|
||||||||
|
Title: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by wildhaus on Aug 19th, 2006, 2:23am In the war against terror, one needs to go to the extreme, as the terror organizations use methods that, at times are fare beyond the extreme. I do not understand all the people criticizing the so called “abuse” of power and defending “rights” of terrorists, in the war against terror. In a war without rules, the fight against it has to, at times; go to the extreme, and into the gray area of the law, or at times, beyond that line….. The terror has no laws…. and dose not recognizes the rights of others…. therefore the man fighting them have to; at times play by the rules set by the terror groups….. and this turf is lawless! It’s not just a USA problem, or issue, its global matter, and the ones fighting the terror have to fight on two (2) fronts, one is the terror, and the other are the people calling them self, the guards of rights and low….. I just wonder what rights? what low? and there are other numerous groups that put obstacles and criticize. What angers even more, is that when the terror dose get to hurt, then the ones that put obstacles and criticize the way the man are fighting the war, are on the front line, critesaizing the INCOMPITENS of the people on the front line, fighting the terror! Never the less, there should be controlling and monitoring of the mechanism fighting terror, by a “body” set for it! that knows and understands the needs of the units fighting the war! So there will be no abuse for personal gain or criminal abuse aginst innocent people trough personal interest and for personal gain. Michael |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by ivanov on Aug 19th, 2006, 3:30am Related news----- http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/150806thenexus.htm |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by zwibbs/Scott on Aug 19th, 2006, 4:29am Michael, The US--CIA used to have all sorts of people in their operation. Alot of them were undesirables--low lives , scum bags, all sorts of bad people in different countries. BUT they used to get inside groups in every country and terror group. In the 90's President Clinton decided we should not continue to hire these type people----somehow the terror groups knew this and that is when all the nonsense started. We had two attacks on the World Trade Center--and still didn't pursue the correct issue. Case in point---President Reagan used these low figures in the CIA to find the two terrorists who killed a US Citizen on the Cruise Ship...These cia informants told us that the two terrorists were in Egypt....Reagan asked Mubarek if this was true.......Mubarek was upset and said he would never hide such people......The informants insisted they were there, in Egypt----even gave a flight--an Air Egypt flight that they were boarding.....Reagan believed the informants, and when the Air Egypt flight took off---minutes later it was surrounded by US Navy Fighters who sent a message of........." Take it down, or we shoot you down !" That was the right way to fight these bastards, and it made alot of Americans proud to be American. Reagan did it---all because of the correct people in the CIA !!!!!!!!!!!! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Paul98 on Aug 19th, 2006, 8:49am Very well put Michael! The constraints the "do-gooders" want only help the terrorists. Scott, the sanitizing of our intelligence operations started with Carter passing the laws forbidding assisination of forign heads of state. (result of Kennedy and Fidel.) Clinton took this to a new extreem. No low lifes were to be used in intelligence operations. Clinton also blinded intelligence by passing a law that made it illegal to share info between the FBI, Secret Service and the CIA. This law was to prevent discovery of what was going on in the White House. It was about the time he transfered oversite of missle tech. from the State Dep. to the Commerce Dep. This was to facilitate selling the technology to China in a round-a-bout way. China was going to launch a satellite for us. Their guidance systems sucked. Ours was cutting edge. When Clinton transfered oversight to Commerce, it enabled China access to reverse engineer our guidance systems. (State had manned watch over the satellite 24/7 until after launch, Commerce did not) In return for this shuffle, Clinton received political donations which were traced back to the Peoples Army. China lept forward ~10-15 years with Clinton's help. -P. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by zwibbs/Scott on Aug 19th, 2006, 8:57am Paul , You're right !!!! I just tried to simplify it. The woman on Clinton's team that did all that --sat in on the 911 hearings !?!?!?! I couldn't believe it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Paul98 on Aug 19th, 2006, 9:08am on 08/19/06 at 08:57:09, zwibbs/Scott wrote:
Yup, it's was his ace in the hole to be sure blame for 9/11 was deflected off him. Don't even get me started on the N. Korea/Albright, Clinton deal with their nuke program. Sure, we can trust Kim Jong. [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] -P. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by nani on Aug 19th, 2006, 10:18am Um, excuse me... "rights" are there to protect the innocent. I'm not going to engage in the political discussion here, but in a democracy, people have rights. This war on terror, and feeding all of you all this fear, has been a way for the administration to trample the rights of all of us...not just suspected (keyword) terrorists. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by purpleydog on Aug 19th, 2006, 11:03am on 08/19/06 at 08:49:15, Paul98 wrote:
What is annouced to the public and what is really happening in the intelligence agencies are two different things. The "laws" that were passed were an attempt to ease the minds of the general public, IMO. Do you REALLY think the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., are following those laws? I mean, c'mon... they do what they want, whatever it takes to gather intelligence, and to dispose of anyone that can be a "problem" to our national security. And as far as those "lowlifes", they may look the part, but you can be damn sure they weren't recruited just for their looks. It takes a brain to go undercover, the image you put forth is a plus to get you in. Works the same way with any police dept undercover officer getting intel on drug dealers, or the FBI infiltrating the mafia. The laws were announced to satisfy the public. But, you can be sure nothing has changed. Those agencies don't follow the law. They do whatever they have to, and they don't communicate it to the president. Only the final result, such as, these terrorists are in this place, right now. They don't tell him how they found out, or who got killed in the process. Then the pres gets to make a decision. WOW. Funny, when most of them have already been made up to that point. It's all about appearances. Anyone want to go undercover in the mideast? I know my lilly-white ass would fit in perfectly. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by wildhaus on Aug 19th, 2006, 12:37pm To you Nani (and all Americans)…… it’s not about the American politics (I am not an American, and will never attempt to involve my self in it! its non of my business) the terror is a GLOBAL problem, even in the country I am living in – Switzerland……and therefore my post is just the way I see terrorism and the war against it!…. and not about the American political environment! To you Invanov: It works both ways…. you can present in the media a documentary and claim you possess all the necessary information, pro or con. and it may be the truth, it’s all the information one has, and yet some of the information is not available, as it could be that the source of this information is in harms way….. and revealing this information could jeopardise, or even compromise the source… or just simply not available, as the nature of war is that some of the information is not available to the public! so any kind of media info is to be very carefully used as a “know it all”! The free world has the right to live in peace, and I would love to get on a plane, without having to even think, some terrorist might carry his war over my back, or for that matter any other passenger on that plane! I do not care if the war is rightful or not, but killing blindly innocent people is plainly wrong! And therefore the “war” against terrorism is a venue we are forced to go, like it or not. And listening to one of the religious leaders in London today, preaching to the western world, it’s traditions and way of life are to be condemned and if necessary fought against with force….. and that I call terror! I like the freedom and prosperity, and the right to be free, and no way i’ll let any one take it away….. and therefore the “war” against terror is just and necesity, sickening as it may sound! ITS NOT ABOUT POLITICS, ITS ABOUT PRESERVING OUR WAY OF LIFE!! To you Nani…… it’s not about the American politics (I am not an American, and will never attempt to involve my self in it! its non of my business) the terror is a GLOBAL problem, even in the country I am living in – Switzerland……and therefore my post is just the way I see terrorism and the war against it!…. and not about the American political environment! To you Invanov: It works both ways…. you can present in the media a documentary and claim you possess all the necessary information, pro or con. and it may be the truth, it’s all the information one has, and yet some of the information is not available, as it could be that the source of this information is in harms way….. and revealing this information could jeopardise, or even compromise the source… or just simply not available, as the nature of war is that some of the information is not available to the public! so any kind of media info is to be very carefully used as a “know it all”! The free world has the right to live in peace, and I would love to get on a plane, without having to even think, some terrorist might carry his war over my back, or for that matter any other passenger on that plane! I do not care if the war is rightful or not, but killing blindly innocent people is plainly wrong! And therefore the “war” against terrorism is a venue we are forced to go, like it or not. And listening to one of the religious leaders in London today, preaching to the western world, it’s traditions and way of life are to be condemned and if necessary fought against with force….. and that I call terror! I like the freedom and prosperity, and the right to be free, and no way i’ll let any one take it away….. and therefore the “war” against terror is just and necesity, sickening as it may sound! ITS NOT ABOUT POLITICS, ITS ABOUT PRESERVING OUR WAY OF LIFE!! Michael |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Charlie on Aug 19th, 2006, 2:33pm George Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 of course. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Paul98 on Aug 19th, 2006, 3:15pm on 08/19/06 at 14:33:33, Charlie wrote:
Charlie, I'm a bit confused as to which George Bush you are referring to. Is it the George Bush that has systematically taken away our freedoms and shredded the US constitution and oversaw the worst attack on US soil OR The George Bush that lacks the neurological horsepower to put one foot in front of the other while chewing gum? I couldn't resist, Charlie. ;) -P. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 19th, 2006, 3:38pm I become very concerned when a democratic government arrests people, without charge, secretly flies them to countries which use torture to get "confessions" and does it in the guise of "protecting" the civil rights of its people. Thus far, the amount of useful information gained from this despipable practice has been virtually zero. If this is allowed to continue, then soon the US won't even bother sending these "suspects" to foreign countires to be tortured, it will be done here (saves the taxpayers money). The US didn''t do this during WWII, when we really were in danger-excepting, of course, the confinement of Janpanese Americans to concentration camps. Interestingly enough, this practice was not done to white Americans of German and Italian heritage and the Niesi (sp?) brigade, composed of Japanese Americans, was the most highly decorated brigade in the US Army's history and it was composed of Japanese American volunteers...the same was true of the Tuskegee Airmen, the all Black fighter sqadron, another group of Americans who were discriminated against because the color of their skin. History repeats itself, except this time I do believe that the goal of the Republican Party is really to do away with Americans' Constitutional Rights (all in the name of protecting them). It is a frightening and sad situation. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Jonny on Aug 19th, 2006, 3:44pm on 08/19/06 at 15:38:47, paulc wrote:
Oh Please!!!!, tell us how you know this? Where do you get your facts? Please, please tell us!! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by zwibbs/Scott on Aug 19th, 2006, 3:56pm on 08/19/06 at 15:38:47, paulc wrote:
And then you woke up . |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Melissa on Aug 19th, 2006, 4:03pm Michael, I understand and agree with your point. Unfortunately, there is no way to talk about such a subject here without it turning into a political debate, as you can see. :( sorry hon :-*mel |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 19th, 2006, 4:05pm I was quite awake when I wrote my post and the facts came from CNN, The NY Times, The BBC and other news organizations. I'm sure that you will dismiss them all as left wing. Perhaps, if you haven't already, read George Orwell's "1984". You can easily check out my facts, just go on Google, unless, in your fantasies, they have become inflitrated by Osama and Co. and unemployed Communists. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by LeLimey on Aug 19th, 2006, 4:13pm 1984 wasn't broadcast by the BBC Paul, that was an ITV mini series if I remember rightly Hope that helps Helen |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Tom K on Aug 19th, 2006, 4:46pm I have to agree with PaulC. We need to get off the backs of these freindly people that we are mislabeling terrorist. We should just wait until the evil doer's show themselves and then wring our hands over it and hope they don't hurt innocent people. ::) It's not our fault that they have no more than a 1st grade education and that they truely belief that their saviour will not return until all the infidels have been executed. We just need to understand that the freedom that we all enjoy goes against everything they belief and that we really are the bad people of the world. George Bush has personally pissed in their Cherrios, raped their fields and pillaged their women. ::) Like I said before, it's the 2 or 3 million bad apples that spoil the bunch...we just need to have more understanding.... ::) BLECH...get over yourselves people! There is no reasoning with these groups. They would rather kill you than look at you. Until someone in the media or in Hollywood actually has someone get killed by one of the terrorist, there isn't going to be anything done about it and it will be handled as George Bush being the evil that is prolonging this. Since everyone loves to toss up the Geneva Convention how about this...where does it state, in the GC, that it is allowed to cut the head off of a prisoner? Does this act of beheading equal to making a butt crack piramid like Abu Grab? If you think that those two acts are equal than you really need to think again. Yes, the piramid of butt crack was over the top, but at least they still have their heads and their lives. Ask any of the family memebers who had their loved one's beheaded if they think the two are equal... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) te Post by Jonny on Aug 19th, 2006, 4:51pm FUCKENEH TOM!!!!! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by wildhaus on Aug 19th, 2006, 5:07pm Paulc….to you as a Dutch (going by the flag next to your name), what right do you have to go all over the Americans? and there domestic politics? you are NOT an American, and there for never attempt to involve your self in it! it’s none of your business! you don’t pay for it nor do you have to elect there representatives! And as most Europeans you would not like the Americans telling you how to run the Dutch government and politics….. you would call it imperialism…. sorry I am so rude…… but I had to say it…. to all … have a very nice week end Michael |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Jonny on Aug 19th, 2006, 6:18pm on 08/19/06 at 17:07:41, wildhaus wrote:
Your not rude, Michael! Your a stand up guy!!!! Thank you for your input and this thread, my brother!! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Tom K on Aug 19th, 2006, 6:34pm on 08/19/06 at 18:18:44, Jonny wrote:
X2! If someone calls you rude for voicing your opinion, then they are the one who is small minded. Voice on!! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by purpleydog on Aug 19th, 2006, 6:58pm on 08/19/06 at 16:05:32, paulc wrote:
If you believe anything any "news" organization has to say about what the "facts" are, then you have some more thinking to do. What makes you think they know anything? All they do is put a nice little spin on the words to make us all think (depending on their point of view, left or right) that nothing is being gotten from any prisoners. If we take suspected terrorists to another country to have them enjoy the local hospitality, and we get info, you can be damned sure you won't know what info is gotten. Unless YOU are the one doing the interrogating. And whatever info you do get, do you think you are going to release it to the fucking news organizations? That would just help all the other terrorists in the world. Boy, that makes a hell of a lot of sense. And as far as torture goes, what happens in prison happens. You can be sure that the mideast is not the only one doing any torturing of prisoners. What about the vietnam prisoners of war? Don't tell me they weren't tortured. If you're going to play the game, you're in for the whole thing. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 19th, 2006, 7:42pm on 08/19/06 at 16:13:58, LeLimey wrote:
"1984" is a book, Helen, written by George Orwell in the late 40's or early 50's. It is an excellent book and I think that you would find it very interesting and in many ways prophetic. It was made into a movie and may have been an ITV mini-series, but to get the full effect do read the book. Thanks for taking the time to write. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Jonny on Aug 19th, 2006, 7:58pm on 08/19/06 at 16:05:32, paulc wrote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Kevin_M on Aug 19th, 2006, 8:13pm on 08/19/06 at 11:03:18, purpleydog wrote:
Within the intelligence agencies, top secret publications are used. There is the Proliferation Digest, the CIA publishes a top secret journal: The Science and Weapons Review from the Office of Scientific Weapons Research, also, CIA's Weekly Surveyor, the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief which used to be The National Intelligence Daily and in 1992 had only 200 recipients, on up to the President's Daily Brief, which has fewer than 10 individuals viewing and the most exclusive document published by the intelligence community. Unless you're within these circles, it is best to wait for declassified info that is carefully analyzed by experts and published in comprehensible, factual, formats for history. How it's done and by who will become clearer. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by LeLimey on Aug 19th, 2006, 8:20pm Thanks for that Paul, I love reading. I really liked that mini series too and I never knew they had made a book from it. I suppose its anything to make a few more pounds huh?! ;;D Helen |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 20th, 2006, 11:21am They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Franklin |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by wildhaus on Aug 20th, 2006, 11:59am They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Franklin Franklin was a great leader…. and when he said what you quoted he did not know about terror geared to destroy the liberties and safety he cherished so much. The liberty and safety are not compromised by the countries and people in the western hemisphere; it’s the doing of the terror groups in the first place! unless I missed something, if our way of life would not be questioned and threatened in the first place, there would not be the need to fight a war against the (dark evil) forces imposing on our free society their vicious game! Michael AND "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." Daniel Webster AND Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 20th, 2006, 2:24pm on 08/20/06 at 11:59:45, wildhaus wrote:
Perhaps you should follow the advice that you gave me earlier...that as non-Americans we should not comment on what Americans are doing in Iraq-or does that just apply just to non-Swiss foreigners? Please clarify who should and should not be FREE to comment. Thank you. I will say that, in general, once people allow governments to take away freedoms for any purpose it is very difficult to get them back. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Charlie on Aug 20th, 2006, 5:07pm Quote:
Almost every government takes advantage of situations like this and tries to suspend a lot of freedoms. For the most part we got them back but anyone who thinks that we have had privacy since 1945 is living in a fantasy. The thing is to try to keep it at a minimum. I hope they contiunue to profile as they do now and not talk much about it. It's the best I can think of. I don't like it but I'm at a loss. Things are pretty scary here and Europe. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by maffumatt on Aug 20th, 2006, 6:24pm Terrorist give up their rights when they decide to target, kill and maim innocent people to communicate their point of view. You can either stand up to them, or bow down to them. Therre is no other way. For those that defend them, just remember that if they had their way, you wouldn't have the right to criticize. If you think your goverment is trampleing your rights, try not having any to begin with. Matt |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Jonny on Aug 20th, 2006, 6:51pm on 08/20/06 at 14:24:48, paulc wrote:
Unless you live here ....YOU should shut the fuck up!!!! (Tom) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by nani on Aug 20th, 2006, 7:35pm on 08/20/06 at 18:24:00, maffumatt wrote:
I think we all agree that once someone is convicted of a crime, they lose their rights. That's the way it should be, and that's the way it is. However, a suspected criminal, or terrorist, does have rights. It's called due process. Due process was designed to protect the innocent person accused of a crime. Everyone has that right. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Jonny on Aug 20th, 2006, 7:42pm on 08/20/06 at 19:35:45, nani wrote:
Can we agree that this does not cover anyone not wearin a uniform on a battle field and killing Americans? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by Melissa on Aug 20th, 2006, 7:45pm I'm sorry Nani, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. :-/ modified to add TERRORISTS SUCK!! >:( sorry, I was watching TLC and they had a program about the aftermath of 9/11 that isn't boding well with me right now. :'( |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by maffumatt on Aug 20th, 2006, 7:52pm Are they criminals? Should they be tried and put into our prisons where they would have contact with already troubled individuals? Do a little research on prison gangs. A good precident that we should follow is how the US dealt with the Werewoves of post war Germany. Matt |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by Paul98 on Aug 20th, 2006, 8:01pm on 08/20/06 at 19:35:45, nani wrote:
Nani, every US citizen has those rights while under us jurisdiction. The Bill of Rights a.k.a. Amendments to The Constitution were written for Americians. Yes it would be nice to have it cover everybody but it dosn't. Now, picture a situation where there is a group of 100 people together (not US citizens) and among this group 50 of them are trying to kill ~ 1000 americians each. You capture the 100 people. What do you propose to do with them? Let them all go because you haven't yet figured out which 50 are the killers? Let some go hopeing you get it right? Hold all of them until you are reasonably sure you know who the 50 bad ones are? I would have to say hold all of them because not doing so you jepordize the rights of US citizens. I realize that it is not fair for the inocent 50 but priority 1 is for the safety of US citizens. -P. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Jonny on Aug 20th, 2006, 8:09pm on 08/20/06 at 19:35:45, nani wrote:
When did we start giving terrorists rights? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Paul98 on Aug 20th, 2006, 8:27pm on 08/20/06 at 20:09:09, Jonny wrote:
We didn't. Some people confuse human rights with our Bill Of Rights. These people are the same ones that think being made to wear a dress is torture and a violation of human rights. -P. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Tom K on Aug 20th, 2006, 8:33pm on 08/20/06 at 14:24:48, paulc wrote:
Michael is speaking of the whole terrorism plot across the world, not the US. This isn't a US problem only, it is global. Hiding your head in the sand thinking it is, is foolish and going to get more people killed. The ENTIRE world needs to stand up to these MURDERS and show them that it's our way or a fast trip to Allah. It would be nice to give these people the rights that they haven't earned, but they are not US citizens. They are not part of any orgainzed armed forces therefore the Geneva Convention and US Bill of Rights do not apply. The truely sad part is that there are lawyers, who are citizens of this country, that are all too quick to jump up and represent these Murders in their cases. How many American lawyers are representing captured combatiants in Gitmo? Tis a sad day when someone who has been born and rasied in the greatest country in the world, would defend someone who would have no problem killing them and destroying the country from which their defender came.... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) te Post by Jonny on Aug 20th, 2006, 8:43pm What say you, Paulc (CHTom)? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Kevin_M on Aug 20th, 2006, 8:44pm on 08/20/06 at 19:35:45, nani wrote:
Maybe looking at as denying them bail for being a threat to our society until we can figure out, maybe by about 2012, just what due process is appropriate for the circumstances being the war on terror is still ongoing. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 20th, 2006, 9:17pm Someone mentioned the word "responsibility". I think it is very hypocritical to ask for, me a tax paying citizen, to be "responsible" and let the my government permanently change my rights as given to me by the framers, so we can use our troops to defend Monarchies, so the fithy rich can stay that way or get even richer. No, I say it is time for our government to be responsible. For decades the terroists have been telling us to remove out troops from Saudi, so the natural course ofaction will occur. If we would have done it, we never would have had 9-11. Nothing exists in a vacuum, eveything has a cause. You reap what you sow |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by maffumatt on Aug 20th, 2006, 9:32pm Yep its all our fault, not theirs. Typical. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Paul98 on Aug 20th, 2006, 9:50pm on 08/20/06 at 21:17:30, superhawk2300 wrote:
Super, which right given to you by the framers has been taken from you? http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144 As for 9/11 not happening, you do not know that. Perhaps if after the 1st world war the US maintained a closed door policy 'till this day, what would your world look like today? Much of the problems in the Middle East came about as a direct result of WW2. From the end of WW1 until WW2 the US basically had a closed door policy. If the US after WW1 had not gone closed door, perhaps WW2 would not have happened and the people in the Mid East would be a happy bunch. -P. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 20th, 2006, 10:18pm Here is what I say, jonny, though it was far better expressed by Martin Niemoeller, a German theologian, after WWiI: "When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out" -Martin Niemoeller, German Theologian If you think that such things cannot happen in America (substitute Moslems for Jews), you are sadly mistaken. Remember, again, the placement of Jananese Americans in concentration camps in your country during WWII and their only "crime" was that they were a minority and not caucasian, but as history has taught us, it is an easy step for a government to persecute anyone who does not agree with it during a "national emergency". Democracy is a fragile thing and must be zealously guarded and the rights guaranteed by the American Bill of Rights and Constitution apply to all in your country or custody, regardless of race, creed, national origin or alleged crime committed. It is difficult to do so, but the alternative, as history teaches, if far, far worse. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Aug 20th, 2006, 10:31pm on 08/20/06 at 21:17:30, superhawk2300 wrote:
Bro, you obviously havent heard: the radical muslims who cheer upon American deaths, scheme to kill americans with airplanes and also yell "death to isreal" are our friends.....we call them the saudis. Saudi arabia is amongst the top 3 terrorist havens, but we wont invade them. Saudi is the opposite of a democracy, but we wont invade them. They are our buddies. Keep in mind, bro, you are talking with people who think that the term "islamo-fascist" is a derogatory term. Ya gotta take it slow. as a matter of fact, its pretty funny: Iraq used to be secular, now they arent, and the right wing spins it as if that is a victory.......then they go parroting "islamo-fascist" as if they are the enemy. actually, thats not funny, thats sad. :-/ B$ |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Charlie on Aug 20th, 2006, 10:49pm I'm sure there is another 9-11 out there. That's pretty frightening on so many levels, one being our right to privacy which is always been iffy anyway and especially now with more technology. What is important is to not make life miserable here too. Accused American terrorists have rights but it takes time and we don't have enough of it. We're going to have to get used to a world that will never be as safe as it was 6 years ago. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Kevin_M on Aug 20th, 2006, 10:55pm on 08/20/06 at 21:17:30, superhawk2300 wrote:
I'm missing your flow here. It was in 1988 that Bin Laden founded a network of Islamist recruits called Al-Qaeda (The Base) and organized paramilitary training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. With Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in '89, Bin Laden returned to Jeddah and in 1990 Saudi Arabia expelled him. Osama relocated in Khartoum, capital of Sudan, geographically close to the Arab world and within a radical Islamic gov't, National Islamic Front (NIF). It was not decades, only since 1991, and it was Bin Laden who viewed U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia as a threat to conservative Islam after the Saudis ousted him from there. What would have been the natural course of action in Saudi then? Perhaps we should have left Saudi because Osama said so? We should have run then? These colors don't run |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 20th, 2006, 11:10pm on 08/20/06 at 22:49:55, Charlie wrote:
I think that if we survived WWII and Communism, which, in my opinion, were much more dangerous than a few thousand fanatics then we will survive the current crisis-the big question for me is will America survive as democracy or not. Here in Europe we do not have governments that want to trample on our freedoms, which is something that I think that George and Company want to do to Americans-and I think that the current problems in the Middle East are just being used as an excuse. I, and many Europeans, believe that Bush believes that he knows what is best for America rather than the American people. Americans are well regarded over here-it is just the current government that is not liked. George Washington was very wise when he chose not to run for a third term and Truman and Congress were very wise to limit Presidents to two terms in office (though had he lived, I think that Franklin Roosevelt would not have run again after WWII was over-he was needed to end WWII). |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by purpleydog on Aug 20th, 2006, 11:40pm on 08/20/06 at 19:35:45, nani wrote:
This is true only in the USA. Any terrorist caught outside of the USA has no rights according to us. It would go by the country they get caught in. And they changed the law back in 2001, remember? Suspected terrorists have no rights. They can be held indefinetly with no council, no visitors, not until we are good and ready to let them go. Being a terrorist is a choice. If that is your choice, then be prepared to live with the consequences. Or not live. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by paulc on Aug 20th, 2006, 11:57pm on 08/20/06 at 23:40:50, purpleydog wrote:
You are correct that if a person is caught in another country and charged with terrorism or whatever that they are subject to the laws of that country. However, the US courts have ruled that it is illegal for people arrested by the US on US territory to be secretly shipped to other countries to be tortured in order to get information from them-and torture is a notoriously unreliable way to get information from someone as after awhile a person will admit to anything to stop the torture, plus, it is against American law and the American Constiution. The Bush administration is also fighting against court rulings that said that prisoners held at places such a Guantanamo Bay must be charged and tried or released, that they cannot be held indefinately without charges or access to lawyers, etc. A number of British citizens who were held at Guantanamo (and also shipped to Egypt and other countries where torture is legal) were released back to Britain and surprise, surprise they were not arrested when they returned. Such practices are against American law and the tradition of "innocent until proven guilty" and the right to a "speedy trial". Such practaces would not be tolerated if used against American citizens, particularly torture. Where have all the flowers gone? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Aug 21st, 2006, 12:11am on 08/20/06 at 23:40:50, purpleydog wrote:
Chris, how can you call someone defending their homeland a terrorist? How do you differentiate between terrorists and the good guys? Terrorists use cheap weapons and the good guys use expensive ones? Wouldnt invading a country in an unprovoked manner be terrorism also? Wouldnt bombing a defenseless country for the purpose of making them a democracy be terrorism? B$ |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by deltadarlin on Aug 21st, 2006, 8:14am on 08/21/06 at 00:11:56, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
So, those who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were defending their homeland? Oh and lets not forget the ones that were just arrested in the UK. They were such upright British citizens that they decided to get a jump on the rest of the British citizens and start defending their homeland before anything happened? For you paulc, don't tell me about *democracy* in my country until your own country implements a democracy. 'darlin |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 8:53am Kevin_M, I'm not suggusting this is a "running away issue". I see the bottom line as this. The US military is protecting the Saudi royal family, with this protection the working class up-rising never would have never been shut down and the country wouldn't be a monoarchy anymore. Osama's purpose to live is to preserve what he believes is his country men's rights, and he believes he can't do that with the oppressive Monarchy ruling the country. As long as the US is there, protecting Kings and Princes, we will have enemies. Imagine if some othere country occupied the original 13 colonies to pretect the English - would the colonist fight the English first or the occupying country? There can't be a Saudi civil war until the US is gone. And why is the US there? We invaded Iraq under the premise of "Freedom" and "Demoicracy", even though our presence in Saudi is preventing just that. I am not for the people who kill Americans, but I can understand why man in the world would want to do so. Look at WW2, the largest acts of "terrorism" were the A-Bomb droppings, by international law definiation, because they did not descriminate between civilian and military targets. My point is that until the US starts haveing some integrity (walking the walk, noit just taking the talk) and others see our involment as keeping them down, we will have what we have now. I'm not saying the US doesn't do any good or is the root of all evil, I am just agreeing with the person who asked for "responisbility". |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Kevin_M on Aug 21st, 2006, 9:31am on 08/20/06 at 23:57:37, paulc wrote:
Innocent until proven guilty is not always the law of this land, guilty until proven innocent can be applied in certain cases, in which the burden of proof is upon the accused, and to even challenge the guilt requires posting a non-refundable bond of hundreds. In my state it is MCL 333.7521 which underlies a Notice of Seizure and Intention to Forfeit and Dispose of Property if the owner of a residence has been arrested and a case made that it has been used to facilitate the unlawful manufacture, transporting, sale, keeping for sale, bartering or furnishing of controlled substances, which can all be liberally defined, that is attached to an affadavit in support of the complaint by the arresting officer. All property is deemed to have been acquired by unlawful means until you post bond to get the opportunity to challenge the forfeiture and prove otherwise. Having bought my house three times, once originally and then twice striking a deal (financial only) to arrange buying it back again from the state in the past, it is used on Americans citizens by their gov't. Proof of innocence by terrorists is not a big leap in this light. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by maffumatt on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:21am Iraq was a secular goverment because the leadership of the country and the ruling party was Suni, both the Kurds and the shiites ended up in mass graves if they challenged the goverment. 400000 at last count, I guess their lives didn't count. The Shia and the Suni hate each other almost as much as both groups hate us, and the only reason they didn't kill each other in the past was because Sadam wouldn't let them. I say pull back to some bases away from the cities and let them duke it out, then take care of the victors. If both groups want to lower themselves to the status of animals, let them. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:29am on 08/21/06 at 08:14:21, deltadarlin wrote:
No on 08/21/06 at 08:14:21, maffumatt wrote:
BINGO!! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Kevin_M on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:36am on 08/20/06 at 21:17:30, superhawk2300 wrote:
As you can see, I had quoted your words which linked the U.S., terrorists, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11. There is only one common link, Osama and Al-Qaeda, which did not materialize in action against the U.S. prior to 1991 when bin Laden established a close working relationship in Khartoum with the leader of the NIF, Hasan al-Turabi. Osama established several business ventures with wealthy members of the NIF, including a construction company, an import-export firm, a bank, and a financial operation called Taba Investments. Bin Laden also bankrolled civil infrastructure development projects on behalf of the regime in Sudan, such as an airport and a road linking Khartoum with Port Sudan, and he supported the development of an indigeneous armaments industry under the Sudanese Industrial Corp. In 1991, it was then he turned against the U.S., his former ally in Afghanistan, and committed himself against the U.S. After bin Laden moved back to Afghanistan in 1996, Al-Quaeda was allowed safe haven in Sudan still. Al-Qaeda then attacked U.S. interests in East Africa and August 7, 1998 the bin Laden network carried out near simultaneous bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. August 10, in the Situation Room, six top officials known as the Small Group, Pres. Clinton, NSA advisor Sandy Berger, Sec of State Madeleine Albright, Sec of Defense William S. Cohen, JCS Chairman General Henry H. Shelton, and CIA Director George J. Tenet -- reviewed evidence obtained by CIA's Counterterrorism Center, which had attributed the two embassy bombings to Al-Qaeda. In retaliation, on Aug 20, Pres. Clinton gave the final order to proceed with a retaliatory strike against Al-Qaeda, code-named Operation Infinite Reach, with Osama leaving the targeted area just hours before. * 9/11 was in part Al-Qaeda's planned reply. That is the start of the road to 9/11, which puts bin Laden as the link between U.S., terrorism, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11. Find the "responsibility" where you wish but I think I can see it. *358.3 T (declassified around end of 2005) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Tom K on Aug 21st, 2006, 12:14pm on 08/21/06 at 08:53:03, superhawk2300 wrote:
I can't believe that you are going to try and put the United States on the same level of the terrorist who caused 9/11, because we bombed Japan! OMFG...are you out of your mind? Japan was going to fight to the death of America, in case you don't remember your history. They attacked us. Remember Pearl Harbor? How many innocent people got killed in that attack? It wasn't only military personel who died in the attack. Japan was not even close to surrendering until we dropped the SECOND bomb on them. BTW...it's called WAR. People die. The US tries like hell to keep the civilian casulties to a minimum, more than any other country. Additionally, look at the lack of deaths in this war. Not many civilians have died, and for the amount of military personel over there, not many have been KIA, either. Yes, we have lost 2500 or so Americans, but that number is so small compared to the numbers in other wars for the same amount of time in country. War is a terrible thing, but it is necessary to keep the peace. If we let groups walk all over us, we will have another WTC bombing, embassies being bombed, USS Cole attack, 9/11, Gatorade bombers, etc. America needs to be seen as a country that doesn't take crap from anyone, otherwise everyone is going to try and take us on. Look at the reports from the field. The insurgents are saying that if they keep up the IED attacks and kill enough soliders, that we will pull out because the American people will not stand for it, just like in Viet Nam. Don't back the President, the war or the military and you let the insurgency win. :-/ |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 21st, 2006, 12:45pm I fear that George Bush and his friends know that this war cannot be won, but he doesn't want to pull our troops out because he does not want to admit it. He will keep the war going until he is out of office and let the next President take the blame for "losing Iraq", something which has already happened. So American has "only lost 2500 troops"-well, that means that 2500 families will never see their loved ones again, a terrible thing. Remember, Bush started this war by lying to the American people and the world-Saddam was no threat to America but Bush wanted to play the town marshal who drove the bad guys out of town but instead has created more "bad guys". |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Paul98 on Aug 21st, 2006, 1:17pm on 08/21/06 at 12:45:32, paulc wrote:
Please, that canned D.U. script is getting mighty tired. Bush got rid of a dictator that butchered, murdered and gassed over 500,000 people. So YOU know this war can not be won? How clairvoyant of you. Bush lied to us? I'm sure you are positive of this because....Oh yea, your clairvoyant. -P. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by maffumatt on Aug 21st, 2006, 1:21pm It didn't take John long to come up with another handle did it? I said he would be back. Matt |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by imnotbub on Aug 21st, 2006, 2:27pm on 08/19/06 at 20:20:39, LeLimey wrote:
You are a card Helen Quote:
Combatants not wearing a uniform are considered spies. They have a whole separate set of rules that pertain to them. Quote:
Infortunately, the world was not safe six years ago, 9/11 showed that, we were just neive enough to think it was. Quote:
This is a mixed bag. "Here in Europe we do not have governments that want to trample on our freedoms"..?? Last time I looked Europe had all kinds of governments, from Communist, to Socialist, to Governments that don't quite know what they are. (Russia) I by no stretch of the immagination am a GW supporter, but to think that Democracy won't survive is silly, SILLY. GW will be gone soon, and for better or worse we will be putting someone else in his place. Hopefully the next person to occupy the big seat will have a different approach to things. It's a crap shoot. None of them ever do as they say they will. They can't. If they were to say what they truly felt they needed to do, nobody would vote for them. Reality is not popular. My point being, the American people would never stand by and let democracy stray too far. Just won't happen. Steve |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Charlie on Aug 21st, 2006, 5:57pm All I'm going to say is that dropping the A-bomb on Japan was not an act of terrorism. Terrible but not terrorism. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by maffumatt on Aug 21st, 2006, 6:41pm We lost 418,500 people in WW2, I think that was enough. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 8:08pm TomK, I didn't "try to do" anything. I was clear in my post what my focus was. If you want to disagree with me that is fine, I can respect your opinions without letting the conversation sink to low levels, BUT I won't argue what I said, or what I meant, or take on any of what you think my point was - those exchanges are a stupid waste of time to me. When I do shitty things to people, I would expect them to be shitty back to me. Complaining and blaming won't solve the problem, but taking responsibity and being accountable for my actions might. And I beleive the rules apply to the US more than any other country, why, because the US is the BIG one, the POWER, the country that nation builds becasue it beilieves that it is good. When we go back on our word, or our actions do not match our words I expect others to be more pissed about it then if Paypa-New Guina did. Especially in the cases where we are activly hypocritical. The one thing I will repeat, is that I am not judging the US or its actions "good" or "evil" (These are 100% man-made and make-believe). I am just saying how I think the world works. People mentioned the word "responibility" and I think they missed the point of the quote they used. When I ignore my RESPONSIBILITIES the world hands me a assload of ACCOUNTABILITY. I think that is what is now happening. 9-11 was an EFFECT before it was a CAUSE, because nothing exists in a vacuum. And it would take a whole shitload of stuff I didn;t like for me to strap explosives to myself, that I know. My opinion is, to stop terror attacks, it to leave them alone, leave their country, let them to their shit. How can I whack a bee's nest and then be pissed at the bee's for stinging me? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by purpleydog on Aug 21st, 2006, 8:36pm Quote:
This line sounds awful familiar. paulc, if you are indeed Dutch, I would think you would remember a bit of your own history from WWII. How many Jews were exterminated that lived there? Was Hitler a terrorist? The USA was involved with Japan in WWII. We weren't involved in Europe until we were invited. Much different from lighting out on our own, and inviting the rest of the free world to fight terrorism. And, until you've lived here under this democracy, please don't tell it to me. I was born here. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Jonny on Aug 21st, 2006, 8:39pm on 08/21/06 at 20:36:36, purpleydog wrote:
Pssst, Hey Chris....its CHTom ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by purpleydog on Aug 21st, 2006, 8:49pm on 08/21/06 at 00:11:56, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
Brian, you are not a terrorist, nor is any soldier defending the USA. That's not what I meant. If someone chooses to be a terrorist, then they have to face the consequences. If they fly a plane into a building, or they are the mastermind behind the plan, then yes, that's a terrorist. If a citizen of our fair country does this, then yes, that is a terrorist. If you kick someone's ass for invading your yard, no, you are not one. But if you travel to another country, and cause death and destruction, because you don't like the way they live their lives, then hell yes, you are a terrorist. Now this has nothing to do with us fighting a war in IRAQ, where we are trying to find that 6'6" tall god-wannabe (no offense to anyone's religion here), and bring him to justice. That's Bush's excuse for running the country the way he is. Besides, Bush is just a puppet. Who is pulling his strings? And any terrorist will just have to put up with wherever we choose to put them. Just like the folks who were tortured and killed on video did. Is that a fair trade? (Bless Nick Berg's family). |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Kevin_M on Aug 21st, 2006, 9:00pm on 08/21/06 at 20:08:12, superhawk2300 wrote:
It seems when Al-Qaeda hit our embassies in East Africa, the prudent thing to do was for the U.S. to get out of Saudi Arabia perhaps, instead of President Clinton launching 75 Tomahawk cruise missles from the Arabian and Red Sea. Thirteen of them were targeted at the Al-Shifa factory in Khartoum where VX chemical weapons, the deadliest poisons ever invented, were being manufactured by Al-Qaeda. This target was chosen unanimously by the Small Group in the Situation Room. They were launched at 7:30pm to minimize "collateral damage and gutted the factory. One security guard was killed and ten Sudanese injured. The Al-Qaeda embassy bombings killed 224 and injured 5000 others. Perhaps our leaving Saudi Arabia should have been the final decision Clinton made? How responsible would he have been then? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by stevegeebe on Aug 21st, 2006, 9:52pm My question in all of this is "What are these "people" trying to achive?" If it is as it seems, to establish the rule of radical Islam globally, than I say destroy them before they destory us. While we argue about acceptable methods, they grow more powerful. Europe is being absorbed fighting with nobility and rules that plays right into their patient and calculated invasion of the North. Spain, France, Holland,...England...look at the demographics and tell me that our way of life is not at risk. Again, what are they trying to achive? How can we stop it? Do we have the guts to protect all that western civilization has achieved? Steve G |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:07pm In my opinon, lots of responses here really show how well the government can use propoganda. Steve, you ask "what are these people trying to achieve?" The answer, as was told to us by the horses mouth, is "To have US troops out of Saudi Arabia". There are several answers to "How do we stop it?" i think: 1. Genocide (not very fitting for a country based on democracy like the US, also pretty darn hard to do) 2. Keep fighting "Wars on x" (x being drugs, terror,etc) 3. Give them what they want. Number 3 would be cowardice if "these people" were demanding something that rightfully belongs to the US. But demanding we quit occupying their homeland is a pretty reasonable request in my opinon. How many US citizens would allow China's troops to occupy US farms to protect their food supply, which is as important to them as oil is the the US? Does the US have the guts to practice what it preaches, to protect all it has achieved? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:14pm I hear ya Chris. I was just referring to the belief that anyone that lives in Iraq trying to harm US military is a terrorist. These people that are fighting an invader for their homeland are not terrorists. on 08/21/06 at 20:49:33, purpleydog wrote:
It's funny you say it that way. The most recent reason for going to Iraq is because they are 'islamo-fascists'. Fascism is the joining of corporate and government interests. Islamo-fascism is meant to be a buzzword to scare people. It means to join together religious beliefs with government. Basically, govern according to the religion. Thats called a THEOCRACY. There is nothing bad about a theocracy, unless you let the right wing spin machine spin it out of control. Now, it seems the right wing wants to rid the world of theocratic governments. I'm sure that will go over well. :-/ B$ |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:16pm [quote author=stevegeebe 'Europe is being absorbed fighting with nobility and rules that plays right into their patient and calculated invasion of the North. Spain, France, Holland,...England...look at the demographics and tell me that our way of life is not at risk." Stevegeebe, What exactly do you mean in the above quotes from your statement? What "nobility and rules" is Europe being absorbed in fighting? Who is planning the "invasion of the North" and what do you mean by "the North"? What are the "demographics" in Spain, France, Holland and England" that you are referring to that is putting your way of life at risk? I'm confused. [smiley=huh.gif]. Thanks. Paul |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:18pm Kevin, I beleive that if the US would have left Saudi when first asked, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. If the US would have left then, the focus of "these people" as it was put, would have been on civil war in Saudi Arabia, and the royal family (who run the country like a dictator, beause of US "peace keeping forces") would be over thown. Why did the US say it was spreading democracy as a reason to invade Iraq, but it defends the opposite of a democrac in Saudi Arabia, where people are killed for voicing opinons contrary to the ruling classes wishes? And for Clintons (and Bush for that matters) responsibility. The president that does get us out the Middle East better have some oil up his sleeve or the economy here will bust. So your answer will depend on your idea of responsibility: Cheap gas and a good economy by hypocritically defending a Monarchy and pissing off the locals a lot! OR Minding our own business and paying 6 bucks a gallon for gas? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Kevin_M on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:23pm on 08/21/06 at 22:07:16, superhawk2300 wrote:
Terrorists use propaganda, it seem they use it well too. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists. If you thi Post by paulc on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:28pm on 08/21/06 at 22:14:28, BMoneeTheMoneeMan wrote:
"AMEN" Monee! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:32pm Here are some pics from my friend Missy who has been stationed in Saudi Arabia. Here she is snow boarding. Yup snow boarding in the middle of the desert, in a shopping mall. Saudi has 2 classes - The Extravogant Royals and their supporters (small % of the poulation for which things like this are built) and the dirt sandwich eating poor, who get to build such things. This is what our troops are defending, this is what has Osamas' turbin in a wad, and this is whyI think Americans are dying. http://www.jmpindustries.us/missy01s.jpg http://www.jmpindustries.us/missy02s.jpg |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Sean_C on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:35pm on 08/21/06 at 22:18:53, superhawk2300 wrote:
Thats a false statement ::) We invaded Iraq under the assumption there were WMD, DUE to the fact that your hero wouldn't let NATO do thier job. Lets keep the facts straight please. Sean........................................... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Charlie on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:40pm It would be nice if they would stop the terrorism by our leaving them alone. Uh uh. That's not even a thought with them. The ultimate thing for them is to rid the world of western culture. It's even more impossible since we showed up in Baghad which is considered one of the most important cities in Islam. Makes me miss MAD. At least they were rational. Charlle |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:50pm Sean, I've heard dozens of speeches by the president lauding the US led efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq. I based my comments off of our #1 citizen. I don't have any heros. Please don't interject your view or assumptions and changing the meaing of my posts (and then mention "keeping the facts straight"). And please do not post to me if you are going do what I think amounts to sinking into the mud with cheap comments. I've done my best in my posts to share my opinion and speak for myself and kept the debate respectful. Thanks |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Sean_C on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:51pm on 08/21/06 at 20:08:12, superhawk2300 wrote:
YOU are something Superboy ;;D Another fuckin Jimmy Carter folks. Ya you go and do that, hell why don't you just invite all your friends at Guantamino Bay over to your house for a sleep over and tell them exactly how you feel, I'm sure they'd have your head roasting over the camp fire singing God Bless My Underwear. Sorry folks, I could only take so much bullshit :-/ Sean........................................... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paul2006 on Aug 21st, 2006, 10:55pm The way in which American politics and world-view generally overrules everybody else - and any thought or opinion perceived as 'un-American' by Americans is an anathema to the US psyche... THAT is a reality that terrorises me and a lot of other 'Westerners'. Should I now duck and run for cover? Or stand my ground? :D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by maffumatt on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:00pm on 08/21/06 at 22:55:11, paul2006 wrote:
Always stand your ground, that I can respect. Matt |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Kevin_M on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:09pm on 08/21/06 at 22:07:16, superhawk2300 wrote:
Should Israel be abandoned because the surrounding countries think they should leave? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Sean_C on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:16pm on 08/21/06 at 23:09:20, Kevin_M wrote:
Kevin we're not allowed to use the "I" word in this thread ;) Sean................................. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:21pm Kev, I have not thought a lot on the Israel situation, and I don't see how it relates. I'm not saying it doesn't, I just don't see it because I don't know lots about it. I do know these differences: 1. The US went to Saudia Arabia to keep the cheap gas coming. I see this as the start of the trouble. I'm not saying the US intended to be trouble, or is bad, or anything like that. But I don't remember any terror before the US occupation inthe middle east, in Saudi Arabia, originally, not recently in Iraq, after WWII and before the cold war got going. 2. The people that want the US to leave Saudi Arabia are Saudi Arabians, not surrounding coutries people. 3. The US occupation of SA is saving off a civil war,which is inevitable. I don't know what one would call the mess between Israel / Palistine. Sorry I don't know more on it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) te Post by Kevin_M on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:27pm Well since Osama's turbin is in a wad and he wants us out and that would solve terrorism, perhaps the same strategy would work for Israel too with all the turbins in a wad around them. But I don't think so. ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Sean_C on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:35pm on 08/21/06 at 23:21:30, superhawk2300 wrote:
Holy crap, I just figured it out,............... your a kid. I appologise for my above post then. I'll give you a quick history lessen then. SH terrorism been around for a looooooooooooong time. I assume you remember Kadafi, yes? He killed my friend on PanAm flight 103, and he continued to terrorize the West until finally, Reagan put a missle through his kitchen window..........literally. These people don't want your friendship, civility, or culture SH. They want nothing more than to take you hostage, cut your head off, and drag your carcas down Main Street yelling that it was Alah's will, and believe it or not, he'll eventually have a thousand of his people behnd him chanting the same thing. Make no mistake about it, it doesn't matter who sits in the White House, its always the same MO, blame the administration. Research The Islamic Taliban regime in Afganistan, and see what thier capable of doing for yourself. If your against the death penalty in America, you'll be blown away at what goes on in other parts of the world, and as far as thier concerned, the same should happen here. Praise Alah. Sean................................ |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:36pm Sean, I am sorry that posting my opinions on this public message board, about the cause of terroism, angers you to the point where you feel the need to swear at me and call me names. I didn't engage you on this level. Ironicly though, I do find your behavior fitting for your point of view (which you have the right to have and express) and this conversation. And if I abided by your philosphy, I would now have the right to go to your house and kick your ass, (NOT saying I am - bestraight) since you pretty much attacked me unsolicited, unprovoked, and for just being the way I am. Interesting! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Kevin_M on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:38pm on 08/21/06 at 23:21:30, superhawk2300 wrote:
I seem to remember President Reagan and Libya. * sorry Sean, didn't see your post while I was posting. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:43pm Quote:
I edited my original post. Sorry I was lacks in my description, I can see how it was confusing with the current thing in Iraq. I don't want to mislead anyone by my incomplete, poorly typed thoughts. Thakns |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) te Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:49pm Quote:
Yeah, I think you're right on this one, Kev! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Sean_C on Aug 21st, 2006, 11:55pm on 08/21/06 at 23:36:22, superhawk2300 wrote:
We'll save the boy stuff for later ;) I apologised take it the way you want, like I said, you entered an adult conversation and I was unaware that you were a minor. Again, my apologeez ;) Research your facts bud, nothing civil about terrorists groups or thier intent. Give a group of terrorists bio weapons, and you don't need a missle to release small pox, and your going to see mass casualties in the Western World. There will be no compassion then, unfortunately there will be only support, which will again fall in lieu of compassion for the enemy. All I know is they must have some good laughs on our dime. ;;D Sean................................... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Sean_C on Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:08am on 08/21/06 at 23:43:39, superhawk2300 wrote:
Its ok to be wrong Sh, thats how we learn as humans ;) Its all trial and error. Lets just not reinvent the wheel, ok? Sean........................................... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by superhawk2300 on Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:10am Sean, We are the weird loop where while you post something I am typing my reply to your last post and vice versa. Your apology post was up while I was typing my next one, so I wasn't snubbing your apology - I didn't know it was there until I posted again. And I'm not a minor, if you were serious. Sorry you can't see my views. I practice a very militant version of accountability on myself, so I view the world in the same way, including the US government. It empowers me great freedom and never allows me to be a victim. When shit happens to me I do not like the first thing I ask myself is "What did I fuck up?" or"Where was I not careful?" and when I find the answer I can fix the problem without needing help from others. Maybe personal accountability doesn't work well for (any/all) world governments, but it has made my life far easier. Anyways, thanks for the apology. Also, I am sorry for the loss of your friend and thanks for sharing that bit of info. I can see why you are so angry when it comes to this issue of sensless violence and killing. Know that I want it to stop, I just have a different opinion on how that will work. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 22nd, 2006, 12:49am If the Nazis and Japanese and their allies couldn't defeat the US and its allies, I seriously doubt that we can be defeated by Islamic extremists. Their greatest weapon is creating fear in the West and some Western governments use that fear to advance their own agendas. Doesn't anyone think that it is kind of strange that during this time of "crisis" that oil companies are making profits like never before? As Shakespeare wrote, "Something is rotten in the state of...(add whatever country you would like)." |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by imnotbub on Aug 22nd, 2006, 10:06am I had a conversation with my wife yesterday about what's going on in Iraq and why. While my wife is certainly a liberal, and wholeheartedly dissagrees with GW's approach to what's going on, she saw an interview with someone that appeared, and I use the word appeared because neither my wife nor myself have the knowledge to really state that it was true or not, a great deal of knowledge of the Quran. Simply put, he states that the Quran is a guide, written by a warioir, on how to take over the world. It doesn't preach about loving and forgiving, turning the other cheek, being tolerant. Instead it specifically states that non believers should have a hand and opposite foot chopped off and left in the desert with no water and let Alla deal with them. It goes on to call the infidels pigs and apes, words that are used in many of the group of Ayatollas speaches. So when asked why these people are doing what they are doing, the answer, at least according to this expert that was able to quote and point out specific text in the Quran, is exactly what Mohammed wanted them to do all along. How do we stop them? If this is the case, I truly don't believe we ever will totally stop them. We stirred the shit bag and the flies are buzzing. We need to keep them out of here, leave them to their pitiful existance, and find a way to stop funding them. Just think, they have been thinking this way for 1500 years, but it's only since we started bankrolling them with oil money that they have the means to do anything. Steve |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by paulc on Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:04am It would probably be a good idea for you and your wife to read the Koran, Steve-it is nothing like you describe. The bible contains enough tales of violence and killing to supply Hollywood for a hundred years of plots for horror and murder movies and were it written today you would probably have various groups of people wanting it banned for the excessive violence, sex, incest-the list goes on. Jesus and what he said and stood for really gets very little play in the bible, like he was an afterthought that had to be put in to sell the book. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) te Post by vietvet2tours on Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:13am Let's quit half-stepping and redesign a little bit of Iraq.http://lambcutlet.org/albums/Hawaii/The_steam_in_the_distance_across_the_lava_field_marks_where_molten_rock_still_flows_into_the_Pacific_Ocean.sized.jpg |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by imnotbub on Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:21am I have no desire to read it, it's nothing but someones idea of the way life should be lived, circa 500 AD. Couldn't care less. I was just relaying, as I stated, what I heard, stated by someone who calined and seemed to be versed on the text. Fundamentalists take what's read litteraly. The 'expert' quoted' from the text to make his points. As far as the references you made to the bible, I think that the text of that has been translated so many times over so many years, that there is no way that the original would look anything like what we have today. Ancient interpretations of a dead language is at best sketchy. The Quran was written in Arabic, is still tought in Arabic, so the text is pretty much what Mohammed wrote. No real room for error. I must assume that from your post you are well versed in the text of the Quran. Good for you Paul. Steve |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) te Post by paulc on Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:22am on 08/22/06 at 11:13:09, vietvet2tours wrote:
Right, "Kill em all and let god sort em out." Lunacy reigns-now tell us that you are a Christian. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) te Post by vietvet2tours on Aug 22nd, 2006, 11:53am on 08/22/06 at 11:22:23, paulc wrote:
|
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by maffumatt on Aug 22nd, 2006, 2:05pm Paulc is CHTom........please don't feed the trolls.......... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by deltadarlin on Aug 22nd, 2006, 6:47pm I may just join Floridian. :-X |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrori Post by Jonny on Aug 22nd, 2006, 7:01pm on 08/22/06 at 18:47:08, deltadarlin wrote:
Oh no you dont....that would be one less sane person here and I would be that much more closer to taking out the trash at a faster rate.....theres only so many hours in a day. ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by deltadarlin on Aug 23rd, 2006, 7:55am on 08/22/06 at 19:01:42, Jonny wrote:
Ah, but jonny, if I posted what was going through my head last night, you'd probably be taking me out with the trash ;). Either that, or people (with a few exceptions) would be all over me like white on rice. 'darlin |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Melissa on Aug 23rd, 2006, 10:18am Don't let current event rants run you from ch.com. This place is so much more than that. It always has been and always will be. That goes for everyone! ;;D ;) :-*melly |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by wildhaus on Aug 23rd, 2006, 1:28pm I am so sorry that a thread of mien, with no political intention, or in any way nationalistic hint, turned into an aimless discussion….. using beliefs and not facts (if it’s a belief, it OK; but presenting it as a fact that is wrong)….. twisting history, I would almost dear to say rewriting it……and drifting to world of fantastic ideologies….. with a very slight link to the point presented I will try to avoid posting controversial posts…. Sorry for all this............ Michael |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Charlie on Aug 23rd, 2006, 2:34pm Keep it up Michael. We need things to distort here. Most of us like to get political on someone else's dime. It keeps us from becoming unabombers http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/chemist.gif Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by Kevin_M on Aug 23rd, 2006, 3:26pm on 08/19/06 at 02:23:09, wildhaus wrote:
Very much, the majority of the conversation adhered along the lines of the topic started. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by deltadarlin on Aug 23rd, 2006, 3:26pm Michael, Keep posting. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with you or your original posts. It's just that I am appalled at some of the ignorance and intolerance that I see in some posts here. on 08/22/06 at 10:06:03, imnotbub wrote:
Keep *who* out of here? The terrorists or Muslims as a whole? on 08/22/06 at 11:21:21, imnotbub wrote:
If there was a show on CH, I could most likely present myself as an *expert* on the subject. Am I one? No in this lifetime (not a sufferer but a supporter). What your *expert* quoted is bullsh!t. [smiley=argue.gif] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: “Rights” of (for) terrorists Post by JeffB on Aug 23rd, 2006, 3:34pm Enough with this fucking shit. Beliefs are beliefs, you can't tell someone how or what to think. Either accept them or not but lets not argue or put anyone down for what they think is right. I gotta pee! >:( |
||||||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |