CAIR Suing Over Fatal FBI Shooting of Friend of Alleged Boston Marathon Bombers

The FBI ruled the fatal shooting of Ibragim Todashev justified, just as it did the 70 fatal shootings before it.

|

Orange County

An Islamic group in Florida is filing a lawsuit over the fatal FBI shooting in May 2013 of Ibragim Todashev during the investigation of the alleged Boston marathon bombers. The FBI didn't say anything about the shooting for months. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called for an investigation in July 2013; last year the FBI ruled the shooting justified, saying the agent, who had a short and troubled history with the Oakland Police Department, was attacked by his detainee before fatally shooting him.

Reuters reports on the lawsuit:

The notice was filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations Florida (CAIR-Florida), a civil rights group, on behalf of Todashev's parents who accused the FBI in a statement on Monday of killing their son "in cold blood."

Thania Diaz Clevenger, civil rights director for CAIR Florida, said the group was "seeking answers and justice for someone who was shot seven times by an FBI agent in his own home after hours of interrogation."

The FBI said the agent fired after Todashev suddenly attacked and injured the agent during the interrogation. Investigators concluded the agent was justified in using deadly force.

CAIR accused the FBI of "careless hiring practices" involving FBI agent Aaron McFarlane, who fired the fatal bullets, as well as a lax internal review that cleared him in Todashev's death.

"During his time serving with the Oakland Police Department, he was involved in two police brutality lawsuits, four internal affairs investigations, regarding violently beating up suspects and witnesses and allegedly falsified police reports," CAIR said in a statement.

Since 1993 the FBI has shot at least 150 people, 70 fatally, ruling every shooting justified.

NEXT: CPS Decision in Maryland Parents Case: They Are 'Responsible' For 'Unsubstantiated Neglect.' Huh?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wait, wait, wait?!?!

    The FBI will allow people who got caught falsifying police reports into the FBI Academy?!?

    I thought they only hired savvy people, not cheaters!

    1. The FBI will allow people who got caught falsifying police reports into the FBI Academy?!?

      I thought that was a required prerequisite as a lateral police hire.

    2. I can see why they’d want people who falsified police reports, but for heaven’s sakes, not people who got CAUGHT falsifying police reports!

  2. The guy was too much of a shitbag for Oakland? Wow. That’s bad.

  3. Fuck you FBI for making me agree with CAIR.

    1. Cue Archer: “You are literally making me root for the terrorists, FBI.”

  4. I find “after being interrogated for hours in his own house without incident, the suspect then outright attacked the agent so aggressively that he had to be shot and killed” to be insanely suspicious. Or to put it more simply, I think the FBI is lying and Mr. Incomptent In Oakland did something absurd like lose his shit because the guy wouldn’t talk and shot him.

    I mean, would you put even that past the cops at this point?

    1. When I heard this story I thought of the scene in LA Confidential where Russel Crowe shoot the naked guy amd plants a gun and even the other cops go “a naked guy woth a gun?” This is that rediculous.

      1. Also, think about it. Highly charged situation + incompetent cop + probably huge amounts of pressure to get answers + potential for glory if you get good answers is going to result in the incompetent cop doing something stupid, it’s basically a guarantee. Whether it’s going all Jack Bauer on the guy or threatening him with his gun or who knows what the hell happened there.

        We know from story after story how insanely incompetent so many cops are. It only stands to reason that if they can’t handle encounters with homeless people without killing them, how can they handle extremely high profile highly charged situations like the Marathon Bombing and its investigation?

        1. My guess is it looked like the scene is Pulp Fiction where they shoot the guy in the car. Dipshit agemt goes Jack Bower on the guy waving his gun in his face and he shoots him.

          1. Exactly, something incredibly stupid like that. I mean, that literally all I expect now from the cops. Their incompetence is astounding, which only makes sense when they have no accountability. No accountability doesn’t just lead to abuse, it also leads to incompetence, since not only is there no punishment for doing something wrong/horrible, there is also no punishment for being terrible at what you do.

      2. Oh, I don’t know. The fact that the agent had been “involved in” lawsuits and internal affairs investigations doesn’t really prove anything. Not everyone involved in such things is guilty.

        As for Todashev, his history includes a lot of violence. A Chechen boxer/mixed martial arts fighter described by a partner as a “hothead,” some road-rage incidents, and possible involvement in a triple murder. I could imagine someone like that thinking he could make it through an FBI interview, and then deciding he had incriminated himself and attacking the agent.

        So I’m not willing to pick a side on this one, yet.

        1. So putting that guy in the room with Aaron McFarlane was a recipe for disaster.

          1. Perhaps. I thought the FBI usually worked in pairs? But I really know nothing about McFarlane other than the “involved in” thing, which doesn’t prove anything.

            1. I thought the FBI usually worked in pairs?

              When one of my coworkers was going through the process for getting a security clearance, I was interviewed by the FBI. Just one guy.

              1. But wouldn’t you think interviewing a Chechen immigrant about a terror attack might be a bit different, and call for two agents?

                1. Y’know, with that kinda snide posturing and questioning your betters, you’ll never find any room for advancement within the agency.

                2. Fuck you, PapayaSF, for making me question my assumptions.

                  accurately.

                  1. Um… thanks, I guess.

        2. According to a “This American Life” piece on the matter last year, a number of people who knew Todashev, he had a history of going completely apeshit when anyone called him a “Motherf—er”, apparently under the belief that this was meant as a serious accusation of incest.

          It’s possible one of the FBI agents was trying to “bad cop” him an inadvertantly pushed Todashev’s beserk button.

          1. Or advertantly.

          2. I think we can guess what Freud would say about that.

        3. So one guy was a pyscho guerila juice head who thought he was invincible. And the other was just another Orlando douchebag

    2. I find there to be a small amount of plausibility in this case. The guy who was killed was a trained fighter. Like MMA style. So if the guy attacked the agent, then the agent could have reasonably feared for his life. Like I said, plausible. But, as usual, the lengths that the government goes through to cover for their people makes even a plausible scenario look suspect.

      1. The term is deniability.

  5. Since 1993 the FBI has shot at least 150 people, 70 fatally, ruling every shooting justified.

    Bet I didn’t read that the way the FBI wants me to.

  6. Ever since that happened I’ve wondered if one of the FBI’s many fake terrorist schemes got away from them and produced some real terrorists.

  7. I’d bet money the goon was threatening the corpse-to-be with his gun to encourage him to give the right answers, and it went off.

    To make it look better, he had to dress it up to look like he had been attacked, so he did what every cop does when facing a threat (real or imaginary): he mag-dumped.

    1. The corpse-to-be was an MMA fighter. It’s entirely possible that he went ape on the baboon.

      1. Dude, MMA is *sport-fighting*.

        Sure, he’s more dangerous than I am, but MMA is not some Spetnaz/ninja killing art.

        Hell, its mainly wrestling holds.

        MMA fighters are not any more dangerous or prone to outbursts of irrational violence (I’d say *less* so) than boxers.

        1. It doesn’t matter whether he was dangerous as an MMA fighter. He just has to have thought he was.

          It’s silly to dismiss him for that reason. Here’s how I’d evaluate his dangerousness:

          male ?
          20-something ?
          Chechen ?
          Muslim ?
          recent immigrant ?
          MMA fighter ?
          boxer ?
          known public altercations ?
          described as “hothead” by ex-partner ?
          possible involvement in a triple murder ?
          knows a known Chechen Muslim terrorist ?

          No single one of those is dispositive, but as a series you’d have to be mentally or idealogically damaged to not admit that those probably add up to something.

          Now I’m convinced the FBI is incompetent because they didn’t send three agents to interview this guy.

  8. The FBI story stunk like hell from the instant it happened. First, they wouldn’t tell what happened. That set my radar up instantly. Then they came out with the ridiculous story about the guy attacking them with a sword and later oops it was a broom handle.

    These guys are straight up liars.

    They were doing an interrogation of an important person in the highest profile case in the country at the time, and there is no video? I am not buying that either.

    1. there is no video? I am not buying that either.

      Would you believe … a hard-drive crash?

      1. Would you believe………….the interrogation artist called in sick that day?

        /Maxwell Smart

    2. Actually, the no video is FBI policy. Until after 2010, there was no record of FBI interviews except for the transcribing agebt’s hand-written record. It came out in the Martha Stewart case that this was still FBI policy. Unbelievable, but true.

    3. I’m willing to bet that the guy consented to the interview, the cop got pushy, he told the cop to fuck off and get out, the cop pushed harder, so he defended his rights – to be left alone – and the cop shot him.

  9. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called for an investigation in July 2013

    Why?

    If the cops come into my house and shoot me, justified or not, will the ACLU call for an investigation?

    1. Are you a black, female, gay, illegal immigrant guest of America? Then – yes.

      Otherwise, probably not.

      1. This guy was neither black, female (might be gay) and I presume wasn’t a ‘guest of America’, again, why?

        1. He was a “guest of America” in the sense of being a recent immigrant.

        2. You know nothing Jon Snow.

          Being a radical Islamist violent extremist from Chechnya is the equivalent of nailing the holy identity trinity of black transgendered otherkin.

      2. Yeah, the ACLU never represents any white men.

        /Derp

        1. True, though mainly they’re Nazis.

    2. I’d prefer they get it right once in awhile than never at all.

  10. Fuck the FBI in every case. Fuck CAIR in any case, just cause they’re loathseome, just not quite as loathsome or evil as the FBI.

    That was easy.

    1. Fuck the FBI in every case. Fuck CAIR in any case, just cause they’re loathseome, just not quite as loathsome or evil as the FBI.

      They may not be as powerful as FBI, but were they I think they’d be equally loathsome, if not orders of magnitude more loathsome.

  11. Speaking of Muslims and terrorism the Islamophobes running Egypt declared Hamas a terrorist organization.

    An Egyptian court has listed the Palestinian group Hamas as a terrorist organisation, accusing it of supporting an insurgency in northern Sinai.

    The court ruling on Saturday effectively bans Hamas within Egypt, a wider verdict that January’s censure of its armed wing.

    “It has been proven without any doubt that the movement has committed acts of sabotage, assassinations and the killing of innocent civilians and members of the armed forces and police in Egypt,” Judge Mohamed el-Sayed said, according to state news agency Mena

    Obama Administration, Sheldon Richman hardest hit?

  12. The theory that this was a “terrorist” cell being groomed by the FBI in preparation for a big bust of terrorists but a couple of the terrorists showed a surprising amount of initiative (did I first read that theory in these here comments?) and the FBI went on to clean up their mess is a theory that is disurbingly plausible to people who aren’t me, but people I’ve heard of.

  13. Is this the late nite links thread? Ugh, needs hijack. I can’t think of anything…

    I keep getting these Harry’s Razors ads. I guess it’s because I started looking for a viable replacement for my Gillette Fusion which now costs more than gold.

    So, for those of you who have facial hair, what’s the best alternative? I was looking at the Dorco, anyone used those?

    1. I use Dollar Shave Club. Use their medium-level blades. Highly, highly recommended.

      1. Have you heard that their razors are actually the Dorco razors? That’s what I’ve been hearing anyway..

        1. They are. But I’m lazy, and I’m only spending $6 a month delivered for the blades, so I keep up with DSC.

        2. Huh huh, Dork-o.

    2. Accept your manhood proudly with a fine beard!

      … Hobbit

  14. Columbus not cooperating: February was the #2 coldest February for about 140 years of records at Port Columbus. In addition since Valentine’s Day we have had 5 all-time record lows, 5 all-time record low maximum temperatures, and 2 all-time record snowfalls. We have more record lows and maxs coming the 2nd half of this week as well. We are 10 inches above average on season snowfall at the moment with 31.6″ but Youngstown is trying to catch Boston as they are nearing 80″ of snow for the winter. 60% of the country has a snow cover to start March. And with lakes frozen the National Weather Service has already revised the 30 day forecast for March for the 2nd time in 3 days to now include below normal temperatures for the month for most of the country east of the Rockies.
    http://www.nbc4i.com/weather

    1. what a coincidence. According to the best and brightest scientific minds, the current conflict in Syria? Yep, caused by Global Warming.

      http://thehill.com/policy/ener…..ntists-say

      A new study links the impacts of climate change to the unraveling of the conflict in Syria.

      Record drought that ravaged Syria from 2006 to 2010 appears to have played a critical role in leading up to the 2011 Syrian uprising, scientists say in a new study published by the National Academy of Sciences on Monday.

      1. Because there were no droughts before we started messing with the climate!!

        1. Now that we’ve determined that climate change is actually being caused by Allah in service of advancing the global caliphate in His name, will POTUS begin lightening up on the AGW rhetoric?

        2. Nope. That Sahara desert, that was because ANCIENT ALIENS!

      2. A four year drought? In a desert?

        I am guessing if I look up those ‘scientists’ they won’t be who are supposed to think they are.

        1. yep. Professional warmistas.

      3. Actually sounds fairly reasonable. The Abstract:

        “There is evidence that the 2007?2010 drought contributed to the conflict in Syria. It was the worst drought in the instrumental record, causing widespread crop failure and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. Century-long observed trends in precipitation, temperature, and sea-level pressure, supported by climate model results, strongly suggest that anthropogenic forcing has increased the probability of severe and persistent droughts in this region, and made the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007?2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.”

        1. The lead author, in addition to studying planetary science studies sociology and environmental science.

          I ask you, is there less than a 100% chance that any study he does is going to conclude anything other than ‘global warming’?

        2. Check this SoCon idiot out:

          Possible Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson suggested over the weekend that religion was necessary for testing scientific theories because the science could be “propaganda.”

          On Sunday, NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Carson, a former neurosurgeon, how science could coexist with his conservative Christian principles.

          “A person’s religious beliefs are the things that make them who they are, gives them a direction in their life,” Carson opined. “But I do not believe that religious beliefs should dictate one’s public policies and stances.”

          “I find, a very good measure of correlation between my religious beliefs and my scientific beliefs ? people say, how can you be a scientist, how can you be a surgeon if you don’t believe in certain things?” he continued. “Maybe those things aren’t scientific. Maybe it’s just propaganda.”

          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201…..ropaganda/

        3. 1. One must presume that Global Climate change is happening.

          2. If one presumes GC is happening, one must prove that this drought is directly caused by GCC.

          3. Once proved, it’s a pretty tenuous connection to a civil war in a region that has never really been very peaceful, is chock-full of Socialism and brutal dictators, and a pack of medieval-thinking folks that think that death and martyrdom are a pathway to paradise.

          Even if you could prove all those things in one study, it requires some pretty monumental eye-averting from all the other factors to say that GCC makes any meaningful difference.

          Plus, there’s the whole idea that if it weren’t for this darned climate change, then the brutal dictators of the world could carry on, unmolested by pesky uprisings.

          1. That all seems addressed in the abstract.

            1. The uprising in Syria has been going on for generations. It is tribal warfare, that is all.

              I remember seeing studies that assured us that Katrina was caused by global warming and that we should expect several hurricanes of that magnitude every year.

              1. Do you think it’s that far fetched to suggest that an especially bad drought could be the spark that tips the usual tensions into a full out civil war?

                1. I mean, I haven’t read the article, and I don’t know of the authors, so I can’t speak to the ultimate accuracy of the former or the reliability of the latter.

                  But the abstract seems to be saying “Due to a record drought that observed trends and models suggest was more likely because of global warming tensions were fanned into the flames of the current civil war.”

                  None of that sounds obviously crazy.

                2. Do you think it’s that far fetched to suggest that an especially bad drought could be the spark that tips the usual tensions into a full out civil war?

                  No.

                  What I think is far fetched is that Global Climate Change had any kind of measurable affect on this particular civil war.

                  Again, if this study can tell us that– I’m making up numbers here– Global Climate change is 11.674% responsible for this conflict, then someone also tell me through the same scientific rigor that X or Y policy from the Assad regime was 32.875% and 19.457% responsible for the conflict.

                  I don’t believe there’s any real scientific way of saying that X policy is 32.875% responsible for the conflict. So I don’t believe that this study can really tell us what it claims. I think it’s another case of people pushing numbers around on a spreadsheet.

                  1. Plus, war is at its lowest point in the entirety of human history. If their argument is ‘climate change causes war,’ which they actually say in the Hill article, then why has there been such a decline in warfare over the period in question?

                    Furthermore, how do we know there aren’t wars that would have occurred without climate change but didn’t occur because the changed climate eliminated certain stressors that would have led to conflict?

                    This argument is clearly ludicrous since it relies on the ability to peer into alternate universes in order to determine at what climate warfare is most frequent vs. least frequent.

                  2. Right. Round it off to 33.

                3. It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that the drought contributed to the civill war. The authors have noted population movement and famine, both of which tend to rile up the populace. The problem comes when they try to tie the drought in to climate change. There, they have no direct evidence, no clear line of causality, The best they can do is a vague reference to climate models (and I really hope they nail down the specifics in the body of the paper). These are the same models used to predict AGW in the first place, so the authors are essentially rehashing the contents of the IPCC report to add a sexy spin to their more pedestrian finding “Syrian drought contributes to unrest”. If you think the models are reliable (I don’t) or that the IPCC report is definitive (No one with half a brain does) then this is a convincing argument. But there is no new evidence here, either for climate change more generally, or for its contribution to the Syrian civil war.

            2. the occurrence of a 3-year drought as severe as that of 2007?2010 2 to 3 times more likely than by natural variability alone. We conclude that human influences on the climate system are implicated in the current Syrian conflict.”

              This seems particularly telling, and makes me particularly suspect.

              Climate models, variation, this drought stronger than normal drought, therefore, climate change implicated in the uprising of an oppressed people against their dictator.

              I’m sure the actual study text goes into much greater detail, but jeebus, the abstract alone screams bullshit.

    2. And next year they will be telling us that this year was the hottest on record.

      1. I think we’ve proved that this year was the dumbest on record.

    3. I think we’ve broken every record since the beginning of record keeping here in Balmer, for cold this winter.

      The first 3 years that I was here, the last frost was in the first week of March. I know this because I’m a fairly fanatical gardener and I pay attention to when I can put plants outside and start seeds.

      I just went outside to get something from my car. It looks like the new ice age is beginning.

      Global warming is a myth. We’re in a serious cooling period reminiscent of the mid 70s.

      Maybe they should take a chance on going back to the new ice age theory?

      1. With all due respect, this seems like a major case of conclusion via anecdote.

        1. Contrarian much?

          1. Yeah, I should just concede to you that global warming is a myth because you’ve found it to be cold in your gardening hobby.

            Arrogant much?

          2. Then it’ll start to look like the butter/margarine saga.

        2. True. But every surface temperature set is essentially trying to make data the plural of anecdote.

          1. Mother Nature is just doing to climate researchers what she always does to those who believe they have fully modeled a complex system. She is blowing a big wet raspberry in their direction and making obscene gestures with her hands.

    1. The guy is completely off of the chain and the republicans are shooting their pants over their upcoming chance to use all that power.

    2. Damn it. I clicked on your link even though I saw that it was that stupid-ass Townhall site and of course there is no mention of a tax hike from Obama but instead the press secretary said that they still wanted to close crony-capitalist tax subsidies.

      I should have known better than to read a wingnut site.

      1. “The president certainly has not indicated any reticence in using his executive authority to try and advance an agenda that benefits middle class Americans,” Earnest said in response to a question about Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) calling on Obama to raise more than $100 billion in taxes through IRS executive action. […] In the past, IRS lawyers have been hesitant to use executive actions to raise significant amounts of revenue […]

        1. That’s a lot of ….,

          1. He is gping to do it. You watch.

        2. So it was Sanders who said it?

          I thought so. Wingnut sites often engage in false headlines.

          1. No you illiterate retard. Josh earnest said it in respnse to Bernie Sanders

            1. It’s pretty hard to tell from that excerpt who is saying what to who with all the ….going on.

              1. No its not.

                1. Not only does the excerpt not have Sander’s actual question, but the paraphrase itself is riddled with ellipsis John.

                  I would never put it past Obama to raise a tax, but I can’t conclude that here from this excerpt.

      2. Hey, dickweed, where’s those emails you were supposed to be looking for?

        Oh, yeah, the found them right were we said they would be, on the fucking backup tapes.

        Fake scandal, lol.

    3. Why do we bother electing a congress anymore? Think of all the money we could save by just going full fascist.

      1. Full retard fascist.

  15. Is that Pete Townshend?

  16. I see Bibi the Rat is still trying to goad war-loving Republicans into a ground war with Iran.

    This won’t end well for him.

    1. You don’t have to ‘goad’ most Republicans into ground wars.

    2. THere’s a Chrome Extension called “herp derp”. It transforms all idiotic Youtube comments (which means all Youtube comments) into “herp derp herp derp herp derp”

      We need a Reasonable option that does that to Shrike’s posts.

    3. If only we had a peace-loving Democrat as President, like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton!

      1. I certainly agree that awarding the Nobel peace prize to Obama was a farce but don’t you agree that a POTUS can be a mild hawk while others are full-blown war mongers (McCain/Cheney)?

        1. He’s shillin for Hillary.

          He’s cuckoo for Hillary.

          He’s shillin for Hillary.

          Lick those cankles, Buttpig, lick em!

          1. Good grief, it’s not necessarily shilling for Hillary Clinton to note that McCain and Cheney seemed far more enamored with war than Obama.

            1. It’s because he’s already proclaimed his support for Hillary, after he swore that he’d never support here.

              Learn to know what you are talking about, before you make yourself look silly, Bo.

              ButtPig has been posting pro-Hillary links here for moths now.

              1. Quit lying. It is the last refuge of a loser.

                1. What does that make you if its your first refuge?

                2. Your pro-Hillary shilling posts are right here to be seen for everyone, Buttface. You can’t erase them. And you’ll heat up with your cankle licking once the race heats up. No use denying it, you love Hillary.

              2. Iirc he’s denounced Hillary at least a few times Hyperion.

                Again, I’m not making a point based on his posting past, which is why I said ‘ it’s not necessarily shilling.’

                As a fairly dedicated non-interventionist I can still see degrees in relative interventions.

                1. In the past he denounced Hillary, yes, that’s because he prefers Captain Murderdrone. He’s doubted Hillary’s crony credentials, but he still loves her war mongering. And he’s starting to come around that she’ll be a much better crony than most of the GOP. If you can’t use Google and read, that’s your problem.

                  1. I’m certainly not going to use my time googling his Reason comments.

                    When he supports Hillary I’ll be glad to criticize that.

                  2. I don’t know if I’ve seen Shrike really shilling for Hillary. Isn’t that more Tony’s game? Tony’s all in for Hillary and tends to chafe when you point out that Hillary supported all the wars Tony believes to be evil.

                    Apparently the Iraq War is so evil that it forever taints George W. Bush, but has no impact on Tony’s opinion of Hillary, despite her longstanding support of that war.

                    1. Hyperion is lying. I have NEVER ONCE supported Hil-Dog. And I repeatedly use the same phrase in derision of her.

                      I hated her for supporting the Iraq War and the PATRIOT Act. She is an honorary Bushpig as far as I am concerned.

                      Hyperion needs to lie because he cannot win a debate with me. I routinely squash him like a bug.

        2. The “mild hawk” managed to facilitate the emergence of the most unsavory groups possible from Libya to the Iran/Iraq border.

          He should receive a Nobel Prize for Architecture since he is proving himself to be the architect of the new caliphate.

          1. Don’t worry, we’re only going to give weapons to the truly moderate Islamofascists this time.

          2. Absurd comment. It was Saddam Hussein that was the primary impediment to the Caliphate.

            Who took him out? For $2 trillion?

            1. A different idiot than the one who took out Khaddafi? ISIS is on the rise in Libya now too.

              1. Yeah, but it didn’t cost us $2 trillion -drained into a shithole.

                And Syria – don’t forget them!

                1. How could we forget the current POTUS wanting to arm the very people working at establishing that caliphate! Him and McInsane both wanted to give our money and weapons to ISIS. Clearly some deep strategery there that is beyond the ken of us plebes.

                  And yeah, the current POTUS didn’t spend $2 trillion fucking up Libya. At least Bushitler’s $2 trillion investment managed to hold the forces of the Caliphate back for a decade. It’s almost like he knew that if you topple the decades long tyrant running a country without having some plan in place to vet the next person taking over, you will likely end up with something worse than the original enemy.

                  1. “At least Bushitler’s $2 trillion investment managed to hold the forces of the Caliphate back for a decade. ”

                    HAHAHAhaha!

                    Whew, good one.

                    1. Whew, good one.

                      You might have missed the point Bo. The point is that if you’re going to overthrow a tyrant whose been running a country for three decades, you sure as shit better have some plan for keeping order there in the aftermath. And the ability to project power to back that plan, lest something even worse grab the power in the vacuum. I obviously don’t believe that invading Iraq was prudent, but if you’re gonna take out the boss, you gotta have an idea of who you can install in the transition.

                      The point is that the current empty suit didn’t even have the foresight to think that far ahead. He toppled a guy who was willing to play ball on WMDs (and thereby completely fucked any future efforts towards non-proliferation), failed to put forth the kinda commitments necessary to handle the fallout of that dictator, and thereby pretty much handed North Africa to the most clownish group of brutes I’ve ever seen on the world stage.

                    2. “The point is that if you’re going to overthrow a tyrant whose been running a country for three decades, you sure as shit better have some plan for keeping order there in the aftermath.”

                      Not convinced. First of all, the Libyan and Iraqi people have agency, if we eliminated a known dictator then it’s up to them to make their sudden freedom from that oppression work, or not. Second, we spent all this blood and treasure in Iraq and essentially got the same insurgent infested ethnic sectarian kill fest as we got in Iraq, so the net difference in costs seems more appalling to me for Iraq.

                      If you want to say Obama bungled in Libya that’s one thing, but pointing to the more massive, expensive blinder in Iraq doesn’t help.

                    3. the Libyan and Iraqi people have agency

                      They had agency for the 30 years that they were lorded over by dictators too. And they didn’t manage to stop them. You think they’ll have better luck with a group of zealouts swelling in ranks as it draws on the disaffected worldwide? Fat chance. Its one thing to have agency. Its another to have the combination of power and will. The U.S. had the power. It lacks the will for such grand projects.

                      The thing about the $2 trillion war in Iraq is that if you have the sustained will, you can fight these gnats off before they grow into pterodactyls. We did that for a decade in Iraq. Had we continued pouring money into it for another decade, I’m sure ISIS wouldn’t be a thing, at least not in Iraq. These groups require a power vacuum to incubate and grow. Its their own personal petri dish. Where we have a presence and are the strong horse, they will atrophy.

                      Rule 1: Don’t go around the world toppling bad men.

                      Rule 2: If you break rule 1, you will get worse men in charge if you fail to project power.

                      The Bush Administration got rule 2. They stayed, persistent fucks they are, as long as they could. Their problem? They fucked up a country that would require such a long term hold strategy that it would never work. Americans haven’t the attention span for such imperial projects.

                    4. He toppled a guy who was willing to play ball on WMDs (and thereby completely fucked any future efforts towards non-proliferation)

                      Clinton helped with that, too: the 1994 agreement in which Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for… well, not much, as it turns out.

            2. Who took him out?

              I know, I know! A President and a bipartisan Congress and various allied countries. Right?

              1. A bipartisan Congress? Most Dems in the House voted no.

                And the ‘various allied countries’ is laughable. ‘Coalition of the willing,’ right?

                1. I’ll agree with the mockery of the coalition of the willing. Actual troops from countries other than US/UK was pretty minimal.

                  In fact, I think it’s been shown that Western Europe has actually sent more fighters to ISIS than to Iraq/Afghanistan. In fact, the number of French citizens believed to have joined ISIS makes it a greater deployment than the French govt has undertaken since Algeria.

                  1. “In fact, I think it’s been shown that Western Europe has actually sent more fighters to ISIS than to Iraq/Afghanistan. In fact, the number of French citizens believed to have joined ISIS makes it a greater deployment than the French govt has undertaken since Algeria.”

                    Wow, that’s quite interesting. Hadn’t heard that or thought of it that way.

                  2. I’d be curious to see a source for that. Per wikipedia, there are about 900 fighters from France in ISIS, and about 3,000-5,000 total from Western Europe. The French (again according to Wiki) had at least 4,000 soldiers in Afghanistan at one point. I know the British had tens of thousands in both countries, so that stat sounds like bullshit.

    4. He is bitch slapping Obumbles again, really hard this time. C’mon, admit it, that is what you are really upset about.

      How many times must your man-crush be bitch slapped around by foreign leaders before your crush begins to fade?

      Come to think of it, that might be one reason you love him so.

      1. Bibi is a pussy who wants the US to do his dirty work and he campaigns on FEAR! just like the Bushpigs did in 2004.

        I hope he loses his election next month. It is close as of the last poll I saw.

        1. Bibi is a fucking war hero dickhead. Nothong like a bbrave community organizer. God you are fucking pathetic

          1. Why is he begging the community organizer for protection?

            1. I don’t think that is what he is doing. He is forcing Obumbles hand so as to not to let the Iranians have a nuke.

              Even if he was, he represents a civilized nation the size of a wal-mart parking lot in a sea of savagery. Obumbles represents the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, and ostensibly their ally. In what way would asking for help be shameful?

              You just get worse all the time shreek. You really are a loathsome piece of shit.

              1. It’s silly to slander his personal courage for the reason John notes. And there’s no shame in his making his case to an ally or the world.

                Having said that, the entire thing was a disaster. Boehner invited him as a ‘get back’ at Obama’s high handed announcement of his immigration executive action. Bibi should not have taken that kind of bait, because Israel’s interests are better served when it has the usual bipartisan support it enjoys. Likewise, our national legislature shouldn’t give a special platform to one of the parties standing for election in one of our closest allies.

              2. So you admit defeat again.

                Bibi the Rat is running around all petulant because he is in a tight reelection and he needs the rubes sitting on the fence back home to believe they are under a threat from Iran.

                ORANGE TERRER ALERT! Straight from the Karl Rove “keep em’ scared” playbook.

                1. Really?

                  1. Really?

                    My comment was for Suthenboy.

                    1. Palin’s Buttplug|3.2.15 @ 8:57PM|#
                      “My comment was for Suthenboy.”

                      Your comment was beyond laughable, turd.

  17. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Conservatives are fucking idiots.

    So Norway apparently deported a bunch of people towards the end of last year. A conservative news site then ran the following headline:

    Norway Just Deported 824 Muslims, Every American Needs To See What Happened Next

    Violent Crime Dropped By 30%

    Problem: They don’t link to any source for this claim. They literally just say it and provide no evidence whatsoever.

    I also have a question. This deportation of 824 Muslims occurred in October. It therefore hasn’t even been a full year yet! I seriously doubt Norway has even collected criminal statistics for the first quarter of this year, so there’s no way any statistic even exists that could prove a 30% drop in crime.

    Plus, crime rates vary based on time of year. Therefore, you would have to wait until next October in order to compare like to like, and even then there are too many variables to determine that any change was caused by deportation.

    At present, this pile of steaming horseshit has been shared 238,500 times.

    1. John was advocating that the US round up and deport all our Muslims here last Friday. And he says he loves the Constitution – that idiot.

      1. Let’s wait to deport them until they take care of Twitter. Taking out Facebook gets them a 6 month bonus.

      2. You would never do that because you will be on their side you fascist retard.

        1. Yes, I won’t support rounding up and deporting Muslims so I am the fascist while you support actual fascist policies.

    2. I see no author’s name on that. Did I miss it? Or is this like some of the stupidity the NYT puts in editorials with no name on it?

      That site is worse than awful.

      1. Don’t read the comments, lest you lose what little faith you have left in humanity.

        1. They are literally the worst things I’ve ever seen. I am hardly a sympathist for Islam, but Jesus Christ:

          COME ON AMERICA GET WITH THE PROGRAM. IF NORWAY CAN DO IT WHAT THE HELL IS THE PROBLEM HERE. SEND THE CRAZY IDIOTS BACK WHERE THEY CAME FROM

          obama wants them here so he can call “martial law” with his military, “ISIS” against us…. want proof??? he is selling our “drones” and who is buying them??? Isis….. he is making “AR-15” Illegal to buy??/ why? it is almost as accurate as the “ak47” of his Muslim brotherhood… fuck obama

          This guy thinks Obama is selling drones to ISIS. As a card-carrying Obama hater, I find this unlikely.

          1. So…how can I be sure you hate Obama, then, if you won’t believe any negative thing some random person says about him?

          2. Obama has authorized over 2000 air strikes on ISIS. That commenter is John-level deranged.

            1. Did Captain Murderdrone kill only the bad Islamofascists, or some of the good ones too?

          3. They are literally the worst things I’ve ever seen. I am hardly a sympathist for Islam, but Jesus Christ:

            I thought Jihad Watch was the gold standard for Islamohate but those two examples are pretty high-quality.

          4. Clearly that guy has no experience with military rifles.

            The ARs have gotten very very accurate, unfortunately at the expense of some effectiveness. The AKs..it is hard to hit the side of a barn with one of those things.

            1. The AKs..it is hard to hit the side of a barn with one of those things.

              Uh-huh.

              You must work in a gun shop.

    3. Irish, there seems to be a game of “web telephone” going on here with people not linking to sources. Here’s the oldest and most direct source for part of this claim. The deportations went on all last year. The article does mention a falling crime rate, but doesn’t give a figure. I’ve searched for a source for the “30%” (sometimes “31%”), but haven’t found anything.

      1. I know for a fact the deportations happened, but I know of no source claiming a 30% drop in violent crime other than one conservative clickbait site that doesn’t link to any supporting evidence.

        Furthermore, even if there happened to be a violent crime drop, that proves nothing because it could be temporary. You see drops and spikes in violent crime all the time but they usually don’t last. Therefore, a few months is not a long enough period of time to accurately say if crime has legitimately dropped or if you’re just in the midst of an abnormally low period.

        1. And even if the claim ends up being true, the people linking to that site and taking it as gospel are STILL wrong for doing so. When a site makes a claim that wild and provides no source, it’s idiotic to assume their claims are accurate.

          1. Irish|3.2.15 @ 8:58PM|#
            …”When a site makes a claim that wild and provides no source, it’s idiotic to assume their claims are accurate.”…

            Truthers, conspiracy nuts.

        2. True, it’s sloppy reporting. However, the causal link between rape in Scandinavia and Muslim immigration is quite solidly established. I don’t know about Muslim immigration regarding other forms of violent crime there.

          1. True, it’s sloppy reporting. However, the causal link between rape in Scandinavia and Muslim immigration is quite solidly established. I don’t know about Muslim immigration regarding other forms of violent crime there.

            Okay, I agree there is a correlation between Islamic immigration and crime rates, the problem is that they only deported 824 people.

            Do you really think those 824 people were personally responsible for 1/3rd of all crimes committed in Norway? It strikes me as a bit unlikely.

            1. They only deported 824 people in October, a “new record” for a month. The previous month was 763. For the year to date, it was 5,876. So while it is silly to assume 824 = 30% drop in crime, deporting 5,876 people in 10 months from a Scandinavian country of only 5 million…?

              Hmmm….

              Maybe, especially if 1) there were a lot of criminals among those 5,876 people, and 2) other potential criminals who were not deported but are deportable noticed all this happening and decided to not commit crimes. #2 could multiply the effect of #1.

            2. Reported rapes have dropped, however reported murders of women have gone through the roof.

  18. Here is a list of things the GOP will once again not have the balls to do when they take full power again:

    1- close the border
    2- deport all the “wets and Muzzies”
    3- cut entitlements
    4- end abortion/morning after pill
    5- enact a flat tax

    Feel free to add to the list.

    1. Turd:
      “BOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!”
      Fuck off.

  19. So it looks like the honeymoon may be over for Scott Walker.

    Essentially, says Weinstein, he’s playing semantic games with the definition of “amnesty,” which isn’t the first time Walker’s done that. In November 2013, after the Wisconsin interview on immigration excerpted here by Chris Wallace started raising eyebrows on righty blogs, Walker told Breitbart News that he most certainly was not for “amnesty.” If you watch that Wisconsin interview, though, you’ll see that his idea for solving illegal immigration had less to do with tightening the border than with loosening it. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that,” he said at the time, but “to me, I don’t know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.” Not even John McCain and Lindsey Graham go so far as to define “border security” as easier admittance.

    Lotsa quality anti-mexi-derp in the comments.

    1. Actually, he is…not wrong there. Our immigration policies are insane. He is just saying the same thing everyone else says, we need to fix our policies.

      Unfortunately every ‘fix’ makes them more byzantine and schizophrenic.

      1. As long as the desired result of every piece of legislation is more graft and cronyism, that’s the guaranteed outcome.

      2. Actually, he is…not wrong there

        Walker is actually not completely awful on the issue, which is why, if he continues to build momentum, I expect a concerted push from the border-boner crowd to get him to change.

    2. I’m not sure how Walker can be faulted on this one. It’s standard talk that our legal immigration system is a mess.

  20. I see the Botard showed up for more abuse. And made more strawman arguments. It’s old, Bo – go back to your college debate team. You’ll fare better there.

    1. Pathetic.

      1. Face it Bo. You won’t be accepted here until you genuflect unto the GOP regularly.

        1. Bo’s at least a real person, unlike you, sock puppet. Don’t you have some cankles to lick now that you failed to find the emails exactly where we told you to look?

      2. Not really, Bo. If I say that the moon is made of green cheese, then you will argue that it’s made of blue yogart instead.

        What do you think about Bigfoot? Do you think it’s likely that a very large bipedal primate has been running around all over North American and we’ve never found even some bones, let alone a body?

        Come one, I know you can do this..

        1. I think I disagreed with you once here Hyperion.

          1. Twice tonight, but most usually, only once, well every time.

            1. Not only that, but recently you are starting to agree with everything that Shreek says.

              Don’t you even know that Shreek is a sock puppet and not even a real person?

              A lot of people here think that he’s a former Reason writer. I don’t know, but his shilling for everything Obama is so over the top that there isn’t even any doubt about it.

              1. I disagree with him a lot. Heck even when I think he’s got a point it doesn’t take long for his strange hyperbole to make me say ‘really?’

        2. ” I was just pokin’ it with a stick!”

          Sometimes when you poke a dead body with a stick it bursts and releases all of its gases explosively blowing putrid shit all over everything. Please don’t poke ’em with a stick.

  21. I’m catching up no the day’s HyR and holy shit, Ken Shultz is either a master troll or a retard. At one point John has to explain that there aren’t special laws for people who used to be in the military.

    1. I don’t get Ken. He is not a troll. He is not a troll like Tony or a congenital moron like shreek. But My God is he dense sometimes.

      1. It’s an article of faith with me that every libertarian has at least one issue on which they are sorta nuts. Maybe you found Ken’s.

        1. He actually wasn’t nuts. He just totally missed my point.

          1. Which is really common for Ken.

        2. What’s you nuts issue?

          1. I can’t be sure, because of course I think my positions are all rational, but I get a bit weird on surveillance state stuff. Lots of DOOM.

            1. That is what your dossier says.

          2. I remember when fluffy went nuts over how Trayvon Martin had a right to attack George Zimmerman because he asked him why he was there.

            1. One time I got way angrier than was rational because Cytotoxic wouldn’t stop saying ‘we’ when talking about American politics even though that son of a bitch is Canadian!

              Was it necessarily ‘sane’ that I got pissed about that? No, but I don’t regret it.

              1. Cytoxic is never boring but is a real nut. It is one thing to be radical open borders or be a hawk on the war on terror. But to be both at the same time like he is and over the top extreme about both is a bit crazy.

                1. I still haven’t gotten Cytotoxic to give me a viable explanation for his opinions on the War on Terror and immigration. I’ve never met anyone who was that much of a Terror Warrior while simultaneously wanting limitless immigration.

                  1. Short clip of Cytotoxic.

                  2. I don’t think Cytotoxic is a troll, but he’s absolutely hilarious if you assume that he is.

                2. Yeah, it’s one thing to hold two contradictory positions, but another to scream abuse at anyone who disagrees with you on one of them, even if they agree with you on the other.

      2. I imagine life is hard when you have to express simple statements in the form of a question and answer.

    2. I’m catching up no the day’s HyR and holy shit, Ken Shultz is either a master troll or a retard.

      Retard.

      He doesn’t think shit through before he posts. When people call him on it he doubles down. Then he gets abusive. Even if you agree with his overall point, but disagree with his argument path.

      Think of an entirely reasonable position and then think of the most irrational and obtuse way of presenting and defending it and you’ll sorta understand Ken.

      Michael Hihn is Ken in 20 years.

  22. The FBI, investigating the FBI, finds the FBI’s actions justified.

    I am shocked. Just shocked.

  23. The thing about the tax threat is that if Obama tries to raise taxes, the victims of that will have standing to sue. So the courts would strike down anything he tried that was illegal. I find it difficult to believe that the IRS has enough discretion under the tax code to raise very much money that hasn’t already been raised.

    Obama is most certainly an idiot and might try it. But I can’t see it amounting to much other than further damaging the Democratic Party.

  24. Wow his nose is crooked, I woulda shot him too!

    http://www.AnonStuff.tk

    1. UH, OH!
      Anonbot is RTFA?

      1. I think a couple of the anonbots are regulars having a laugh.

  25. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  26. Since 1993 the FBI has shot at least 150 people, 70 fatally, ruling every shooting justified.

    So, a nationwide law enforcement agency has shot 7.5 people annually for twenty years–3.5 fatally, yes? And we are to take this as an indictment of the agency? When many local law enforcement agencies routinely have an annual bodycount bigger than this in a jurisdiction far tinier?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.