Government Assassination - the Austin connection

Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, in Libya there really is a majority of people willing to take up arms and kill the tyrant that is murdering them for no reason other than to maintain his own wealth! This is one of those rare situations where the ambiguities are small, and rights and wrongs are a lot clearer.

We should have helped them from the start. If I had the choice I would have volunteered myself. And having done so we would have had better access to their oil and gas. Everyone would have won, but NOOOOO....we have cowards and morons like Obama and Hilary Clinton as our leaders, and they haven't a clue or a moral compass to guide them.

C'mon our leaders are nothing but puppets. The last president that tried to do the right thing was assassinated. Having access to more oil and gas tends to reveal the true intentions. Does that really help our society in the long run? Or is that really part of our downfall?

Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, in Libya there really is a majority of people willing to take up arms and kill the tyrant that is murdering them for no reason other than to maintain his own wealth! This is one of those rare situations where the ambiguities are small, and rights and wrongs are a lot clearer.

We should have helped them from the start. If I had the choice I would have volunteered myself. And having done so we would have had better access to their oil and gas. Everyone would have won, but NOOOOO....we have cowards and morons like Obama and Hilary Clinton as our leaders, and they haven't a clue or a moral compass to guide them. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I'm curious as to why more (mass) killing is an appropriate response. Isn't this what we should be trying to prevent? Originally Posted by averageTxJoe

I'm not advocating mass killing, quite the opposite. Any protracted involvement in Libya would be stupid. Qaddafi has announced he is going to go house to house in Benghazi and cleanse the opposition. Is that not mass killing? A surgical strike to eliminate Qaddafi would seem the better alternative to a more substantial involvement..

So wouldn't the topic of this thread be a better and cleaner way to approach the issue rather than launching missles and dropping bombs?

Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, in Libya there really is a majority of people willing to take up arms and kill the tyrant that is murdering them for no reason other than to maintain his own wealth! This is one of those rare situations where the ambiguities are small, and rights and wrongs are a lot clearer.

We should have helped them from the start. If I had the choice I would have volunteered myself. And having done so we would have had better access to their oil and gas. Everyone would have won, but NOOOOO....we have cowards and morons like Obama and Hilary Clinton as our leaders, and they haven't a clue or a moral compass to guide them. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Completely agree with all this. It is a rare opportunity, yet we are too stupid to capitalize on it.

So wouldn't the topic of this thread be a better and cleaner way to approach the issue rather than launching missles and dropping bombs? Originally Posted by averageTxJoe

Maybe we could send Dog the Bounty Hunter in there and get him do you think? He could capture him with his paintball gun.

So are you suggesting we should take out Momar to help the people of that country or to have access to the oil and gas?

Completely agree with all this. It is a rare opportunity, yet we are too stupid to capitalize on it. Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

LOL! Now there is an option!

Maybe we could send Dog the Bounty Hunter in there and get him do you think? He could capture him with his paintball gun. Originally Posted by Billy_Saul

I don't think the US wants the rebels to win. I think the US wants a stalemate.

If the rebels win in Libya it might spell the doom of Bahrain, Yemen and even Saudi Arabia.

I think the US has covertly drawn the line on any more popular revolutions against it's friends.

Just google his name, or research the Statesmen archives if you like. He was convicted of the homicide and his sentence concluded under highly suspicious circumstances which were documented and widely reported at the time. Similarly there were numerous other serious crimes which had similar outcomes in that era. If you know anyone who was involved in law in Austin in those times they should be able to inform you. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

You are the person who started the thread and implied this guy was some type of govt hit man. I want to see some type of evidence of this. Otherwise YOU come off as some conspiracy nut.

Additionally, if you are implying that only uneducated, desperate people are killers then you should familiarize yourself with the topic at little more. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

HA! No, I'm stating that smart, sane people don't kill people in broad daylight with witnesses because they don't want to get caught. Especially if they are a "govt agent" or "mafia hit man." Now, smart, unstable people are another story.

btw in case you haven't noticed I tend to post content which I believe runs counter to prevailing opinion. However, I post only on topics in areas in which I have some personal experience, or formal education. What would be the point in posting content that most people already agree with? That would be boring. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

Ergo my fantasies comment. So do you have personal experience or formal education? If so, what is it? You spend a lot of keystrokes dancing around straightforward questions.

You are the person who started the thread and implied this guy was some type of govt hit man. I want to see some type of evidence of this. Otherwise YOU come off as some conspiracy nut.
I'm stating that smart, sane people don't kill people in broad daylight with witnesses because they don't want to get caught. Especially if they are a "govt agent" or "mafia hit man." Now, smart, unstable people are another story.



Originally Posted by gnadfly

1.No one on this thread stated that Malcome "Mac" Wallace ever killed on behalf of any government. There is strong evidence linking him to several murders in Texas in which Lyndon Johnson benefited. David Strier however, who lived in Austin from 1974 until his death, killed on behalf of government.

2.You're statement above is false because Wallace was "smart" and perhaps "sane" but he obviously killed Mr. Kinzer, the owner of the Mini Golf on South Lamar Blvd., and was certainly caught.

Like most people who are fond of tagging others as "conspiracy nuts" your actual knowledge of the issue is question is shallow, and you're perceiving that others are making statements that they are not actually making.

1.No one on this thread stated that Malcome "Mac" Wallace ever killed on behalf of any government. There is strong evidence linking him to several murders in Texas in which Lyndon Johnson benefited. David Strier however, who lived in Austin from 1974 until his death, killed on behalf of government.

2.You're statement above is false because Wallace was "smart" and perhaps "sane" but he obviously killed Mr. Kinzer, the owner of the Mini Golf on South Lamar Blvd., and was certainly caught.

Like most people who are fond of tagging others as "conspiracy nuts" your actual knowledge of the issue is question is shallow, and you're perceiving that others are making statements that they are not actually making. Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

1. Mmmm, I must have misunderstood the title of your thread and the fact that you buttressed the killing by Mac Wallace with the "positive" and "negative" govt assassinations in your original post. You didn't even bring up Strier until later.

2. Perhaps "sane"? Ha! Reserve that phrase for yourself.

Nah, I'm fond of tagging people "conspiracy nuts" when their behavior fits the label.

Nah, I'm fond of tagging people "conspiracy nuts" when their behavior fits the label. Originally Posted by gnadfly

This might qualify as the years funniest post!

This is what is otherwise known as a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black!

Gnadfly is a bonafide, dyed in the wool, Far Right-Wing "conspiracy nut" trying desperately to locate someone to wear the label pinned on him during that fateful spring of 2003!

Hey Gnad, did you or any of your neo-con buds ever locate those WMD's?

This might qualify as the years funniest post!

This is what is otherwise known as a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black!

Gnadfly is a bonafide, dyed in the wool, Far Right-Wing "conspiracy nut" trying desperately to locate someone to wear the label pinned on him during that fateful spring of 2003!

Hey Gnad, did you or any of your neo-con buds ever locate those WMD's? Originally Posted by bigtex

I certainly don't have a dog in this fight. It seems funny though how labels get thrown around on both sides. During the entire Bush presidency, it seemed like anyone who leaned toward the conservative side was a "far right wing" this or that. Now, when the man that the liberal side elected on the promises of ending two wars, closing Guantanamo and focusing on the economy at home starts a 3rd and blatantly unnecessary war, without any excuse at all, well, then people still want to drag out the "neo-con" label and talk about 2003. I guess that beats facing the reality that the man they elected 5 years later is now blatantly as much of a "war mongerer" (another label the left tried to pin on Bush) as the previous President they claim to have hated so much.
Interesting times!

In my estimation it is much too early to attempt to attempt to compare our involvement is Libya and Iraq. In other words, the jury has yet to be assembled on the US's 2 week involvement in Libya. That certainly is not the case with the US's 8 year involvement in Iraq! Quite frankly, trying to compare the US's very limited initial involvement in Libya under Obama with our long term investment in Iraq under GW is about like trying to compare a Pop Warner football season to an entire NFL season. I suppose an argument can be made that in both instances the game being played is football. However, there is no mistaken that the football games being played are done at a dramatically different level of overall significance!

The same correlation (overall significance) can be used in attempting to draw a parallel between our involvement in Iraq and Libya!