Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-06-2002, 03:41 PM   #16
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Lindh was given 20 years simply because the government had a shaky case against him AT BEST and they knew there was a good chance he could get off with no penalties. They got a VERY good deal in this case.
__________________

__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 10-06-2002, 05:07 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:46 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


Okay here you get my definition (I didn't look in Websters, AHD or Britannica before my posting ,-)
There is no point in discussing your definition. This is the accepted definition. You can't change a definition of a word to whatever you want it to mean in a debate.


Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Maybe i should have called it simply "discrimination" not racism - because rasism for many is just based on biological issues, racism was just ment to be an example for discrimination and unequal treatment (one example can be prejudice) based on anything non-important (like place of birth color of your skin or money on your bank account or citizenship)
Sorry to do this to you but the definition of discrimination in this case is :

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

AS I pointed out in my other post what is going on is not Prejudiced. The definition of prejudiced includes the statements "without just cause" and "irrational".

Neither of these criteria is met in this case. Therefore, what is happening is not discrimitation nor is it prejudiced.


Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
I'm not against trials against those who might be murders of innocent (i wait calling them "murders" until they are proven guilty by a faire trial).

For me it's just important that everyone is treated and punished equal - just mesured by what he has done.

And when i see new laws (all over the world) after 9/11 which differ between foreigners and cizizens i have a problem with that
Well, I am for fair trials too. Right now, they are enemy combatants and they are being held as such. The debate once again, is if there needs to be some changes in the Geneva Convention based on the fact that these people are not operating on behalf of a foreign government.


Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus

I never said something like that! I never even thought something like that - and i don't see any article or statement from myself which could justify anything like that.

I didn't say that there should be done nothing! My only point is that - even in war - we have to care bout our principles and treat all human beings the same way.
Let us not be forced by any tyrans to change our view of what is right and what is wrong. If we do - they won.
No you didn't say anything like that. It was put into my statement in reference to some of the other posts. Did not mean to make it seem like you said it.


Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus

There's just something wrong when people are treated different because of their place of birth (again you have to judge them - but i see no reason for any difference in laws, court and prison)
Well, I am sure if you have seen my other posts you know where I stand on the Patriot Act. I am for it. The nice thing is that it is a four year law that has to be revoted on by Congress. Right now, it is necessary.

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
I know it's illusoric that everyone gets the same chances in life and is treated equal - but it's a dream i can't stop dreaming
Klaus
Its a noble dream. I do not think I will see it in my life, barring the Second Coming.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-06-2002, 10:38 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by garibaldo
Lindh was given 20 years simply because the government had a shaky case against him AT BEST and they knew there was a good chance he could get off with no penalties. They got a VERY good deal in this case.
If the government had a shaky case, it was a case for treason resulting in the death penalty. Would you accept twenty years if there was a chance you could get off with no penalties?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 04:58 AM   #19
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


If the government had a shaky case, it was a case for treason resulting in the death penalty. Would you accept twenty years if there was a chance you could get off with no penalties?

Oh HELL YES I WOULD! It's either freedom, 20 years or death. Those are three possible outcomes. I think a lot of people wouldn't want to play the gamble between freedom\death. It may have been a shaky case, but that doesn't mean it was impossible for him to be convicted.
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 07:09 AM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


If the government had a shaky case, it was a case for treason resulting in the death penalty. Would you accept twenty years if there was a chance you could get off with no penalties?
I agree with your point NB. The issue was over Mike Spam. THey had originally hoped to prove that Walker was involved in killing him. They could not, and this is the reason they did not continue going after the death penalty.


Peace to all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 03:28 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 08:46 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


There is no point in discussing your definition. This is the accepted definition. You can't change a definition of a word to whatever you want it to mean in a debate.
I'm not trying to discuss the defnintion - i wanted to show you the intension.
I also don't change the meaning - if you take several (x) dictionaries you see even more (x+y) definitions of that.
The fact that we live in two different parts of the world raises the chance that we (and the people in our neigbourhood) use words verry diffently.
I also think that "my" definition and the one in websters didn't exclude each other. Believe me that you can find my definition (not word by word but the sense of it) in other dictionaries.


Quote:
Well, I am for fair trials too. Right now, they are enemy combatants and they are being held as such. The debate once again, is if there needs to be some changes in the Geneva Convention based on the fact that these people are not operating on behalf of a foreign government.
If they are not operating onbehalf of a foreign government they can't be p.o.w.'s afik.

The problem with the "war against terrorism" is that you can only have war with another country not with an idea or ideology.
Unless you take "war against terrorism" just as an epmty phrase like "war against cancer" or "war against drugs" - you wouldn't seriousely take drug dealers and put them into camps like the one in cuba or take them to military tribunals - do you?


Quote:
No you didn't say anything like that. It was put into my statement in reference to some of the other posts. Did not mean to make it seem like you said it.
Okay good to hear - i just wanted to make sure that this is not my point and never will be - and noone who reads your reply should think that i share this opinion.

Quote:
Its a noble dream. I do not think I will see it in my life, barring the Second Coming.
I don't think so neither - but i'll do my part to make this vision come true ,-)

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 06:39 PM   #22
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: i don't know. if someone finds me send for help
Posts: 53
Local Time: 07:46 PM
just my 2 cents,

it's my understanding that walker was never a member of al quaeda. in fact was approached by al quaeda before 9/11 and he refused any association with the organization, as he viewed them to be bad muslims. he was involved with the conflict against the northern allience (before the US was involved) as the northern allience was perpitrating horrible crimes against innocent people. there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of or involvement in the events surrounding 9/11.

he was arrested in a foreign country, brought to the US, and tried for alleged crimes committed in another country and sentenced to 20 years for what? "supporting the taliban" and "transporting explosives" IN AFGHANISTAN!

sounds to me like he is the poster child for the war on terror propaganda machine. and at this point, no one with the power to change the ruling is willing to stand up and defend him.

peace, lynn
__________________
hotasahandbag is offline  
Old 10-07-2002, 06:49 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:46 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why did Johny taliban walker only 20 years,...

Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


The problem with the "war against terrorism" is that you can only have war with another country not with an idea or ideology.
Unless you take "war against terrorism" just as an epmty phrase like "war against cancer" or "war against drugs" - you wouldn't seriousely take drug dealers and put them into camps like the one in cuba or take them to military tribunals - do you?

Klaus
Ok....to equate this with the War on Cancer is almost silly.


Hmmmmm.....Would I take drug dealers and put them into camps like the one in Cuba? Put them up for tribunals?

I suppose I could see putting them in "Prison Camps" but the military tibunal I would hold off on unless they were dealing on Military Bases.

Peace to all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 01:03 AM   #24
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by hotasahandbag
just my 2 cents,

it's my understanding that walker was never a member of al quaeda. in fact was approached by al quaeda before 9/11 and he refused any association with the organization, as he viewed them to be bad muslims. he was involved with the conflict against the northern allience (before the US was involved) as the northern allience was perpitrating horrible crimes against innocent people. there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of or involvement in the events surrounding 9/11.

he was arrested in a foreign country, brought to the US, and tried for alleged crimes committed in another country and sentenced to 20 years for what? "supporting the taliban" and "transporting explosives" IN AFGHANISTAN!

sounds to me like he is the poster child for the war on terror propaganda machine. and at this point, no one with the power to change the ruling is willing to stand up and defend him.

peace, lynn

He refused to have any associated with al Quaeda because they're bad muslims and he's fighting the Northern Alliance because they're attacking innocents!? Hahaha...

He told a Newsweek reporter that he entered Afghanistan "to help the Islamic government... because the Taleban are the only government that actually provides Islamic law."

There he was then sent for seven weeks to an al-Qaeda training camp, where he is said to have met Osama Bin Laden who thanked him for taking part in the jihad.

Asked by a reporter about his experience in Afghanistan, he replied: "It's exactly what I thought it would be."

Did he think he had been fighting on the right side?

"Definitely," was the answer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1779455.stm

I guess the Taliban doesn't harm innocents, right? Jeez, will you liberals stop at no arguement to defend your Birkenstock-wearing comrades?
__________________
garibaldo is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 02:01 AM   #25
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Yeah!! Why did Johny Walker only get 20 years!!?

Afterall he's given "the label" a bad name!!!
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 05:02 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by us3
Yeah!! Why did Johny Walker only get 20 years!!?

Afterall he's given "the label" a bad name!!!
20 years? Is that a blue label or a green label? I know it's not red (6 years) or black (12 years), but what is 20 years? Who knows?

Questions, questions, questions...



Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 05:08 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 08:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


20 years? Is that a blue label or a green label? I know it's not red (6 years) or black (12 years), but what is 20 years? Who knows?

Questions, questions, questions...



Marty
DOH!

I should have 'googled' before I posted. A quick search found out that the gold label is 18 years. As this is the closest there is to 20 years, John Walker may be awarded gold stripes on his prison suit.
Congratulations boy, they'll look lovely the next 20 years!

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 08:38 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 01:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by hotasahandbag
it's my understanding that walker was never a member of al quaeda. in fact was approached by al quaeda before 9/11 and he refused any association with the organization, as he viewed them to be bad muslims. he was involved with the conflict against the northern allience (before the US was involved) as the northern allience was perpitrating horrible crimes against innocent people. there is no evidence that he had any knowledge of or involvement in the events surrounding 9/11.

he was arrested in a foreign country, brought to the US, and tried for alleged crimes committed in another country and sentenced to 20 years for what? "supporting the taliban" and "transporting explosives" IN AFGHANISTAN!

Okay, so Taliban John viewed Al Qaeda as "bad muslims" and viewed the Taliban as "good muslims" who went around fighting against "horrible crimes against innocent people"? I do not deny that the Northern Alliance DID commit "horrible crimes against innocent people," but it was part of the Taliban's governing law to commit "horrible crimes against innocent people." Just ask any female who saw a doctor without her husband's permission, or anyone who practiced homosexuality, or converted from Islam to another religion under the Taliban's rule. Oh, forget that; don't ask those people; they are all dead.

As far as Taliban John being charged by the U.S. for "transporting explosives" IN AFGHANISTAN, it is safe to surmise that he was doing this after September 11, and he would have known the likelihood of these explosives being used against American or coalition forces IN AFGHANISTAN.

Mike Spann was from a small town here in Alabama. He was killed by Taliban and Al Qaeda goobs in an uprising while questioning some of them. Taliban John was sentenced to 20 years. He got off very easy.

~U2Alabama
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 10-08-2002, 11:53 PM   #29
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: i don't know. if someone finds me send for help
Posts: 53
Local Time: 07:46 PM
ok, my original post was not intended as an endorsement of the taliban, al quaeda, walker's choices. it was merely to point out that both sides (the taliban and the northern alliance) are BAD GUYS. so, walker chose to side with the wrong bad guys? who'd have known since the US supported the "wrong bad guys" until several years ago.

it is interesting to me that the legal process in this case is so flakey, but the public accepts it because of the current political climate. i wasn't aware that "it is safe to surmise......" was sufficient evidence to convict a man. lastly, i am still baffled that this guy was never charged with committing a crime in this country or against our citizens, yet he was swiftly extradited and convicted in this country. the whole scenario screams "propaganda" to me. in different times, he would have had people running to his aid to ensure his rights were being protected.

peace, lynn
__________________
hotasahandbag is offline  
Old 10-09-2002, 01:53 PM   #30
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 100
Local Time: 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by hotasahandbag
ok, my original post was not intended as an endorsement of the taliban, al quaeda, walker's choices. it was merely to point out that both sides (the taliban and the northern alliance) are BAD GUYS. so, walker chose to side with the wrong bad guys? who'd have known since the US supported the "wrong bad guys" until several years ago.

it is interesting to me that the legal process in this case is so flakey, but the public accepts it because of the current political climate. i wasn't aware that "it is safe to surmise......" was sufficient evidence to convict a man. lastly, i am still baffled that this guy was never charged with committing a crime in this country or against our citizens, yet he was swiftly extradited and convicted in this country. the whole scenario screams "propaganda" to me. in different times, he would have had people running to his aid to ensure his rights were being protected.

peace, lynn
Wow, what a weak arguement! It's hilarious how far you libs will go to protect the enemy rather than protect the US. First, he joined the enemy KNOWING that they were out to kill Americans.

Directly from the BBC article (hardly right-wing propaganda):
"There he was then sent for seven weeks to an al-Qaeda training camp, where he is said to have met Osama Bin Laden who thanked him for taking part in the jihad. "

So, you're arguing that he DIDN'T know these guys were trying to kill Americans? Do you think the "death to Americans" talk started on 9-11? Do you think they never mentioned it to him that they weren't exactly fond of Americans? Hahaha...

Walker: "What!? I thought we were pro-America! What's all this sudden talk of killing Americans all about? Wow! That just came out of left field, didn't it?"

Also, if I leave this country to serve the military abroad and someone takes my life, THAT'S STILL A CRIME! You must be a pretty cold-hearted person to ignore the potential that he was involved in the death of this CIA agent or other attempts to kill innocentns here just because it doesn't support your arguement (agenda).

"in different times, he would have had people running to his aid to ensure his rights were being protected."

Ummm...that's exactly what you're doing, right? Again, I find your logic and arguement very, very sad. The fact that you would go as far as pretending that he simply chose the wrong side (some sort of wacked multiculturism) and didn't commit a crime WITHIN our borders as justification to release him smacks of the worst kind of FAR left-wing agenda.
There is right and wrong in this word, believe it or not. It's not just all a matter of perspective and we, as US citizens, have a right to defend ourselves against crimes commited domestically AND internationally. Try taking off the birkenstocks for a second and come down off that high horse with the rest of the commoners.
__________________

__________________
garibaldo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com