phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
INDY500 said:The Trial on Terror!!
BVS, that didn't work prior to 9/11...why would it now?
What didn't work before 9/11?
Also, do you not believe in the Constitution?
INDY500 said:The Trial on Terror!!
BVS, that didn't work prior to 9/11...why would it now?
INDY500 said:
The Trial on Terror!!
BVS, that didn't work prior to 9/11...why would it now?
Was the act of crashing hijacked commercial airliners into America's financial district and the Pentagon;
A) A domestic military strike
or
B) A civil crime
INDY500 said:
All "torture" is not equal. The detainment of a few hundred and the harsh interrogation "torture" of only a select few top strategists to help identify terrorists (they don't wear uniforms do they?) and to gain actionable intelligence to prevent the mass-murder of innocents is not the same as the sadistic, systemic and decades long human rights abuses of Russia, Red China, Cuba, N Korea, Iran or Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Vincent Vega said:There have been two cases with Germans who have been kidnapped and sent to Guantanamo or one of the secret prisons where they got tortured, detained and kept in secret places without anyone knowing where they are or whether they are still alive.
And they didn't have the least to do with any terrorist organisation, yet they were tortured and kept captive for months.
Who knows how many of those cases exist without anyone knowing, and worse, your govenment set the legal ground for this going out of control. And history has taught us how easily such actions go out of control.
INDY500 said:
Of coarse the other side of the coin would be the 3 suspects (2 German Muslims and a Turk) that planned to attack Frankfurt's international airport, the Ramstein Air Base and discos frequented by Americans.
Were these attacks thwarted only by good police work? Maybe, but if it turns out German officials were assisted by information obtained by the questionable tactics of the "intelligence community", would that really matter?
I would hope that both the U.S. president and the German chancellor put saving lives and national defense above all other considerations.
INDY500 said:
I would hope that both the U.S. president and the German chancellor put saving lives and national defense above all other considerations.
phillyfan26 said:Is it not a slippery slope, INDY?
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Why not take it a step further and just lock up all Muslims?
INDY500 said:Maybe, just maybe, good can defeat evil without becoming evil itself. Maybe a country can protect it's citizens and respect their rights at the same time.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Why not take it a step further and just lock up all Muslims?
ntalwar said:
Don't forget Bush killed the writ of habeas corpus. There's no guarentee that the definition of "terrorist" won't be expanded to anyone who doesn't agree with Bush in the future. In fact, he already hinted it does (per that 2001 quote).
INDY500 said:
Maybe a country can protect it's citizens and respect their rights at the same time.
INDY500 said:
You aren't going to answer the question are you?
Was the act of crashing hijacked commercial airliners into America's financial district and the Pentagon;
A) A domestic military strike
or
B) A civil crime
or maybe you need
C) an inside job
Answer the question or meet my "friends."
INDY500 said:
2001 quote??? You mean Bush has had 6 years to build the prisons and dig the mass graves for U.S. citizens and he hasn't done it?
Man, there's nothing worse than a slacker fascist.
What a hoot.ntalwar said:
BonoVoxSupastar said:
D) None of the above.
Now, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?
INDY500 said:
How would you define it?
INDY500 said:
You aren't going to answer the question are you?
Was the act of crashing hijacked commercial airliners into America's financial district and the Pentagon;
A) A domestic military strike
or
B) A civil crime
or maybe you need
C) an inside job
Answer the question or meet my "friends."
INDY500 said:
What isn't a slippery slope?
After we entered WWII and defeated the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese Imperial army in the Pacific...what was to stop our "war machine" from continuing on? Really...why aren't we living in the United States of Earth.
Who could have stopped us? Our allies in Europe were decimated, Russia was broke and had lost 10 million soldiers, Canada was, well, Canada.
We had "the bomb" and no one else did!! The world was our slippery slope. But we sent the soldiers home and went about rebuilding war torn Europe and Japan.
Maybe, just maybe, good can defeat evil without becoming evil itself. Maybe a country can protect it's citizens and respect their rights at the same time.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
It was an attack by a group. Not a country, not a religion, nor an ideaology.
But once again, what does this have to do with picking up people off the street, labeling them a terrorists and then being able to hold them indefinately?
INDY500 said:9/11-- just a random attack by a group, totally unrelated to previous or subsequent attacks and with no underlying ideology. Well, if you believe that you should pooh-pooh the War on Terror I guess.
INDY500 said:
9/11-- just a random attack by a group, totally unrelated to previous or subsequent attacks and with no underlying ideology. Well, if you believe that you should pooh-pooh the War on Terror I guess.
The street is their battlefield. Civilian clothes their uniform.
Wasn't Nazism an ideology that used the resources of Germany to spread. One needn't be German to have been a Nazi after all. The 30 Years War was about ideology wasn't it. What of civil wars?maycocksean said:Wars are fought against nations, not against ideologies.
If you don't have a specific nation that you are at war with, then you don't have a war, in my opinion.
At the very least the U.S. should have declared war on Al Qaeda--if that's possible--rather than this nonsensical broad sweeping "war on terror." The so-called war isn't broad enough any way. There's been no move to check out American citizens (Timothy McVeigh types for example) that might be involved in terrorist activities. And I'm not arguing that there should be. . .just saying that the term "War on Terror" isn't even honest.
And why is that no one ever talks about the Oklahoma City bombing any more? Why didn't we declare a "war on terror" after that? And remember the Unabomber? Wasn't he a terrorist also? Or do you have to be Muslim?
phillyfan26 said:
He never said it was random.
The point he's making is that it wasn't an attack by the Muslim faith. It wasn't an attack by the country of Afghanistan, or of Iran, or of Iraq, etc. These were not soldiers. These people were just in a group.
INDY500 said:Doesn't make the people they murder any less dead.
Vincent Vega said:That's both much easier to fight than a "war on terror", where you have so many factions and so many enemies you are in fact fighting a hydra.
Well Vincent, when we "torture" it is to gain intelligence to protect lives -- not to coerce a phoney conversion or a denouncing of former beliefs -- and if we have videotape we destroy those tapes. Our enemy posts their "torture" videos on the internet. We aren't stooping to their level.And torturing and detaining inhumanely and stooping to the level of your enemy is only recruiting more and more enemies to fight.
phillyfan26 said:
And my statement never said nor implied that.