- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And you can't call someone guilty if you can't prove their guilt.
Yeah, Obama just executes them on the spot in foreign lands with drones, but if they set foot here he hands them a lawyer.Boo Radley said:And you can't call someone guilty if you can't prove their guilt.
Yeah, Obama just executes them on the spot in foreign lands with drones, but if they set foot here he hands them a lawyer.
Madness. The man is like a small child without the slightest clue what the hell he is doing.
Since they're not charged with crimes, but instead are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield, their "guilt" is irrelevant.
Fact of the matter is that they're assets available for our consumption, and we should work assiduously to drain those assets of all valuable information in the most expeditious manner possible to maximize our ability to damage the enemy and our ability to protect our own people.
In case you're wondering, I'm referring to "torturing" those people to learn what they know.
They're enemies, not poor little puppies. Enemies with the demonstrated intent to kill us. They don't deserve mercy or consideration.
The intricacies of domestic do not favor its use when dealing with enemy combatants and serve to hamper our efforts to defend ourselves, hence throughout our history domestic law has not been used to prosecute wars.Not that fond of the drones and the bombing for a few reasons. And the same reasons why it was wrong when Bush did it, it's wrong with Obama. But if you have people in custody, especially those just picked up off the street, it is proper to have due process. And if you believe in our system, there's no reason to fear it.
The intricacies of domestic do not favor its use when dealing with enemy combatants and serve to hamper our efforts to defend ourselves, hence throughout our history domestic law has not been used to prosecute wars.
As pointed out many times, not all were captured on any battle field.
And they don't have to be poor puppies for us to follow the law and stay true to our values. As torture is mostly ineffective, the only reason to use it would be to get confessions (and even the innocent will confess) or to enact revenge, which isn't justice.
I'm not sure that is true. I see nothing that has to hinder anything. I think that is more an unfounded concern.
And if this was a war with a nation, in which we put people in POW camps and release them in a few years, I might agree. But as we're picking up people not on the battlefield, but all over the world and under questionable conditions, to be held indefinitely, well, we need something with real due process.
I'm for rule of law. Our actions are subject to rule of law and not just rights.
There's no history of a never ending war either.
We're not at war with any country at the moment. Instead, we're fighting individuals, groups, and not nations. Not something that best fits traditional warfare.
we need something with real due process.
Ahhh a personal attack. Not a good start.
I guess the news every day is not enough? You need statistics? And you say I don't understand?
Please point out where I said the religion is the cause? I never said any such thing.
So your comment above has nothing to do with what I said or it's meaning.
Islam, is not the only cause, but it does contribute. Denying this is just ignorance.
Again this has nothing at all to do with my point.
It does not change the FACT that terrorism is perpetuated by Muslims in the majority of cases. It does not change the fact that trying to compare Christianity to Islam (in the context of your initial statement) is in itself ridicules.
Now if you are finished with your personal attacks and fallacy filled rant?
No.
China, a country run by strongmen and gangsters (what are euphemistically called "socialists"), has no moral authority to do any such displacement.
Also, do you believe those countries aren't vulnerable to a morally justifiable invasion by the US? Because by my standards, they are, the only issue is the answer to the "what's in it for us?" and "how much will this cost us?" questions that we need to answer for ourselves before we take action. That's it.
We get to choose our own battles.
In some ways the US is still a free country.
Dig?
Then China, being a strongman country itself, is wrong. Also, as the big dog on the planet, the US gets to decide if we should allow that, in our own assessment of our own interests.
The intricacies of domestic do not favor its use when dealing with enemy combatants and serve to hamper our efforts to defend ourselves, hence throughout our history domestic law has not been used to prosecute wars.
I thought you said Americans are "more likely to not be PC and tell the truth of the situation", but now you can't handle the heat? I said the truth, if that's "personal attack", it's still the truth.
No it's not enough. That you think it is shows that indeed you do not understand.
I never said that you said it. Jeez, read carefully, will ya.
It has nothing to do with you saying that Islam is the cause, but it has everything to do with your continued illogical reasoning.
And I say the flying spaghetti monster exists. So denying it is just ignorance. What do I care about supporting my claims.
Read my "initial statement" again, and show me how the context is "to compare Christianity to Islam".
But hey, that's why it was addressed to scummy, because s/he's usually more astute than most people, so maybe next time you don't muddle yourself in something you don't understand?
I don't know why you even bothered if you are going to cry "personal attack" if the reply doesn't suit you.
And I think it was Conservative or American who said a few post back that the Liberals just don't understand because they think other people hold the same beliefs and value? :rofl What a joke. Do you even realise that there are people out there who think that Bush was a "strongmen and gangsters", and that the US is a bully?
Hell it's what most terrorists tell themselves everyday. They are just fighting the big bad hypocritical tyrant of the world. By their standard they are conducting "morally justifiable" attack on the US. And according to your reasoning, why should they be stopped?
And who should stop China from doing the same thing - the US, WWIII? See the problem with conducting foreign policy "by [your] standards"?
Or maybe you're just a great camedian. That would be funny. :rofl
don't you think that by conducting the cases where we are sure of conviction in a court of justice
it gives the US a better image and lessen the ability of terrorists to use the US's actions as propaganda material to convert more people or garner support,
isn't it smarter to evolve with the time and use the method most beneficial to the US in the long term?
How you can you say it's unfounded when suspects in criminal court have more rights than do enemy combatants in military courts? Setting all other differences, as we just saw the underwear bomber attained a lawyer and promptly accepted his right to remain silent.I'm not sure that is true. I see nothing that has to hinder anything. I think that is more an unfounded concern.
None of this relates to anything happening today apart from targeting people all over the world.And if this was a war with a nation, in which we put people in POW camps and release them in a few years, I might agree. But as we're picking up people not on the battlefield, but all over the world and under questionable conditions, to be held indefinitely, well, we need something with real due process.
Let's get serious a while:
False. There is no sure conviction in criminal court.don't you think that by conducting the cases where we are sure of conviction in a court of justice,
I care less about our image and more about our safety.it gives the US a better image
Your naive if you think that trying KSM in civilian court won't be used by al-Qaeda for propaganda purposes.and lessen the ability of terrorists to use the US's actions as propaganda material
isn't it smarter to evolve with the time and use the method most beneficial to the US in the long term?
Attacking me instead of my views is against the rules here.
"Spoken like someone who does not understand either logic or statistics. - nonpareil
Nothing but an irrelevant personal attack that has nothing to do with the debate at all.
And when I put up the statistics what would change?
2010.01.04 (Mosul, Iraq) - Sunni bombers blast three civilians into pieces.
2010.01.04 (Kirkuk, Iraq) - Three Iraqis are murdered in a Mujahideen double bombing.
2010.01.03 (Bajaur, Pakistan) - Two tribal elders are blown to bits by a Taliban roadside bomb.
2010.01.03 (Waziristan, Pakistan) - A bombing and separate rocket attack leave two people dead.
2010.01.03 (Tal Abta, Iraq) - Three road construction workers are gunned down by Muslim terrorists.
2010.01.03 (Hangu, Pakistan) - A Taliban roadside bomb ends the lives of four people.
This is just 2 days. Do I need any more "statistics?"
"Secondly, correlation is not causation. Even if (a big if) it is true that "the vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Muslims", it doesn't necessarily follow that the religion Islam is the cause." - nonpareil
So you are admitting it had nothing to do with my statement.
This has nothing to do with your equating Muslims terrorists with Christians.
So please enlighten us...
How does this...
"Secondly, correlation is not causation. Even if (a big if) it is true that "the vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Muslims", it doesn't necessarily follow that the religion Islam is the cause." - nonpareil
Translate into my reasoning for you equating Muslim terrorism with Christians?
OK. More fallacy that has nothing to do with anything I said.
OK...
"So what if it is true that "violence committed in the name of Christianity in recent decades " is less than "that committed by Muslims"? Does that mean that Islam is a more violent religion than Christianity? If it is so, you should stop eating ice-cream, because it makes you want to kill people. I'll bet you don't even get the point I was making in my first post to scummy." - nonpareil
I understand your "point" perfectly. Makes it no less wrong and illogical.
Muslims are not responsible for "more" violence. They are responsible for MOST of the terrorist violence around the world, not just the US.
He said exactly the same thing I did...
"Your comparison is silly to say the very least. I know liberals love to trot out McCVeigh and Christians anytime a discussion on radical Islam happens, but the level and scale of violence on the part of Muslims bears no relation to that of Christians. Diverting attention away from Muslims to Christians is silly and unreasonable. If you want to go tit for tat, you list violence committed in the name of Christianity in recent decades and I list that committed by Muslims, then I will simply blow you out of the water ten times over. It's not even comparable. No where even remotely close." - ScummyD
It was a lame personal attack because that is all it was.
Yes, please do before you get more people killed.
False. There is no sure conviction in criminal court.
I care less about our image and more about our safety.
Your naive if you think that trying KSM in civilian court won't be used by al-Qaeda for propaganda purposes.
In no other war in our history have we used our perceived notions of how our enemy viewed our actions against their comrades as a determinant in shaping how we treated enemies we captured.
Yes, it is and that means treating these circumstances as a matter of war and doing away with last century's notions of war as defined narrowly as armed conflict between states.
By yours and Boo's standard the American Revolution wasn't a war because it was fought between a rag tag band of guerrillas and the British Empire. Totally senseless.
I'm fully aware of the completeness of stupity possible only to people able to vote for Democrats.
For two excellent and irrefutable reasons that trump any possible motive those animals might have:
My two daughters.
Don't like that? Go stand in line on the terrorists' side.
Meanwhile, since it was already explained to you that China is a strongarm nation, not a legitimate government, any legitimate government, including the US, has the moral authority and justification required to intervene - IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.
I have no problems when foreign policy is conducted by my standards.
If it was:
the United States would be consuming it's own oil, minding it's own business, and focusing on freedom.
Because you people have elected nothing but incompetents since 1988, the mess in the world is your fault, not mine.
No, I'm not from Montreal.
I was born in New York.
Nonsense nonpareil typed. This is not his actual statement. It was removed to save space, since he really didn't say anything in the first place.
But his desire to attack Iraq did....he was looking for excuses from day one. It just took him some time to make Iraq the bad guy even tho intel could find no credible evidence that put Iraq and OBL in cahoots....Some of this post can be used to rebuke a couple of the earlier posts regarding slow Obama.
Remember folks, Bush's decisions did not come immediately.
It's what you said. If what you said and how you think have nothing to do with the debate, in which you pushed yourself into without even understanding what it's about, then what is?
That's not statistics. But thanks for showing that you don't know anything about statistics. My suggestion: do some reading up before your next post.
Duh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?
You don't even make sense anymore. What does "Translate into my reasoning for you equating Muslim terrorism with Christians" means?
First of all, I didn't "equate Muslim terrorism with Christians". If you say I did, you provide the context. I don't read minds, especially of someone half a world a way.
Just because you don't have the capacity to understand something doesn't make it a fallacy. Try reading it a few more times, perhaps you might get it eventually. It's not that hard really.
No, you do not understand my point at all. Thanks again for proving it.
No, s/he's didn't. Well maybe s/he did, but who's to know, s/he's scummy. :shrug:
yeah, yeah, keep repeating that to yourself. :2wave:
But his desire to attack Iraq did....he was looking for excuses from day one. It just took him some time to make Iraq the bad guy even tho intel could find no credible evidence that put Iraq and OBL in cahoots....
Koolaid is Koolaid, and the conservatives who guzzle it are no smarter than the Rev. Jones drinkers...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?