ouch said:
No posting gets me in a huff
I believe in free speech for all. So direct your 'ire' to me if you wish.
Regards
John
Why we fight
- Thread starter ouch
- Start date
No posting gets me in a huff
I believe in free speech for all. So direct your 'ire' to me if you wish.
Regards
John
- Thread starter
- #22
yasuo200365 said:No posting gets me in a huff
So direct your 'ire' to me if you wish.
Regards
John
John, I only say that because it's obvious that many of your posts are intentionally inflammatory. Some of my moles have you on record as admitting as much. In any event, keep up the good work.Gentlemen,
War sucks. That said, I would just as soon be the winner. Civilizations have destroyed each other for millenia. I would like to be part of one that survives. If an entire civilization seeks my destruction and that of my loved ones, based on my religion, or being an American...then their very existence is a threat to the survival of myself, my loved ones, and all others not of the fanatics' beliefs. It should be destroyed as the destructive, hateful society it is. I have sprayed poison on nests of hornets back home, and never once felt remorse for the dying hornets. Whether nuclear weapons are used is a moot point and many believe things about them that, well, are exxagerations at best. All it would take to achieve peace, even in the middle east, is for them to act like they want it. A society that sends its children into coffeeshops and pizza parlors loaded with explosives is fundamentally flawed, and when they teach that paradise is guaranteed at the death of an infidel (gentlemen, that's US) -that is not the desire for peace. Not destroying such people, or at the very least, deterring them severely, (BEFORE they do it to us....AGAIN) is IMHO the equivalent of refusing to give our children a lifesaving vaccine because we feel killing the viruses is morally wrong. When the fanatics realize we are people just like them, and learn to live and let live, I will be the first to extend the hand of friendship. Until then, play to win, I say. The game is over a lot faster that way.
John P.
War sucks. That said, I would just as soon be the winner. Civilizations have destroyed each other for millenia. I would like to be part of one that survives. If an entire civilization seeks my destruction and that of my loved ones, based on my religion, or being an American...then their very existence is a threat to the survival of myself, my loved ones, and all others not of the fanatics' beliefs. It should be destroyed as the destructive, hateful society it is. I have sprayed poison on nests of hornets back home, and never once felt remorse for the dying hornets. Whether nuclear weapons are used is a moot point and many believe things about them that, well, are exxagerations at best. All it would take to achieve peace, even in the middle east, is for them to act like they want it. A society that sends its children into coffeeshops and pizza parlors loaded with explosives is fundamentally flawed, and when they teach that paradise is guaranteed at the death of an infidel (gentlemen, that's US) -that is not the desire for peace. Not destroying such people, or at the very least, deterring them severely, (BEFORE they do it to us....AGAIN) is IMHO the equivalent of refusing to give our children a lifesaving vaccine because we feel killing the viruses is morally wrong. When the fanatics realize we are people just like them, and learn to live and let live, I will be the first to extend the hand of friendship. Until then, play to win, I say. The game is over a lot faster that way.
John P.
JohnP said:
Fortunately JohnP an entire civilization isn't seeking your destruction
Regards
John
Oh lucky me....but it is apparent to me we are arguing semantics and as such when it comes to destroying an entire hostile civilization, I have no qualms about it failing...(and, mine surviving) and some here apparently do believe that to go after the enemy is somehow to seek the destruction of their entire civilization. (with all the comments being made about the middle east and glass...) If a whole civilization is the enemy, then I believe in winning. If it is only part of a civilization causing the problems, then more selective weeding in the garden is called for....I do believe we have them here, too...and the ones here should receive no more mercy than the ones over there...many do not seem to know it, but at least here in the U.S. to take up arms against the nation on behalf of a foreign power is to renounce one's citizenship, as well...be that foreign power Al Quaeda or any other...the fact that we give them a trial anyway instead of summarily executing them, should show some the differences between the mindset they support and the much more peaceful (albeit greedy) mindset of many in the west.
John P.
John P.
You guys are funny.
JohnP said:
You can't be refering to US citizen José Padilla, who was arrested at Chicago airport on the 8 May 2002, on suspicion of conspiracy to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a US city.
Held for the first three years of his detention without charge as he was designated an "enemy combatant" under an executive order signed by President Bush & so it was somehow argued that Padilla was not entitled to the normal protection of US law, nor protection under the Geneva Convention.
Jose Padilla was able to eventually put an appeal against his "enemy combatant" status to the Supreme Court. This puts the Bush administration's under a deadline of 28 Nov 2005 for filing arguments.
A week before the deadline expires, 22 Nov 2005: Padilla is charged with conspiring to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas. The charges do not include any allegations of a "dirty bomb" plot or other plans for U.S. attacks.
On the 21 Dec 2005, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig chastises the Bush administration over the charges saying that they have risked their "credibility before the courts."
After four years & three months on confinement U.S. citizen Jose Padilla still hasn't had his day in court.
U.S. citizens are indeed living in dangerous times.
Regards
John
John,
Perhaps my grasp of U.S. law is not as good as some of the attorneys on here, but when an individual takes up arms with a foreign power (eg. the Taliban) against the United States, he revokes his citizenship, and therefore, all of the benefits associated with it. That includes trial by jury, freedom of speech, religion, all those other goodies granted to citizens...Had Mr. Padilla been cowering in a corner, or surrendered to the Marines, rather than such as he was, with gunpowder fouling both his hands and his face (the product of MUCH firing of a weapon of some sort) and a smoking AK type weapon found near him, things might have been different. The fact that he was fighting under a foreign power while not wearing a uniform of said foreign power, makes him not subject to protection by the Geneva conventions. As I recall even the Geneva conventions allow for execution of enemy combatants wearing civilian clothing, rather than easily distinguishable uniforms...
So Mr. Padilla actually has little to complain about, as he is still breathing. The fact that his rich father was able to get a judge to declare him a citizen again is lucky for him. IMHO he is not a citizen, (with which opinion I believe the literal interpretation of the law agrees with, regardless of how one judge or another interprets the law...you better believe Jose's father did some "judge shopping") and at best a traitor. He is lucky the Marines took pity on him and captured him so his father could make all the fuss he is doing, because, they would have been in their rights according to US Law and the Geneva conventions, to have shot him on the spot. That they did not should tell him something about the caliber of people he was trying to kill.
I do not pity him at all. He gets 3 meals a day, gets to pray, watch TV, sleep...and doesn't have to pay for any of it. All he had to do was betray his country.
John P.
Perhaps my grasp of U.S. law is not as good as some of the attorneys on here, but when an individual takes up arms with a foreign power (eg. the Taliban) against the United States, he revokes his citizenship, and therefore, all of the benefits associated with it. That includes trial by jury, freedom of speech, religion, all those other goodies granted to citizens...Had Mr. Padilla been cowering in a corner, or surrendered to the Marines, rather than such as he was, with gunpowder fouling both his hands and his face (the product of MUCH firing of a weapon of some sort) and a smoking AK type weapon found near him, things might have been different. The fact that he was fighting under a foreign power while not wearing a uniform of said foreign power, makes him not subject to protection by the Geneva conventions. As I recall even the Geneva conventions allow for execution of enemy combatants wearing civilian clothing, rather than easily distinguishable uniforms...
So Mr. Padilla actually has little to complain about, as he is still breathing. The fact that his rich father was able to get a judge to declare him a citizen again is lucky for him. IMHO he is not a citizen, (with which opinion I believe the literal interpretation of the law agrees with, regardless of how one judge or another interprets the law...you better believe Jose's father did some "judge shopping") and at best a traitor. He is lucky the Marines took pity on him and captured him so his father could make all the fuss he is doing, because, they would have been in their rights according to US Law and the Geneva conventions, to have shot him on the spot. That they did not should tell him something about the caliber of people he was trying to kill.
I do not pity him at all. He gets 3 meals a day, gets to pray, watch TV, sleep...and doesn't have to pay for any of it. All he had to do was betray his country.
John P.
John P.
The only problem with that line of thought though is this. I don't know the specifics of Padilla's capture, but assuming he was captured as you said with gunpowder on his hands and an assault rifle nearby, it still does not specifically prove that he had taken up arms against the US. If that is all that is required to be seen as taking up arms against the nation, then anyone who uses a weapon against any representation of the US government could immediately be classified as an "enemy combatant" and thus the government could attempt to hold them without council as done with Padilla. It makes far more sense for the government to have to prove in court, with the accused having access to legal council, that the accused actually has revoked their citizenship by rebelling against the nation. Otherwise it becomes a very slippery slope as to how to curtail government absuses. Not to mention the US legal system, at least in principal, is setup with the belief that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than 1 innocent person to be punished.
The only problem with that line of thought though is this. I don't know the specifics of Padilla's capture, but assuming he was captured as you said with gunpowder on his hands and an assault rifle nearby, it still does not specifically prove that he had taken up arms against the US. If that is all that is required to be seen as taking up arms against the nation, then anyone who uses a weapon against any representation of the US government could immediately be classified as an "enemy combatant" and thus the government could attempt to hold them without council as done with Padilla. It makes far more sense for the government to have to prove in court, with the accused having access to legal council, that the accused actually has revoked their citizenship by rebelling against the nation. Otherwise it becomes a very slippery slope as to how to curtail government absuses. Not to mention the US legal system, at least in principal, is setup with the belief that it is better for 100 guilty people to go free than 1 innocent person to be punished.
While in an ideal situation you are probably right, being a member of a group engaged in a firefight with one's country is one good way to identify oneself as being an enemy combatant....not to mention process of elimination...there are two groups...Our people, and the ones engaged in direct combat with us. So, question is, did Mr. Padilla land with the U.S. Forces? or is he of his own free will with the enemy....
We aren't talking about a person here in the U.S. who, not wanting to be captured, shoots a police officer. Mr. Padilla was in a foreign nation, at war with the United States, in a training camp which trains people to kill and destroy in the United States, engaging in a firefight with U.S. Forces.
And for what it's worth, even in the U.S. when a felon is convicted he loses his citizenship rights...such as voting, etc etc.
Citizenship is precious. Too many who are born with it forget it so easily, while others who were not, are willing to do almost anything to get it.
Surreal, in a way.
John P.
We aren't talking about a person here in the U.S. who, not wanting to be captured, shoots a police officer. Mr. Padilla was in a foreign nation, at war with the United States, in a training camp which trains people to kill and destroy in the United States, engaging in a firefight with U.S. Forces.
And for what it's worth, even in the U.S. when a felon is convicted he loses his citizenship rights...such as voting, etc etc.
Citizenship is precious. Too many who are born with it forget it so easily, while others who were not, are willing to do almost anything to get it.
Surreal, in a way.
John P.
JohnP said:
Yes, but not all rights are lost. The rights to have legal charges filed against you, the right to legal council, the right to a speedy trial. Those were never afforded Padilla until the Supreme Court stepped in. Those are the reasons so many people have issues with the Padilla case. It also does not help that the reasons given for his initial capture (dirty bomb) were never actually filed as part of the formal charges which has caused people to question just how much justifiable reasons were actually available at the time of the capture.
I personally just have issues with the concept that certain rights that are legally required to be afforded should be dropped in certain cases. Just where do you draw the line?
One cannot just loft nuclear bombs--kill millions and declare themselves the winner. This is the thinking of some of the worst people of all times.
To sacrifice our freedoms, including those of a trial and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a courtroom--is to abandon the fundamental values that makes the US the greatest country the world has ever known. Our country was founded upon these values. Our veterans have sacrificed themselves to preserve these values. To abandon them now, so that we might pretend to enjoy a bit of safety is cowardice and negates the sacrifices of our veterans. We must defend our principles without abandoning them.
Honest truth about terrorism. Aside from fear it really doesn't numerically make an effective weapon. I risk offending here by marginalizing the victims of terrorism and certainly that is not what I mean to do--truth is is that for those indiviuals and the loved ones of those harmed by terrorism it obviously is a very destructive thing. But for us as a society, unless we fear terrorism and overreact to it it cannot destroy us. If we abandon our freedoms, if we compromise our principles, if we lower ourselves to the level of the terrorist--we lose. Sure we should keep our guard up and act to defend ourselves in a reasonable way--but we cannot win this war by compromising ourselves or reacting to a bloodthirst.
Freedom is the domain of the strong. Strength isn't always just a brute measure such as would be demonstrated by using extreme force. Strength sometimes is demonstrated by resiliency and perseverance even through dificult and potentially scary times.
To sacrifice our freedoms, including those of a trial and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in a courtroom--is to abandon the fundamental values that makes the US the greatest country the world has ever known. Our country was founded upon these values. Our veterans have sacrificed themselves to preserve these values. To abandon them now, so that we might pretend to enjoy a bit of safety is cowardice and negates the sacrifices of our veterans. We must defend our principles without abandoning them.
Honest truth about terrorism. Aside from fear it really doesn't numerically make an effective weapon. I risk offending here by marginalizing the victims of terrorism and certainly that is not what I mean to do--truth is is that for those indiviuals and the loved ones of those harmed by terrorism it obviously is a very destructive thing. But for us as a society, unless we fear terrorism and overreact to it it cannot destroy us. If we abandon our freedoms, if we compromise our principles, if we lower ourselves to the level of the terrorist--we lose. Sure we should keep our guard up and act to defend ourselves in a reasonable way--but we cannot win this war by compromising ourselves or reacting to a bloodthirst.
Freedom is the domain of the strong. Strength isn't always just a brute measure such as would be demonstrated by using extreme force. Strength sometimes is demonstrated by resiliency and perseverance even through dificult and potentially scary times.
JohnP
He was detained at Chicago Airport, he was not holding a smoking gun in Afganistan..., he was also accused of something he was later not charged for.
Since your legal system is largely based upon ours I assume you've heard of "innocent until proven guilty" - It is easy to throw the accusations about, but if he is a traitor then the government needs to prove it.
This Administrations rather convenient interpretation of International treaties & conventions, when it suits has alianated many. The U.S. has clearly lost the battle of hearts & minds around the World.
By the way Al Quaeda is not a country, so it really shouldn't be spoken about as though it were one.
Regards
John
He was detained at Chicago Airport, he was not holding a smoking gun in Afganistan..., he was also accused of something he was later not charged for.
Since your legal system is largely based upon ours I assume you've heard of "innocent until proven guilty" - It is easy to throw the accusations about, but if he is a traitor then the government needs to prove it.
This Administrations rather convenient interpretation of International treaties & conventions, when it suits has alianated many. The U.S. has clearly lost the battle of hearts & minds around the World.
By the way Al Quaeda is not a country, so it really shouldn't be spoken about as though it were one.
Regards
John
That's John Walker the kid from Southern California.
I remember him being interviewed and he spoke with an accent as if English was his second language. It just proves how off that young man is--he's from Southern California--his accent and the rest of him was fake.
I love psychology and he would be a real interesting study.
I remember him being interviewed and he spoke with an accent as if English was his second language. It just proves how off that young man is--he's from Southern California--his accent and the rest of him was fake.
I love psychology and he would be a real interesting study.
MJB...
only the worst form of person would allow his own people to be injured and destroyed because of his unwillingness to harm the enemy. Killing is distasteful. Always. It does not matter whether one uses a nuclear weapon or a sharp stick. But if one has these weapons, presumably for the defense of one's own country or its allies, and is unwilling to use them...then do you really have them at all?
MJB, I, like many here, am a veteran. I would hate to see the things we have fought for, wasted because someone thought it distasteful to defend them...
Just something to think about.
John P.
Edit: John Walker...that was it. And I completely agree with your statements concerning him.
only the worst form of person would allow his own people to be injured and destroyed because of his unwillingness to harm the enemy. Killing is distasteful. Always. It does not matter whether one uses a nuclear weapon or a sharp stick. But if one has these weapons, presumably for the defense of one's own country or its allies, and is unwilling to use them...then do you really have them at all?
MJB, I, like many here, am a veteran. I would hate to see the things we have fought for, wasted because someone thought it distasteful to defend them...
Just something to think about.
John P.
Edit: John Walker...that was it. And I completely agree with your statements concerning him.
John--
Thanks for your service. Still, do you really advocate the use of nuclear weapons? Where do we drop them--since the plotters arrested yesterday were from Londoner born and raised (although of Pakistani descent)--would London, our ally, be the place? Of course not.
Would you nuke Pakistan?--oh I hope not--I know a lot of good people from Pakistan, nuking the country would in my opinion be a real sucky thing to do especially since their operatives were helpful in the war against al qaeda and in discovering the most recent plot. Presumably with the use of nuclear weapons were talking about killing millions upon million upon millions of people--children, good people just to get a few bad apples. Look at the bad people in US, like for instance those who belong to the Christian Identity movements like the Aryan Nations--who do we nuke to get rid of those pricks--Idaho? It simply is not reasonable--it simply is barbaric--to hypothesize the use of nuclear weapons. The only use of nuclear weapons in my opinion is to let everyone know about mutually assured destruction (aka MAD)--or even use never deter only (aka UNDO).
Thanks for your service. Still, do you really advocate the use of nuclear weapons? Where do we drop them--since the plotters arrested yesterday were from Londoner born and raised (although of Pakistani descent)--would London, our ally, be the place? Of course not.
Would you nuke Pakistan?--oh I hope not--I know a lot of good people from Pakistan, nuking the country would in my opinion be a real sucky thing to do especially since their operatives were helpful in the war against al qaeda and in discovering the most recent plot. Presumably with the use of nuclear weapons were talking about killing millions upon million upon millions of people--children, good people just to get a few bad apples. Look at the bad people in US, like for instance those who belong to the Christian Identity movements like the Aryan Nations--who do we nuke to get rid of those pricks--Idaho? It simply is not reasonable--it simply is barbaric--to hypothesize the use of nuclear weapons. The only use of nuclear weapons in my opinion is to let everyone know about mutually assured destruction (aka MAD)--or even use never deter only (aka UNDO).
BGog said:
Bombings at abortion offices meet the criteria you describe above.
The things that happen in the name of religion do not necessarily represent the religion itself...
JohnP said:
Wrong, he loses his civil rights not his citizenship.
Terrorists are scarey. They are twisted people who use tools that are meant for the betterment of us all and use them instead to hurt. They remind me of embezzlers who steal from the hand that feeds them and manage to justify it as their just due. Terrorists however are not even as bold as that, they hide away, plotting to hurt others behind closed doors for reasons that I cannot begin to imagine. It seems like pure hatred without rhyme or reason to me and it is becoming more and more prevalent. It is frightening to me that anything that we do to better ourselves can be twisted and used against us by some jerk who is bitter or hoping for a gross of virgins in the hereafter, or for whatever other reason that they may have.
Unfortunately they are not a civilization... they are groups and individuals. A terrorist can be a Catholic priest or an Al Quida goon with no education, looking for acceptance in communal hatred, or even a weirdo who likes to put cyanide in tylenol. All are terrorists and all have one thing in common... they are not a civilization.
Using a nuke against terrorists is like killing yourself to get rid of a virus. I am greatful to MI5 and Scotland Yard for finding the Pakistani group in London... I have no desire to nuke Pakistan, or even dislike another Pakistani because of a group. There is a mindset here... I think this is better left to people who are trained in counter terrorism then people who are trained in warfare. I understand we are all very angry, very hurt and very frightened.. but lashing out at multitudes will not help the situation... just simply make Americans look even worse worldwide... if that is possible...
You are right in one thing John... there is nothing wrong with clearing out a hornets nest... Let's make sure we identify the nest before doing unwanted damage. I have to say that in the meanwhile, I am scared pissless hoping and praying that this can be done......
Sue (Mama Bear)
Unfortunately they are not a civilization... they are groups and individuals. A terrorist can be a Catholic priest or an Al Quida goon with no education, looking for acceptance in communal hatred, or even a weirdo who likes to put cyanide in tylenol. All are terrorists and all have one thing in common... they are not a civilization.
Using a nuke against terrorists is like killing yourself to get rid of a virus. I am greatful to MI5 and Scotland Yard for finding the Pakistani group in London... I have no desire to nuke Pakistan, or even dislike another Pakistani because of a group. There is a mindset here... I think this is better left to people who are trained in counter terrorism then people who are trained in warfare. I understand we are all very angry, very hurt and very frightened.. but lashing out at multitudes will not help the situation... just simply make Americans look even worse worldwide... if that is possible...
You are right in one thing John... there is nothing wrong with clearing out a hornets nest... Let's make sure we identify the nest before doing unwanted damage. I have to say that in the meanwhile, I am scared pissless hoping and praying that this can be done......
Sue (Mama Bear)
