REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Am I the only One?

POSTED BY: CHEWIE
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 16:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6671
PAGE 2 of 3

Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:35 PM

OLDENGLANDDRY


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Geneva Conventions are treaties signed by reciprocating nations. Al Qaida & other maniac Islamic Terrorist murderers are not any nation and have never signed any civilized treaty about prisoner treatment.

Our soldiers and civilians have been kidnapped, tortured ( real torture, not US type coersion), been beheaded, been tied up to bridges and set ablaze, etc etc. The vile enemy uses women and children to kill other women and children.

These animals have no rights, they are not civilized men, just murderers and promulgators of madness and insanity.

We should do whatever is ever necessary to defend and protect American citizens.




My case rests your honour.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 1, 2006 4:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

We should do whatever is ever necessary to defend and protect American citizens.
Okay... so: what is necessary?

Writing a law that allows arbitrary detention of anyone, even tho current laws and procedures are sufficient?

Spying on US citizens en masse- tracking phone calls, financial transactions etc of average citizens w/o reason and therefore w/o warrants- even tho all that does is generate an impossibly large haystack in which to find few needles?

Torture people for information, even though all that generates is a lot of false leads?

Breaking the Federal budget by invading a nation that had NOTHING to do with the attacks on America?
=====================

I "get" that you're scared and angry. I'm even with you on the "whatever is necessary" tack. But we have very different definitions of "necessary". Put on your thinking cap and pretend you're President of the USA with 16 Intelligence Agencies, the military, the National Guard, Immigration/ Border Patrol, Transportation, and some international intelligence at your disposal. You know there are some people- maybe as many as 20,000- who want to attack the USA and kill USA citizens. You know that most of them are in the Middle East. Now think: If YOU were to fight terrorists, how would YOU go about it?



---------------------------------
I always thought people got smarter as they got older.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 1, 2006 5:58 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



Thank you Jongsstraw-man for your contribution, but nobody has voiced concern about torturing terrorists for the sake of the terrorists.

The major concern was that there is no oversight, no accountability over who decides who is a terrorist..there is no way we can be sure they aren't torturing innocent people. That should bother you.

The other major concern is that by allowing torture(or whatever the hell the wack jobs on the right want to call it) we are telling the world that these methods are within a reasonable limit if they wish to do the same thing to American troops. We are saying trial by jury is not a better way, nor is treating human beings with dignity and some sort of humanity. Go ahead, say that we only do it to terrorists. The rest of the world does not believe it, and quite frankly, they could say the same thing if they chose to.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 1, 2006 8:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

rue wrote:
Friday, September 29, 2006 14:50

AUraptor, I recall he was a fervent Bush supporter even before 9/11. Unfortunately the archives don't go back far enough.



Darn right they don't go back that far. That would be before this site even existed!!! So, exactly how do you 'recall' that I was a fervent Bush supporter before 9/11 ?


Because it came up for discussion (obviously after the fact) and that is what you said. Are you telling me you DIDN'T think Bush's response to the spy-plane incident was OK? I just want to be clear about this, and the answer I'm looking for is very simple - either yes or no.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 1, 2006 9:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Anyway, I don't believe a large number of Bush supporters are driven by fear. Though I do think a large number of the quiet people who go along with the administration are driven by fear of the administration and its supporters.

I was waiting for people to post in the 'I support Bush because' thread ..., but it seems like it requires a level of honesty that's beyond most. Most Bushites seem to be too - ashamed? - to come out and even say that they do support him, let alone explain the driving reason why.

Laziness, fear, and greed have been proposed for why people support this. If I missed some proposals, I apologize. I think a good case could be made for all of them.

But it occurred to me that it could be more personal and less definable than one simple word. For example, let's take a hypothetical southern white male 50 - 60 years old. His formative years were spent in the comfort and security of US-style apartheid - segregation. It promised him there would always be a place for him, no matter how low, among the ruling - not the ruled. Among the assumptions that come with that life are that there are rulers and ruled (masters and slaves), owners and workers, and that as a white male he would always have guaranteed status. Being able to make that assumption is a type of security with roots in laziness, greed, and fear. And that's why each of those can reasonably explain his responses.

It's understandable, I think, that people seek the form of security they know. So for that hypothetical white male, no rule is beyond consideration as long as it doesn't violate the basic positive assocciations from childhood. That person would be expected to support capitalism, hierarchies, and rule by white males.

And so, while you can perhaps group supporters with similar characteristics, it may not be possible to come up with a one word cause for everyone.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 1, 2006 2:10 PM

CHRISISALL


Fear is the mind-killer.

Support torture, you all of the dead mind.
The rest of us have evolved beyond that, right Rue?

Chrisisall, sick of the nonsense, tired of the reverse-righteousness

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 1, 2006 3:21 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Saturday, September 30, 2006 03:29

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
No, that's not at all what the Nazi's said.

Yes it is. Perhaps you should start reading history rather than rewriting it.

Quote:
The Nazi's used the Jews as scapegoats for all the problems following post WW1 Germany. Fact is, WW1 is what caused Germany's problems, not the Jews. And the Islamic terrorist really ARE trying to kill us. They've repeatedly said so. They've murdered Theo Van Gogh, they decapitated Christian school girls in Malaysia, they raped, shot and blew up over 200 children in Beslan, Russsia, sawed the heads off of over a dozen international workers in Iraq, blew up trains in London and Madrid, murdered 3,000 people in NY, D.C. and Pennsylvania......

For you or anyone to compare the Nazi's propaganda concerning Jews in the 1930's to the very REAL events going on today is to show a level of denial and ignorance unparalleled in human history.

It really does stagger my mind that so many don't see this for what it is. If I tried to figure your mindset on this, I'd go crazy.

I can pick any group that has done things on a par with what you just posted. So who do you want me to malign as the new danger to world freedom? Americans, Britons, Christians, Jews, Postal Workers, Communists, Capitalists, Mothers, Fathers, Candlestick makers? Just say the word and I'll give you a new scapegoat for all the worlds ills.

There's certainly a level of denial and ignorance going on around here, I think some people are confusing where it's coming from...



Citizen - It's clear from your post that you have the mental capacity of a child. I stated that the Nazis didn't in any way say what you claim they did. They didn't. Not only did you FAIL to back up your claim, your retort was nothing less than that of a child's " Is too! ".


Then you ignore the facts of my post as you ignore what is going on in the world. The fact of the matter is NO group around the world is more wicked, more violent, more heartless and more obsessed w/ killing their fellow man than Muslims. Even when it comes ot killing other Muslims, they don't care. That simple yet hard, cold fact is what you refuse to accept. I don't apologisze for seeing this, you run from it. You want to ignore the facts and grant cover for your appeasement by calling me names ( racist, nazi, bigot, etc... ) when you can't even back up your claims. I of course am none of those names which you assault me with, as those who know me would confirm. I simply don't like folks who saw heads off those who won't pray as they pray. You seem to think that's just fine and dandy. Goodonya, mate. If ever the situation comes that you'd need saving from the blood thisty Islamic zealots, and I'm in a position to help.......

Yeah, right. Enjoy your prayer rug, buddy.


Quote:

Because it came up for discussion (obviously after the fact) and that is what you said. Are you telling me you DIDN'T think Bush's response to the spy-plane incident was OK? I just want to be clear about this, and the answer I'm looking for is very simple - either yes or no.


rue- It's obviously NOT what I said, despite your specious claim, or else you'd be able to offer a quote. You can't because there is no quote, for the reasons I stated. Grow a spine and for once admit you're full of shit. Don't try to spin what you said into some irrelevent nonsense about the spy plane incident. That wasn't the basis of your claims, and you know it. I don't even recall even commenting on that here, so I'm sure as hell YOU don't recall what I said either. I supported Bush's tax cuts ( which were prior to 9/11 ) and commend him for his effort to fix social security. However, your claim that I was a 'fervent' Bush supporter before 9/11 is with out merrit, and you should swollow your false pride and admit you were wrong.


People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 1, 2006 3:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Luckily there are people out there who aren't cowards, and are prepared to work to keep you safe.
Auraptor- The Founding Fathers managed to fight the British and create a new nation.... while their lives, homes, businesses and families were at stake. It wasn't even popular to be a rebel. And not only did they NOT resort to the kind of oppression that you long for they created a document with all of these wonderful guarantees of freedom. THEIR minds weren't enslaved by fear, they weren't looking for the ultimate safety blanket, THEY were focused on liberty. Would you give that away? Are you saying we can't manage half of what they did?


And BTW- You STILL haven't made the case that giving up habeas corpus (and a whole bunch of other rights) is even necessary in any sense. History shows us that the the FF and Lincoln won without the power of random detention. Unless you show us that it is necessary, I will count your opinion as shivering, naked fear of the bogeyman.

But remember, Auraptor- bullets can never kill a nightmare. No laws will ever make you feel safe. No matter what you sacrifice to your fear you will still be afraid. Because fear doesn't come from
the outside- it is within you.
---------------------------------
I faced the bogeymen and came out the other side. You can too.



First of all, you're responding to a quote I didn't make.

Second, I'm not giving Liberty away. You nor no one have shown where our liberties are being threatened. All I see is simply hyper overreactions by those who will stop at nothing to disparage the current administration for purely political reasons, while offering nothing remotely constructive in the manner of defeating Islamic terrorism. Build back the wall between the FBI and CIA ? For what purpose ?

Also, we aren't talking about 'random detention',of U.S. citizens and you know it. We're dealing w/ foreign nationals working outside any State affiliation, which would be covered by the Geneva Convention rules. As for the FF, they were all for killing such renegades, as seen in how we dealt w/ pirates early in this country's history. Find 'em and kill 'em. There was no hand wringing over what RIGHTS pirates had, they were to be killed, so they woulnd't pirate any more. Simple as that. Same rules should apply for Jihadist. Kill'em, and be done w/ it. But instead, we're capturing them and sending them down to a Cuban resort club. Oh well, at least we know where they are.

Your ridiculous assertion that this reaction toward Islamic terrorism is 'fear' based is simply a strawman argument. Real fear mongering comes from Global warming nuts who scream about a threat which will never materialize. Dealing w/ Islamic terrorism is at least being pragmatic, and and most being HUMAN. You know what it's like to be human, right? That tinge of empathy one feels when seeing thousands of starving children in Africa (again and again ) as the result of yet another politically driven genocide. Some speak for women's rights across the world, yet where it's 'culturally' accpeted for female circumcision, or honor killings of a young woman who either did or didn't resist enough as she was getting raped. This is the middle east, and africa, under Islam. ( Not strictly Islam, but in large part ) Pointing out Islam's wicked and violent side, TODAY, is nothing we should run from. On this matter, the Pope was 100% right.

There is no discussion on this matter. Not with anyone who is intellectually honest.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 1, 2006 8:52 PM

RIGHTEOUS9



Auraptor, we shouldn't have to prove to you that this isn't being abused, the administration should have to prove to us that it isn't. Can you prove based on FUCKING OVERSIGHT that they are not torturing innocent people? Can you prove it?

This is America and our government is damned well supposed to answer to its people. Tell me one good god damned reason why we would torture when it isn't reliable, and more, why we need secret prisons and can't know who they arrest?

And Fat fucking chance that they wouldn't let the public know if they cought real terrorists. They tell us every damned time they think they killed a #3 al quiada member or foiled a plot to hijack planes, but these people have to be kept a secret? WHY?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 12:24 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Righteous9:

Auraptor, we shouldn't have to prove to you that this isn't being abused, the administration should have to prove to us that it isn't. Can you prove based on FUCKING OVERSIGHT that they are not torturing innocent people? Can you prove it?

This is America and our government is damned well supposed to answer to its people. Tell me one good god damned reason why we would torture when it isn't reliable, and more, why we need secret prisons and can't know who they arrest?

And Fat fucking chance that they wouldn't let the public know if they cought real terrorists. They tell us every damned time they think they killed a #3 al quiada member or foiled a plot to hijack planes, but these people have to be kept a secret? WHY?



Sorry, but you have allowed you emotions to take over thinking for you and you have things entirely 180 degrees backwards. The burden of proof does not lie upon the Gov't ( or me) to prove they DON'T abuse their power, but for those making the ascertion that such power IS being abused in the first place.

I don't presume we DO torture in the 1st place. You do. But I'm 100% confident that if any such activity did go on, it was only those who had the most info to give up. That's what OUR Gov't is suppose to do, job one, protect its citizens. Not fret over the rights of terrorists.

Also, it does benefit, on occasion, the Gov't not telling us WHO they have, or where. Why ? Because Gov'ts tend to play games w/ each other and with terrorist groups. Ever read a Tom Clancy novel? The power of information, and keeping certain information from those who can use it best is a large part of the game. Keeping the TERRORIST in the dark as to who has their top men limits the things they can do. Do we know as much as they fear we know ? It's a shell game, and the US is doing a fairly good job at it. Or would be, were it not for the appeasers across the world who think we should play fair w/ the terrorists, while allowing THEM to break every law and rule of civilization.

And no, I don't blindly trust any Gov't. They seem to go out of their way to hide things which need not be hidden. But that's for another thread.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 12:53 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


God I hate topics like this, but they're like a train wreck and I tend to gravitate toward them. This bill has it's pros and cons (the cons being present soley in scope). Please read my whole post before you pass judgement on what I'm saying.

Pros: Enemy Combatants will finally be subject to treatment deserving of enemy combatants. With this bill, no longer will the US be beholden to a set of rules that only it was expected to follow. Extremests cut the heads off our soldiers and civilian contractors, blow them up with IED traps, execute them point-blank, on their knees and broadcast the video of the soldiers pointing and laughing at our fallen, cutting off our soldiers genitallia and shoving it down their throats after cutting out their hearts, yet the Geneva Conventions require us to coddle them, garuntee medical attention and garuntee them food and shelter, in some case better than what the soldiers gaurding them recieve. This bill will make sure that shit comes to an end.

Cons: (And in my opinion, this trumps all good that can come from this bill) The President or those in his control (i.e. CIA, DHS, etc) can lable anyone a terrorist and therefore can dub them as Enemy Combatants and do whatever they want to them. That is what is scary.

And to those that ask why people complain when the President does something to protect us, I say you are blind and part of the problem. You might be comfortable knowing that you will never be suspect and fall victom to this bill, hell I know I will never be directly affected by it. But if something like this passes and it's ignored by us, it won't be long before they pass a bill that will affect you, and by that time it will be too late. We're on a very slipery slope here people, and letting all these Civil Rights atrocities happen because it's making us 'safe' has got to stop. The 'Patriot' Act was the first big step in stripping us of our Freedoms. What's it going to take for people to see that?


And all this from a person that finds the constant Liberal rhetoric grating, nauseating and infuriating. You don't have to be a Liberal to be able to see what's right in front of you. To steal a term from my brother, the Republicrats have got us all believing in the lie that is the two party system. When the Democrats are Communist and the Republicans are Liberal (and on everything other than gay marriage, they pretty much are), it doesn't leave much for us to hang onto. We need a third party, and we need it fast. Maybe then the Government will once again be of the people, by the people and FOR the people, rather than looking out for their own interests.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 1:13 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


This scares the shit out of me. Anybody who has seen my posts might know why I'm afraid they will come and take me away in the middle of the night. I'm trying to figure out exactly which day it was that I woke up and I realized that I was more afraid of my own government than I was of any enemy overseas. I know it wasn't before I read 1984, but it wasn't right afterwards either... it took a little while for me to realize that the book was not science fiction and everything that happenened in that book is happening today, just not at such a dramatic level.. it's all behind the scenes... constantly pushing that envelope until one day we finally agree to let them put cameras or soldiers in our own homes to ensure our "safety".

Had I not read that book, I think there's a very good chance that I wouldn't be thinking any of these thoughts right now. This is no doubt why they don't care to teach it much at public school anymore.


Tread carefully with your words brother, especially now that you can see... There's no reason for both of us to take a trip to the Ministry of Love. You were a soldier and already in the good graces of Big Brother. He has nothing if he does not have the utmost destain for me, and those who think the way that I do.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:30 AM

RIGHTEOUS9



Auraptor, you just plain don't want to live in America, and you shouldn't have to. You could take your pick from any number of totalitarian regimes where the people of a country are not THE government, where the people answer to it and not the other way around. But I plead with you not to help to turn our great nation into one of those...

if all you have to offer is nationalism then you are not an American. You must fight for the things that make us different from those other countries, and if you don't, then I just plain don't see why its important whether your version of America stands or falls.

What is it about 'of the people, for the people, and by the people' that you don't understand? This has been our national identity. We are our governors and we need information to make good decisions about who we elect to represent our voice.

You say that you have faith that this administration only tortures those who they know are the terrorists. You base this on what? Their track record of accuracy and competence? Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. By his own admission, he was WRONG. Rumsfeld said the war would last no more than 6 months. How'd he do? Bush's people said they read the paper and learned that Katrina dodged a bullet...yeah and got hit by a tactical nuke. Bush said nobody in his administration was involved in the Valerie Plame leak. Bush failed to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora, outsourced the force meant to capture him...didn't surround him. The Bush administration has consistently failed to get armor to the troops. Bush said 'bring em on' and later had to say 'sorry.' Cheney continues to dishonestly link Iraq with 9/11 even while Bush tells the public when he's called on it, 'it has nothing to do with it'. Bush signs a bill to keep Terry Chiavo alive - autopsy reveals Terry chiavo has been brain dead for years, brain turned to mush. His appointment to the EPA was doctoring reports, taking out words and rewriting sentences to fabricate doubt about our role in global warming. The Taliban is back in Afganistan because we did a bang-up job there. Our intelligence agencies are no fly listing people like Ted Kennedy and Randi Rhodes - and don't tell me they actually think they are terrorists going to blow up a plane.

Those are cases where they are getting it wrong, aren't they?

I know what would be easier! What has the administration been right on. Not what you think they might be right on, but what they have proven to be right on, because there is not one thing they have ever done to make me trust their competence on something so in need of certainty.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:42 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Citizen - It's clear from your post that you have the mental capacity of a child. I stated that the Nazis didn't in any way say what you claim they did. They didn't. Not only did you FAIL to back up your claim, your retort was nothing less than that of a child's " Is too! ".

I have the mental capacity of a child for not backing up what I said (which you didn't do either) and yet I didn't resort to name calling. Really it's amazing how while trying to insult someone you nearly always prove that insult is more applicable to you. You want facts from me, but you've got none to bring yourself, that's just dishonest. Your post my dear boy is nothing more than the ravings of a disobedient child "Is not you stupid poo poo head!".

Now the more I converse with Americans the more I'm pushed to the opinion that you do not have history lessons at school, at least not lessons that teach history, if you did you'd know little things like the rhetoric the Nazi's used against the Jews and the Bolsheviks they are in league with. Perhaps you were to busy drawing penises on the pictures of historical figures to pay attention, who knows. I learnt that at GCSE level, obviously you did not. Since you require that lesson:

The Nazi's said the Jew was evil and in league with Bolsheviks to attack the nation of Germany, partly because they were jealous of the Aryan master race and wanted to eradicate it, and partly because they were, well evil. Evil is as evil does I guess.
Quote:

Joseph Goebbels (he was a Nazi ) From the Article "The Jews are Guilty!" printed in the Newspaper Das Reich (The Realm) on the 16 of November 1941.
Every Jew is our enemy in this historic struggle, regardless of whether he vegetates in a Polish ghetto or carries on his parasitic existence in Berlin or Hamburg or blows the trumpets of war in New York or Washington. All Jews by virtue of their birth and their race are part of an international conspiracy against National Socialist Germany.


There ya go, I've backed up what I said, your turn, or you know do you're usual thing of deflecting the argument you've already lost with a flame war you're already trying to start .
Quote:

Then you ignore the facts of my post as you ignore what is going on in the world. The fact of the matter is NO group around the world is more wicked, more violent, more heartless and more obsessed w/ killing their fellow man than Muslims. Even when it comes ot killing other Muslims, they don't care. That simple yet hard, cold fact is what you refuse to accept. I don't apologisze for seeing this, you run from it. You want to ignore the facts and grant cover for your appeasement by calling me names ( racist, nazi, bigot, etc... ) when you can't even back up your claims. I of course am none of those names which you assault me with, as those who know me would confirm. I simply don't like folks who saw heads off those who won't pray as they pray. You seem to think that's just fine and dandy. Goodonya, mate. If ever the situation comes that you'd need saving from the blood thisty Islamic zealots, and I'm in a position to help.......
AU I never called you a Nazi, in fact I don't think you are one I merely pointed out that you sound like one. And really you do, in fact lets break your message of hate down:
AU on Muslims:
Then you ignore the facts of my post as you ignore what is going on in the world. The fact of the matter is NO group around the world is more wicked, more violent, more heartless and more obsessed w/ killing their fellow man than Muslims.
Goebbels on Jews:
The naivete, not to mention ignorance, with which certain European circles see the Jewish Question in the fourth year of this gigantic struggle is astonishing. They cannot or will not see that this war is a war of the Jewish race and its subject people against Western culture and civilization. Everything that we Germans and Europeans, defenders of the principle of a moral world order, hold dear is at risk.

AU on Muslims:
Even when it comes ot killing other Muslims, they don't care. That simple yet hard, cold fact is what you refuse to accept.
Goebbels on Jews:
Jewry wanted this war. Whether one looks to the plutocratic or the bolshevist side of the enemy camp, one sees Jews standing in the foreground as instigators, rabble-rousers and slave drivers. They organize the enemy's war economy and encourage plans to exterminate and destroy the Axis powers.

AU on those who don't follow the rehtoric:
You want to ignore the facts and grant cover for your appeasement by calling me names ( racist, nazi, bigot, etc... ) when you can't even back up your claims. I of course am none of those names which you assault me with, as those who know me would confirm. I simply don't like folks who saw heads off those who won't pray as they pray. You seem to think that's just fine and dandy. Goodonya, mate.
Herman Goering on how to deal with people who don't follow the rehtoric:
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

If ever I need to say you sound like a Nazi AU, all I have to do stand back and let you talk.
Quote:

If ever the situation comes that you'd need saving from the blood thisty Islamic zealots, and I'm in a position to help.......
If ever I'm in that situation I'm sure it'll be while doing MY duty serving MY country working MY JOB that is with the British military.

How you'll ever be in a position to help me leading the valiant charge of the Armchair light brigade from your living room I have no idea.
Quote:

Yeah, right. Enjoy your prayer rug, buddy.
Uhuh, enjoy your Muslim 'Re-education' centres, fella.

Arbeit Macht Frei, Mein Herr! Arbeit Macht Frei!



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Second, I'm not giving Liberty away. You nor no one have shown where our liberties are being threatened.
Have you acquainted yourself with the Magna Carta, Constitution, and the issues of 1776? King George, and the Kings before him, had many powers that the Founding Fathers wanted to eliminate. AMONG THEM were the powers to detain people without charges, to break in the door and search homes and businesses w/o cause, torture confessions out of people, hold trials in secret, and to outlaw public discussion and dissent. Surely you're aware of habeas corpus!
Quote:

Also, we aren't talking about 'random detention',of U.S. citizens and you know it. We're dealing w/ foreign nationals working outside any State affiliation
A reading of the bill (and I HAVE read the bill- have you?) gives back many of these powers to George Bush, and makes no distinction whatsoever between American citizens or foreign nationals. As long as the President calls someone- ANYONE- an 'enemy combatant' all rights go out the window. I suggest that you go look it up because - as usual- you're talking out of your ass again.
Quote:

As for the FF, they were all for killing such renegades, as seen in how we dealt w/ pirates early in this country's history. Find 'em and kill 'em.
IN BATTLE. Not in jail. If you meet someone on the battlefield and they don't represent any particular nation they may fall into the "Spy, saboteur, or enemy combatant" category. But on thing the FF did NOT do was grab people off the streets- people who were doing no demonstrable harm- and hold them in jail indefinitely "just because". And if someone had urged that power on them they would have recoiled in horror.
Quote:

Also, it does benefit, on occasion, the Gov't not telling us WHO they have, or where. Why ? Because Gov'ts tend to play games w/ each other and with terrorist groups. Ever read a Tom Clancy novel? The power of information, and keeping certain information from those who can use it best is a large part of the game. Keeping the TERRORIST in the dark as to who has their top men limits the things they can do. Do we know as much as they fear we know ? It's a shell game, and the US is doing a fairly good job at it.
I keep telling you- you've been watching too much 24 and reading too many Clancey novels. And THIS is where you get your views of the "real world" from???

But Auraptor, you are once again committing the very fundamental error- which you have not addressed- of showing that it is necessary to be able to randomly detain American citizens on American soil w/o due process. Our system of laws provides for all kinds of procedures for obtaining warrants and detaining people. Tell me exactly what the flaw is that this law is attempting to correct. I'll bet you can't.

Once oversight is lost you have the grave possibility that entirely innocent people will be swept up and detained ad infinitum, where coerced information can be used against them and they are not free to see the evidence.

We have that situation in Guantanamo. EVERYONE knows that a large percentage (the CIA says 30%, others say 60%) of the detainees were handed over to the USA simply for the bounty or to settle personal grudges. These people, many of them just farmers or shopkeepers, were waterboarded for intel that they didn't have. We can't let them go NOW, because NOW they hate the USA with a passion and they have interesting stories to tell. SO what do we do? Keep them until they're too old or too crazy to care or until they learn to say "I love Big Brother"?

So I'm going to ask you YET AGAIN- show me why this law is NECESSARY to rpotect us agaisnt terrorists.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:59 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why is it when ever this President tries to do something which helps protect this country from a very real threat of ISLAMIC terrorism, a specific group of whiners tries to portray it as a fate worse than getting your head cut off ? Whether it's disrupting the financial transactions of terrorist groups, intercepting their phone calls or trying to get relevent information out of those who have sworn to murder as many innocent men/women and children as possible, some still see it as a violation of OUR rights that this Gov't should take steps to protect its citizens


Tell me, just what the HELL are we suppose to do? Act nice to the terrorist and hope they'll go away ? They attacked us LONG before this President came into office, and we did virtually nothing. They kept killing, and this President has finally tried to fight back. Why the HELL is that so god damn wrong ? And spare me the crap about torture. We do NOT torture, not by a long shot. We probably should, in some rare instances, but we don't.


When the 1st innocent citizen gets caught up in this so called threat to our rights, THEN I'll give notice. Not before. This is a war that far too many are denying even exists. This is a war that we did NOT start, and has already come to our shore. Some still refuse to see what is really going on, and instead are putting petty partisan politics ahead of the security of our nation, even the rreservation of civilization itself.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "




A.Q1) Because whiners...erm, ahhh...WHINE! haha I got it. DOO dah doo bap bap baa.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 6:04 AM

KANEMAN


Quote:

Originally posted by babywiththepower:
God I hate topics like this, but they're like a train wreck and I tend to gravitate toward them. This bill has it's pros and cons (the cons being present soley in scope). Please read my whole post before you pass judgement on what I'm saying.

Pros: Enemy Combatants will finally be subject to treatment deserving of enemy combatants. With this bill, no longer will the US be beholden to a set of rules that only it was expected to follow. Extremests cut the heads off our soldiers and civilian contractors, blow them up with IED traps, execute them point-blank, on their knees and broadcast the video of the soldiers pointing and laughing at our fallen, cutting off our soldiers genitallia and shoving it down their throats after cutting out their hearts, yet the Geneva Conventions require us to coddle them, garuntee medical attention and garuntee them food and shelter, in some case better than what the soldiers gaurding them recieve. This bill will make sure that shit comes to an end.

Cons: (And in my opinion, this trumps all good that can come from this bill) The President or those in his control (i.e. CIA, DHS, etc) can lable anyone a terrorist and therefore can dub them as Enemy Combatants and do whatever they want to them. That is what is scary.

And to those that ask why people complain when the President does something to protect us, I say you are blind and part of the problem. You might be comfortable knowing that you will never be suspect and fall victom to this bill, hell I know I will never be directly affected by it. But if something like this passes and it's ignored by us, it won't be long before they pass a bill that will affect you, and by that time it will be too late. We're on a very slipery slope here people, and letting all these Civil Rights atrocities happen because it's making us 'safe' has got to stop. The 'Patriot' Act was the first big step in stripping us of our Freedoms. What's it going to take for people to see that?


And all this from a person that finds the constant Liberal rhetoric grating, nauseating and infuriating. You don't have to be a Liberal to be able to see what's right in front of you. To steal a term from my brother, the Republicrats have got us all believing in the lie that is the two party system. When the Democrats are Communist and the Republicans are Liberal (and on everything other than gay marriage, they pretty much are), it doesn't leave much for us to hang onto. We need a third party, and we need it fast. Maybe then the Government will once again be of the people, by the people and FOR the people, rather than looking out for their own interests.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower




You got your Pros correct....Your Con is not true at all. Can't label "anyone" a terrorist.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 6:09 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


If you're going to pretend to debate Kaneman, then by all means, what provision is it that prevents them from labeling anybody a terrorist?

Wait! don't even try to answer that...just post something about me asking the question in a whiny liberal kind of voice. Then your mom can drive you to school and you can pull a few pig-tails.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 6:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You anti-habeas corpus folks have got it all wrong- again. But you haven't read the Bill, have you? So as usual, nothing but diarrhea comes out your mouths. I'll make it easy for you. You can link to the Bill thru this site- just click on the "Senate Version" Under Definitions- right at the very beginning- they define "Enemy Combatant" who is (1) someone who materially aids hostilities aginst the USA or (2) anyone the President says is an enemy combatant. Nothing there about being on a battlefied or being a foreign national.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/congress-sends-military-
commissions.php


Auraptor- Are you really serious about the "first innocent person" statement? Because I remember one for sure- a same-name person that we "rendered" for interrogation who was finally released inot Yugoslavia after several months of torture. If I find the info, will you finally open your eyes?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 7:34 AM

CHEWIE

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 7:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Thanks for the link.

This is the one I was thinking of, altho yours is more to the point
Quote:

In December 2003, US agents pulled Khaled el-Masri from a bus on the Serbia-Macedonia border and flew him to Afghanistan where he was drugged and tortured. But the man was a tad lucky. Though born in Lebanon, el-Masri had obtained German nationality. Germany came to his rescue, for he was no terrorist.
At this point I expect Auraptor to jump in and say that these people weren't US citizens. OTOH there is nothing in the current bill to prevent this kind of horror from happening again- to US citizens or anyone else.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 8:19 AM

CITIZEN


The irony of Germany protecting someone from unfair detainment by the USA.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 9:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


citizen- sorry, but your post does not in ANY WAY 'back up your claims'. Sure, we both agreed that the Nazis blamed the Jews, but the fact of the matter is, the Jews were INNOCENT of the crimes levied against them. The same can NOT BE SAID WITH THE JIHADIST! . Somehow there's a synaps in your brain that simply skips that most relevent part of this whole discussion. I have to think that a) You're too stupid or b ) too full of some sort of false pride to allow yourself to admit these facts. My prior posts already backs up my claim, I feel no need to repeat it again.

My comments on Islamist was 100% accurate. No one kills more muslims than their fellow muslims. We did ignore the signs of Islamic terrorism, and what did we get ? 9/11, 7/7, Beslan.....

You can't site a SINGLE event pre WW2 where the Jews attacked ANYONE Why? Because it NEVER HAPPENED!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 10:07 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

We have that situation in Guantanamo. EVERYONE knows that a large percentage (the CIA says 30%, others say 60%) of the detainees were handed over to the USA simply for the bounty or to settle personal grudges. These people, many of them just farmers or shopkeepers, were waterboarded for intel that they didn't have. We can't let them go NOW, because NOW they hate the USA with a passion and they have interesting stories to tell. SO what do we do? Keep them until they're too old or too crazy to care or until they learn to say "I love Big Brother"?


Your version of the world is nothing short of laughable. The claim that 'everyone knows' so many detainees were just simple farmers and shop keepers is backed up by what ? Oh, NOTHING! All you have is fairy tales pacifist tell each other to reassure themselves they're on the moral high ground. You don't know who was waterboarded, nor do you know what intel they may or may NOT have. And now they hate us ?? Boy, do you have THAT dead wrong! They've been hating us since we were HELPING them to defeat the Soviets over 20 yrs ago! Yep, you read right! They tolerated our help because we gave them Stinger missles , which allowed them to shoot down Soviet helicopters. But even as they accepted our help, they muttered ( not enen under their breath ) that we were the great satan, too!


Spare us your cries of BIG BROTHER and 1984, and try to summon enough courage to face the real monsters here, those who saw off heads off innocent men, women and children, all in the name of 'Allah'.

Mohammad was a pedophile, btw.


People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 11:04 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen- sorry, but your post does not in ANY WAY 'back up your claims'. Sure, we both agreed that the Nazis blamed the Jews,

No, when you're proven wrong it's best to admit it. I said the Nazi's accused the Jews of attacking Germany, acting almost like terrorists, you said no they didn't they only blamed the Jews for the problems arising from World War One. I proved you wrong and you start to blather on about how we were actually in agreement so you don't have to admit being wrong? Sad.

So yeah, it does back up my claims you may think I haven't, but that's because you are obviously woefully unable to tell what my claims are, I'd suggest a night school in reading comprehension, but unfortunately one can't polish a turd . Also it's the height of hipocracy for someone such as yourself to denigrate me for not supporting what I said when not only have I done so, but you, as always, have not.
Quote:

but the fact of the matter is, the Jews were INNOCENT of the crimes levied against them. The same can NOT BE SAID WITH THE JIHADIST! . Somehow there's a synaps in your brain that simply skips that most relevent part of this whole discussion. I have to think that a) You're too stupid or b ) too full of some sort of false pride to allow yourself to admit these facts. My prior posts already backs up my claim, I feel no need to repeat it again.

My comments on Islamist was 100% accurate. No one kills more muslims than their fellow muslims. We did ignore the signs of Islamic terrorism, and what did we get ? 9/11, 7/7, Beslan.....

Yeah the Nazi's used the same false logic to back up their daemonising of an entire group of people too.

Whenever one says "all X are Y" it doesn't matter what X and Y is, you are wrong. Simple as that. You say all Muslims are violent terrorists. Well you're wrong, and if they were, well there's 1.6 billion of them, in that case we've already lost, unless you and the rest of the armchair light brigade have a stunning plan in how your uneducated fat arses will win the "war on Islam"?

Your comments on Islam are one hundred percent propaganda from people who really are the latest insidious incarnation of Nazism. People who heard Hermann Goering's opinions on how to control people and thought "wow what a great idea". Then people too lazy to find out information for themselves listen to it. Doesn't make them Nazis, just on a par with most of the population who are too busy dealing with the day to day of life to do so. Others like you, are just to lazy and stupid.

Word up my dickless little friend, I've been living under the spectre of terrorism my entire life, not one day of my life has there not been someone trying to kill me because I was born British. Now most of those terrorists were Catholics, so if I were to follow your lead I'd burst into tears say “but we're such nice people” shit my pants and then cower under a bed waiting for daddy to tell me the monsters are out of the closet. Unfortunately 'daddy' likes you under the bed scared, because from there you can't see 'daddy' stealing all your favourite toys. Since I've lived under the spectre of terrorism my entire life, and I'm still here, I'm not prepared to get so scared I let the terrorists win by default, obviously you are, but I'm a grown up, I don't need daddy to come rescue me.

I have more than enough courage to face the real monsters here. I can face you any day you wish.

EDIT:
Quote:

You can't site a SINGLE event pre WW2 where the Jews attacked ANYONE Why? Because it NEVER HAPPENED!
Not read the bible then no? Again you make sweeping statements that don't live up to scrutiny because your opinion stems from a lack of facts rather than the other thing. Why do so many people not see the 'true' threat like you and the Nazis and their supporters before you? Because not everyone lets people stick their hand up their arse to tell them how to think.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 12:16 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Here's another innocent detainee:
Quote:

Benemar “Ben” Benatta, a former Algerian air force lieutenant, arrived in Canada on September 5, 2001 seeking political assylum. A week later, he was escorted back across to the U.S. and turned over to U.S. immigration. Benemar Benatta didn’t learn about the the 9-11 terrorist attacks until September 12th when FBI agents paid him a visit. He was sent to a federal prison in Brooklyn and when he insisted he wasn’t involved in the attacks, they threatened to send him back to Algeria — a certain torture and death sentence for his desertion. ... Benemar Benatta was never charged of any crime during this time and in November 2001, the FBI prepared a report clearing him of any involvement in the 9/11 attacks. However, no one bothered to tell Benatta and in fact they didn’t bother to set him free or allow him access to the outside world.
nmallory.exit-23.net/20060819/innocent-man-detained-for-5-years-without-appology-from-us


Quote:

Your version of the world is nothing short of laughable. The claim that 'everyone knows' so many detainees were just simple farmers and shop keepers is backed up by what ? Oh, NOTHING!
You must be the only person who DOESN'T know! So- whose word would you take? heh heh heh. I'll give you a chance to do some googling and retract your statement. Better do it QUICK, before I shove it up your *ss!

And you STILL haven't shown us why this bill is necessary. So tell me Auraptor- why does Bush need a bill that allows him to detain citizens w/ charges or oversight?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 12:49 PM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:

...well there's 1.6 billion of them, in that case we've already lost, unless you and the rest of the armchair light brigade have a stunning plan in how your uneducated fat arses will win the "war on Islam"?



A bit off subject, but if there is a battle against Islam, we have already lost. They have been out breeding us (Christians, Jews, Atheists, pretty much everyone except the Chinese) for like 3 generations. If it's a war, it's a war of attrition and they are popping out the pups at a much higher rate.

Anywho...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 2:35 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
You anti-habeas corpus folks have got it all wrong- again. But you haven't read the Bill, have you? So as usual, nothing but diarrhea comes out your mouths. I'll make it easy for you. You can link to the Bill thru this site- just click on the "Senate Version" Under Definitions- right at the very beginning- they define "Enemy Combatant" who is (1) someone who materially aids hostilities aginst the USA or (2) anyone the President says is an enemy combatant.



In all fairness, you paraphrased, and in that changed the whole meaning of the second part. What it actually says is this:

"(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combat Status Review Tribunal or other competant tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense"

Now granted, declaration of status by a Military Tribunal might not seem like a much better situation, but having been in the military, I'd say that those in charge of that decision would more likely show more discression than our Top would in that regard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 2:47 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I was referring to the "or any other competent tribunal established under the authority of the President" part of the Bill. Who establishes competence? What rules do they operate under? I sure don't know. I'm not sure anybody does.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 3:05 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I was referring to the "or any other competent tribunal established under the authority of the President" part of the Bill. Who establishes competence? What rules do they operate under? I sure don't know. I'm not sure anybody does.



Well, what you were refering to is not what you said. All Military Tribunals are created under the authority of the President and the Secretary of Defense, it's been that way for a long, long time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 3:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Yes. Military Tribunals are under the authority of the President and Scy Defense, but it appears that not all tribunals under their authority are necessarily Military Tribunals, which follow well-established procedures. I assume that was the point of writing: "Military Tribunals or any other Tribunal..." You know, any other... ie NOT Military Tribunal. Clear now?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 4:02 PM

FLATTOP


AU Raptor, perhaps it is the innocence of youth that is blurring your perception of the situation. I continue to hope that you are doing the best you can with the information that you have.
There is an old saying to the effect of, "History will repeat itself until we learn the lesson it is trying to teach us." As a Clancy fan, perhaps you would recognize, "True intelligence is the ability to learn from other people's mistakes." (From Clear and Present Danger.
There has never been a government that has not abused its power. The more powerful the nation, the greater the abuse. The US Gov't? Tuskeegee, Check bouncing, intern bouncing, internment camps, bridges to nowhere, dates drowned in rivers, we still have a Helium reesrve that is maintained to keep our wartime dirigibles (terrible spelling) airborne (haven't had them since WWI), Bay of pigs, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzales...
And this is a short list of the stuff they tried to get away with With Oversight!
Giving a government the chance to do /anything/ with noone being allowed to even know it happened or question it if they did is simply too much.
Does everything that happens need to be on the 5 o'clock news? No. But requiring judicial review, warrants, and due process is very reasonable.
I, and I imagine several others on this board, have military training, and interesting jobs/hobbies. All nice and legal like. Never commited a crime, no intention of doing so in the future. But if any of us were intending to misbehave, we'd be able to make a fair sized mess of things.
I go to Rachmanistenfelsteinistan for a vacation because I hear they have the worlds best gravy, and I want to compare it to my grandmothers. Turns out there's a guy who knows a guy that once contributed to a homeless dude's cup, and he (the homeless dude) bought a stick of gum from a guy that blew himself up in a trainstation; who eats luch in 'The worlds best gravy' restaraunt the same day I do.
I come back to the 'States, but don't make it beyond JFK because now I'm an enemy combatant by virtue of my training, hobbies, job, contacts, and oh yeah, I wrote to my congressman and am known to be an agitator from way back. I've done nothing remotely illegal, but because I know things, (not people, not plans, not intentions, just 'stuff' (field surgery, how to hurt people, how communications systems work, the lyrics to 'The Hero of Canton'...) I'm detained, disappeared, tortured, and in general given plenty of motivation to put my knowlege to use. All nice and legal under the new law.
I have no interest in there being 'thought police'. You can't stop the signal. Knowlege should be free and widely disseminated (Yay internet!). Problem is, the government wants all internet activity to be monitored and recorded forever. Library, and telephone records too.
Maybe (I'm willing to admit there is a chance), this administration won't abuse their power. But each succeeding administration is 90% more likely than the one before to abuse the power.

-----
Do you know what your sin is Captain?
Aww hell, I'm a big fan of all seven.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


citizen - you really are fucking pathetic. Like a parrot, you sqwak over and over that you've proven me wrong, when you've done nothing remotely of the sort. You posting of irrelevent quips about what the Nazis SAY vs what today's Jihadist really ARE DOING only shows you've got no clue what the hell you're talking about. Any reasonable person would be able to understand that, IN CONTEXT, the Jews of the 1920's and 30's posed no where near the threat to the Germans or Western Europe than the Islamic radicals do today. In fact, it's the holocaust deniars who say exactly what you say. Bet you're fond of being in that company, huh?

And why the fuck are you bringing up bible stories for ? ? Oh, that's right, since you have nothing to support your views, you'd thought it'd be cute to 'prove me wrong' and go back a few thousand yrs and show what bad asses the Jews REALLY were. ( Keyword - WERE ). Well, huckleberry, the rest of us are living in the 21st century, while your buddies, the Towel heads, are eager to return us to THEIR glory years, the 7th century. Again, you failed to prove me wrong. But then, you're damn good at failing.

My views on radical Islam are 100% accurate, you're just too much of a chicken shit coward to admit it. Your little Island tift w/ the Cathoics in N.Ireland has been a real tragedy, but it fails to compare to what is happening now, world wide, with radical Islam. Just put a sock in it and spare us all your whining.

Just admit you're wrong. Everyone knows it already. It won't hurt. Honest.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 5:47 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Yes. Military Tribunals are under the authority of the President and Scy Defense, but it appears that not all tribunals under their authority are necessarily Military Tribunals, which follow well-established procedures. I assume that was the point of writing: "Military Tribunals or any other Tribunal..." You know, any other... ie NOT Military Tribunal. Clear now?



I've been clear, obviously you're confused. It doesn't say "Military Tribunals or other tribunals'. It says "Combat Status Review Tribunal or other tribunals." CSRTs are just one of several Military Tribunals that can be established.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 2, 2006 9:01 PM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Citizen, I do take issue with something you said in one of your posts. You say you've lived under the threat of terrorism from Catholics simply because you are British. That's a misleading statement. You are under the threat of terrorist attacks from the Irish, whome happen to be Catholic, and not because you are British, but because your government has yet to give Ireland it's sovreignity. It's amazing that Britain gives up most of it's Empire, including China, but for some reason find a way to justify keeping Ireland. The Catholics in Ireland are the minority and they were protecting their existance, it's a big difference than the Islamic Extremist reasons for killing us.

Besides, the IRA has surrendered it's weapons in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement.

Now I'll admit, I'm not as up to date on the current situation as you may be, as you live in Britain and are living with it every day.

You are right though, it is wrong for anyone to blanket an entire people with a stereotype. I know several muslims and most of them wouldn't hurt a fly, but they are only one facet of the group. There is a very vocal minority that is the pinicle of evil and violence. This is, after all, a religion who's holy book tells them to kill the 'infidel' which, I'm sad to say, is all of us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 1:02 AM

SIMONWHO


Thanks for distilling 300 years of complicated religious, political and social history into "It's their land". You'll be buggering back to where you came from and leaving the native Americans to it then?

And AURaptor, it's you everyone knows is wrong. Even Bush, laughably, agrees that Gitmo has to be ended. Except he's now created a massive problem for himself and can't solve it.

If I was abducted from my country, stripped, shaved, tortured, held without trial or reason for years and then released... oh you better believe I'm going to terrorise you. I'd burn your country down to the fucking ground. So when people are released from Guantanamo start doing what every sane person would: i.e. killing as many Americans (preferably in high office) as they can, let's not hear anything about how this proves that the camp was right. It proves that the camp was wrong.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 1:19 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by SimonWho:
If I was abducted from my country, stripped, shaved, tortured, held without trial or reason for years and then released... oh you better believe I'm going to terrorise you. I'd burn your country down to the fucking ground. So when people are released from Guantanamo start doing what every sane person would: i.e. killing as many Americans (preferably in high office) as they can, let's not hear anything about how this proves that the camp was right. It proves that the camp was wrong.



Up until this point I simply thought you were naive. Now I know you're ignorant. If you think slaughtering people, innocents no less, is not only justifiable, but "what any sane person would do", you have a very sick, up sense of justice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 4:15 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


Hell, the Old Testament is no exception if you want to look for proof whether or not you should kill heathens or idolaters. Moses came down from the hill and told all those with a sword to come help him cleanse all the people who were making the graven image of the cow. I believe both Saul and David were told by god to attack a city and kill every last mother and child.

Any text can be interpreted any way. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that Islam is more violent by design than Christianity. As I heard recently from a guy on Bill Maher, it's not the religion that is violent, it is people who are violent.

And you will then say, "just look around you, clearly islam is a religion of hate." And I could say "just look around you, clearly Christianity is a religion of hate," but I will agree with one thing. The type of extremism being acted on in the Muslim World is at a higher level than current Christian extremism.

And why is that a surprise. When people have nothing else...when they can't seem to make sense of their harsh world, where they are oppressed and broken and can see absolutely no hope for themselves or their families, they start to turn to the afterlife for that hope, they start to turn to violence against who they think is to blame for their endless misery. In some cases families are getting reimbursed for these violent acts, an insentive amidst no other insentives...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "Christians wouldn't do this." Never have done anyhting horrible like this in the history of Christianity, right? Bullshit.

Not all muslims are ready to strap a bomb on their person and blow up a few hundred civilians. Case in point, I have never seen a leader of the Arab world do this. I imagine it is an absolute rarity that members of their royal families do this. People who have hope for themselves do not often resort to this sort of extremism. I'm not saying these leaders aren't crazy, but they aren't directly suicidal either. Their level of extremism only slightly trumps that of the Dobsons and the Falwells of the world. These leaders have political agendas that may call for their people hating Americans, but I hardly think they'd rather trade it all for the destruction of our country.

The Christians we are most familiar with live in first world nations, where there is hope for most people. Even when their lives are shit, there is still hope to be found most of the time. To compare how our Christians behave to how their muslims behave is Apples to Oranges. Of course, continuing to support a war on Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11 and has killed well over 100,000 innocent Iraqis is in my mind, hardly a pristine Christian example. So most Christians are armchair quarterbacks these days...that's hardly a complement.

And we are not above 'killem all' nationalism when we are attacked. Hit by Saudi terroists on 911? "lets kill some motherfucking iraqis." I heard on the radio this aniversary of 9/11 a radio jock saying that she didn't care what the hell we did that might have fed into dislike for us enough to blow up the two towers. She was simply happy we were hitting back at someone that hated us. And when they see their cities bombed and their family members killed or starving, and their meager livelihoods taken away, we don't expect them to say the same thing?

Where would such a ridiculous cycle end?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 4:42 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
citizen - you really are fucking pathetic. Like a parrot, you sqwak over and over that you've proven me wrong, when you've done nothing remotely of the sort. You posting of irrelevent quips about what the Nazis SAY vs what today's Jihadist really ARE DOING only shows you've got no clue what the hell you're talking about. Any reasonable person would be able to understand that, IN CONTEXT, the Jews of the 1920's and 30's posed no where near the threat to the Germans or Western Europe than the Islamic radicals do today. In fact, it's the holocaust deniars who say exactly what you say. Bet you're fond of being in that company, huh?

And why the fuck are you bringing up bible stories for ? ? Oh, that's right, since you have nothing to support your views, you'd thought it'd be cute to 'prove me wrong' and go back a few thousand yrs and show what bad asses the Jews REALLY were. ( Keyword - WERE ). Well, huckleberry, the rest of us are living in the 21st century, while your buddies, the Towel heads, are eager to return us to THEIR glory years, the 7th century. Again, you failed to prove me wrong. But then, you're damn good at failing.

My views on radical Islam are 100% accurate, you're just too much of a chicken shit coward to admit it. Your little Island tift w/ the Cathoics in N.Ireland has been a real tragedy, but it fails to compare to what is happening now, world wide, with radical Islam. Just put a sock in it and spare us all your whining.

Just admit you're wrong. Everyone knows it already. It won't hurt. Honest.

Yes the guy who actually works for the military knows less about the defence situation than a guy who drinks beer for a living. You're delusional, and a coward, a stupid delusional coward who's too retarded to even realise when everyone is laughing at him. You're wrong, EVERYONE knows you're wrong, people on you're side of the fence know your wrong, the only person who hasn't clued up to it is you, you mental midget.

You know a friend said speaking to people like you is like trying to philosophies with quicksand. Really I disagree, since really what I'm doing is saying:
"You're sinking in quicksand you know."
To you're reply:
"No I'm not you idiot! Again your ASSumptions prove you know nothing about quicksand! I'm standing on dry land, you're the one in quicksand!" While I wander away and let you suffocate.

Whatever AU, as always you've proven yourself nothing more than a dim witted troglodyte with the critical thinking skills of a Baboon after an aborted head swap operation.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 5:02 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by babywiththepower:
Citizen, I do take issue with something you said in one of your posts. You say you've lived under the threat of terrorism from Catholics simply because you are British. That's a misleading statement. You are under the threat of terrorist attacks from the Irish, whome happen to be Catholic, and not because you are British, but because your government has yet to give Ireland it's sovreignity.

Well obviously you are not Irish nor British. It's a very complex situation that few outside the groups involved understand, so they tend to simplify it into "British won't let them have their land back".

First the violence stems directly from religion, it's mostly Catholic Republicans Vs Protestant Loyalists. It's as much religion as anything else, and as much about religion as Islamic terrorism. The violence in Ireland stems directly from religious conflict.
Quote:

It's amazing that Britain gives up most of it's Empire, including China, but for some reason find a way to justify keeping Ireland.
Sure it is. Firstly the majority of people living in Northern Ireland are LOYALISTS. The majority of people living in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK. It's the Loyalists country as much as it is the Republicans country, why are the Republicans so much more important than the Loyalists in your opinion?
Quote:

The Catholics in Ireland are the minority and they were protecting their existance, it's a big difference than the Islamic Extremist reasons for killing us.
People living in the middle east have been on the constant receiving end of Western aggression and empire building have plenty reasons to feel they need to protect their existence. In comparison to what goes on in the Middle East the Catholic Republicans have had it easy.
Quote:

Besides, the IRA has surrendered it's weapons in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement.
And the Real Irish Republican Army is still around and still has weapons. But that doesn't refute what I said, which was that I've lived my entire life under the spectre of terrorism and the vast majority came from Catholics. That's a true statement, 100% factual and you can not argue that it is not so.
Quote:

There is a very vocal minority that is the pinicle of evil and violence. This is, after all, a religion who's holy book tells them to kill the 'infidel' which, I'm sad to say, is all of us.
Islamic law also bans the killing of non-combatants, something the Bible firmly does not do.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 6:15 AM

BABYWITHTHEPOWER


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Islamic law also bans the killing of non-combatants, something the Bible firmly does not do.



So the thousands that die every year in cafes and airports, mosques, churches and schools; women, children and the elderly, when an Islamic Jihadist straps a bomb to his chest and dies in the name of Allah are all combatants? Interesting. Here I thought they were unarmed civilians enjoying a cup o' joe, taking a flight, praying to their god or trying to better themselves through education. I guess I've been mistaken.

And if they are innocent civilians, then isn't a fundamental law of Islam being broken? Wouldn't Allah cast them into Hell for their transgressions? No because anyone they don't like is the 'Infidel' and is therefore the enemy and their death ensures seventy-something dark haired virgins in Heaven. I guess your right though, if I lived a shithole existance in a cave somewhere with nothing and I was force fed that little nugget of joy, I'd be first in line to strap a bomb to my chest and get what's mine.

War is Hell. It always has been. People will die, it's unavoidable. I do not agree with this bill, eventhough it's not what most would have you believe. If you read it, and I mean ALL of it, not just a few sentances, and you actually comprehend what the bill says rather than paraphrase and jump to conclusions, you'll see that it doesn't give the President Executive Powers that he didn't already posess. It's still wrong, and I encourage others to fight against it's passing. But I do so as a concerned citizen of this country, not because I'm some bleeding heart liberal, not because it's treandy to slam the administration, and certainly not because I care about the rest of the world. I'm concerned because though this bill doesn't apply to us now, it won't be long before they turn the microscope inward, and then it's going to suck.

And I appologize, Citizen, about my comments concerning the Irish, and I mean this with all sincerity. I was just presenting an alternative point of view. The British took that land fair and square, and as you say, a majority of the people in Ireland are Loyalist. Them arguing for their sovreignity is like (and I know this is not the majority viewpoint amongst them, please don't hate me) the Mexicans here saying that Texas, Arizona and California belong to Mexico because a traitor to their country sold them to the US long long ago. The borders are drawn. The alliances are established. The country is ours. Just as Britain, and all it's territories, are yours. When the day comes that a majority of Ireland wants to be independant, they will be.

As for arguing the points of the Bible versus the Koran or the Torah or any of those other Books out there, it's all reletive. All major religious texts (minus ones like the Book of Morman which is much more contemporary) were written by men in societies run by men. It was always He and Him and His, and women were always portrayed as the wrong doers. Just look at Eve. That instills sexism on a spiritual level. But I digress. The point that I was trying to make is that all religious texts were written by men, not God. God is infallible, man is not, therefore the Bible, Torah, Koran (et al) are fallible. They are books of bedtimestories that teach us (in most cases) how to be better people and that tried to explain the unexplainable in a period where science wasn't even a wetdream. Now, I'm not saying I don't believe in God, I do. There is no way I can believe that we are all a cosmic mistake born of hapenstance. We are the product of a Creator. I just don't run around thinking that my God is better than you Allah or his Yaweh, etc. But fundimentally, the concept of God's word is skewed because even if God himself came down and whispered into the author's ear, there's always dramatic interpretation. And when you translate the book from one language to another to another, something gets lost or undoubtedly changed. Truth is that what these men are dying for, what they believe in their hearts to be true, might be a mistranslation or a blatant lie created by a masagonist that wanted to leave his mark on the world.

Anyway, my rant is done. If you made it this far I commend you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower
http://members17.clubphoto.com/michael809717/guest-1.phtml

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 6:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Baby- It doens't say "or other Military Tribunals"

As far as this bill not giving the Prez power he doesn't already have: I HAVE read all of the bill. What it gives the President the "right" to do is yank citizens off the street, put them before some sort of tribunal, hold them indefinitely without charges, and treat them in ways in which ONLY the President is accountable (Like Pontius Pilate, Congress washes its hands of any oversight... And I thought that was their job. Silly me!)

So, seeing as you don't like the bill either- on what grounds do you disagree with it?

Quote:

Your version of the world is nothing short of laughable. The claim that 'everyone knows' so many detainees were just simple farmers and shop keepers is backed up by what ? Oh, NOTHING!-auraptor

You must be the only person who DOESN'T know! So- whose word would you take? heh heh heh. I'll give you a chance to do some googling and retract your statement. Better do it QUICK, before I shove it up your *ss!- Signy

So, how 'bout that Pentagon! Makin' claims that 30% of the folks at Guantanamo were innocent! Gee, who'd-a thunk!




---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 6:47 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Quote:

Originally posted by babywiththepower:

...I just don't run around thinking that my God is better than you Allah or his Yaweh, etc.



Those three are the same God. We are all the sons of Abraham...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 6:54 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Babywiththepower:
So the thousands that die every year in cafes and airports, mosques, churches and schools; women, children and the elderly, when an Islamic Jihadist straps a bomb to his chest and dies in the name of Allah are all combatants? Interesting.

How did you think I was saying that they were? Of course this is what the real loonies say, this is what the IRA said, this is what all terrorists say.
Quote:

And if they are innocent civilians, then isn't a fundamental law of Islam being broken?
Yes.
Quote:

Wouldn't Allah cast them into Hell for their transgressions?
Yes.
Quote:

No because anyone they don't like is the 'Infidel' and is therefore the enemy and their death ensures seventy-something dark haired virgins in Heaven.
So if I say the Christian god wants you to kill every non-Christian in the world and if you do this God will give you a penthouse in heaven that makes it so?
Quote:

Truth is that what these men are dying for, what they believe in their hearts to be true, might be a mistranslation or a blatant lie created by a masagonist that wanted to leave his mark on the world.
This is true for the Bible, however the Torah is only to be in Hebrew and the Koran in Arabic. You can get translations of both but these are not the same books (so the religions say) and followers are expected to learn the language of the religion to be able to read the original untranslated text.

Throughout history people have read the bits of the Bible, Koran or whatever that supports their actions and ignore the ones they don't. Fanatic Muslims read the kill infidels thing and miss the "only while their attacking you" bit. Like people who kill in the name of Christianity (and they do exist in opposition to what the wilfully ignorant like AURaptor would have you believe) see the whole killing of the first born thing and miss the turn the other cheek bit.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 9:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


My questions may have gotten lost in the shuffle.

Baby- what it it specifically about the Bill that you don't like? I personally don't like several things about it, one of which is that it eliminates habeas corpus for Amercian citizens.

Auraptor: WELL????? (taps foot) YOu have yet to reveal why this bill is so very, very vital in the pursuit of terrorists.

Also, have you nothing to say about the Pentagon's own admission that 30% of Guantanamo detainees were innocent?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 10:43 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

And AURaptor, it's you everyone knows is wrong. Even Bush, laughably, agrees that Gitmo has to be ended. Except he's now created a massive problem for himself and can't solve it.


Simon, stop acting like a 4 yr old. Bush never once said Gitmo 'has to be ended'. To the contrary, he specifically said he would NOT close Gitmo, and is proud of the purpose for which it serves. That's what this whole freakin' thread is about! Congress passing a law which ALLOWS Gitmo to remain open. Or did you somehow miss that fine detail ?

These terrorist were caught on the battle field, and I frankly don't care how they feel about the U.S. If they survive Gitmo, they have a life of living off the rocks and herding their goats. They can fume all they want under their turbans, I could care less.



People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:05 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Signym - Ben Benatta wasn't sent to Gitmo, was he ? Then that case isn't germane to the conversation per this thread. Nice try.

Why is this bill needed? I would say it isn't, and that the President has the right by virture of his office and that it's during war time. This administration has bent over backwards twice over in trying to appease the Left wing moon bats, and all it's gotten them is more vitriolic attacks. So the Liberal courts say he needs more permission from Congress. Fine. That's what the President has done. Inexplicably, non-uniformed terrorist combatants have been elevated to the status of uniformed soldiers. The Geneva Convention already HAS rules for those who dress in civilian clothes and attack a standing army....it's execution - on the spot! But instead, the U.S. as brought those fighters back, detained them ( as was done in WW2 ) and will likely keep them for as long as al Qaeda and like minded groups call for open war on the USA. Don't like it ? Tough. Should have thought of that before.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:26 AM

SIMONWHO


Quote:

Originally posted by babywiththepower:
Up until this point I simply thought you were naive. Now I know you're ignorant. If you think slaughtering people, innocents no less, is not only justifiable, but "what any sane person would do", you have a very sick, up sense of justice.



It's what any sane person's sense of justice would be after such treatment. If you re-elect someone who tortures and imprisons without due process, can you really call yourself innocent?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

These terrorist were caught on the battle field, and I frankly don't care how they feel about the U.S.
And apparently you missed the part about the Pentagon saying that 30% of these folks were innocent. Auraptor- a lot of the detainees were NOT caught on the battlefield, nor are they all "terrorists". But you've made... and CONTINUE to make, despite solid evidence to the contrary... the sweeping assumption that every detainee IS an enemy combatant or a terrorist.

You don't catch on too quick, do you? So maybe if I repeat it in big bold letters... you know, a visual slap upside the head... you'll stop repeating demonstrable nonsense.

NOT EVERY DETAINEE IS GUILTY

I know that may be too subtle of a distinction for you. But try, please try, to remember.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Ben Benatta wasn't sent to Gitmo, was he ? Then that case isn't germane to the conversation per this thread. Nice try.
I wasn't talking about Gitmo and neither were you. And neither is this thread. That's NOT EVEN a "nice try".

Quote:

the President has the right by virture of his office and that it's during war time.
That's only half of a thought. Complete your thought, if you dare: the President has the right, by virtue of his office to... to...


---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL