2014 #194

You are not alone! L0oniX Feb 2014 #172

Mr. Octafish 90-percent Feb 2014 #73

Thank you, 90% Jimmy! Octafish Feb 2014 #223

First month without a US drone strike in Pakistan for over two years ProSense Feb 2014 #88

Bureau of Investigative Journalism wrote about it a week ago. Octafish Feb 2014 #106

Um, that's the piece I posted. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #107

So, what? I wanted to be sure you saw it. Octafish Feb 2014 #123

You wanted to be sure I "saw" what I posted? ProSense Feb 2014 #129

Yeah. Because you cut out the most important part. Octafish Feb 2014 #130

LOL! Is that why you announced: "Bureau of Investigative Journalism wrote about it a week ago." ProSense Feb 2014 #132

When you post so much that's irrelevant, it's easy to miss the most important part. Octafish Feb 2014 #137

+1 Rex Feb 2014 #146

official trolls are bobduca Feb 2014 #196

Obama didn't kill any people in Pakistan for a whole month?! Give that man a peace prize. DesMoinesDem Feb 2014 #108

You know what they say, ProSense Feb 2014 #110

You made me follow a link to your post which linked to your post which had no link to the source. DesMoinesDem Feb 2014 #118

I "made" you? n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #131

That's your reply? You're right, I should just ignore your links and quotes like everyone else. DesMoinesDem Feb 2014 #133

Yes. n/t ProSense Feb 2014 #134

Guess this is news to some but more proof the use of phone call records are being used for Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #113

The goal of wholesale surveillance to have info ready when time to arrest a certain population. Octafish Feb 2014 #153

This may have been written as a goal except Greenwald has furnished more information Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #159

No. They locate phones that may or may not be in the possession of a terrorist. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #175

Did you read the first paragraph in your post? Thinkingabout Feb 2014 #177

Yes I did. Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #182

I think this post, with the red font, should be an OP, woo me with science Feb 2014 #298

K&R myrna minx Feb 2014 #125

k & r! n/t wildbilln864 Feb 2014 #149

a story on RT claims the Obama admin is now contemplating the murder of another US citizen... wildbilln864 Feb 2014 #152

`` G_j Feb 2014 #165

I got him a valentine for you, G_j. johnnyreb Feb 2014 #183

thank you! G_j Feb 2014 #184

Recommend! KoKo Feb 2014 #188

"Assassinate"? Really? jazzimov Feb 2014 #192

There is no reason to be at war other than military hegemony over the world eridani Feb 2014 #198

K&R bobduca Feb 2014 #195

K&R nt raouldukelives Feb 2014 #200

well this is the no shit story of the decade arely staircase Feb 2014 #214

Anyone who thinks this is a big reveal has really exposed themselves as one of two things... stevenleser Feb 2014 #271

and a kick! n/t wildbilln864 Feb 2014 #241

Complete and utter sensationalistic tripe. idendoit Feb 2014 #248

kick woo me with science Feb 2014 #251

K&R bobthedrummer Feb 2014 #255

K&R avaistheone1 Feb 2014 #256

genuinely nauseating. Kurovski Feb 2014 #257

Kick n/t bobthedrummer Feb 2014 #258

Thanks Octafish... malokvale77 Feb 2014 #286

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Feb 2014 #287