So Begins the Castration of the great US of A

[Roberto1223]

i d k, i dont even feel like discussing this anymore. it feels pointless. none of us can do anything about it other than bitch about it.


papa skull you kinda sound like the old lady in the mccain campaing whom stated "obama is an arab, and a domestic terrorist".


if waterboarding really does save lives then the government will aprove it again, and you will prove us all wrong papaskull. until then, you are incorrect.

[LennardF1989]

Papa, you're throwing two words over the same line, terrorists and known terrorists. There is a difference between "criminals" and know terrorists like Bin Laden.

You can't just point at someone and say: "You're a terrorist, now I can torture you". This has to be proven through a legal way.

So, no, I won't torture anyone, even if there are lives at stake. If I would get my hands on Bin Laden, at most I give him a smack at the head and deliver him to the local authorities, it would give me less problems anyway (you know that smacking a criminals head can get you jailtime overhere...).

I would do the same if I get my hands on a "kidnapper" of my children.

Torture is wrong in any occasion.

You have your answer, END

[Farley4Fan]

You'd give a little smack to the head to a kidnapper/possible killer of your children?  What are they your adopted kids?

Maybe that's going a bit over the line but I can't believe it.  What if you had the kidnapper of your children in your hands, and only he had the code to disarm the bomb strapped to their chests.  Is not waterboarding someone sooo important that you'd kill your kids to keep your BS "moral values" in tact?  I seriously doubt that in the heat of that moment that the first thing you think about is to not torture another human being.  That's the life of the prez, my friend.  There are things that you have to do but don't necessarily want to do, every single day.  The criticism directed towards Bush for the methods of interrogation used at Gitmo is garbage, and unfortunately the American people are buying it.

We aren't just saying "you're a terrorist!"  and commencing torture.  If we believe that the waterboarding technique can save lives, by using it on KNOWN terrorists, what's the problem with that?  Nowadays, even "torture" or the much more humane methods of "torture" (used on KNOWN terrorists like Bin Laden) are strictly off limits because we believe we are going above that.  BS.  The world sucks and sometimes you have to do sucky things to achieve a better result.  That's what I'm saying, we're too afraid to do the hard thing to achieve a good thing.  If there is no struggle there is no progress.  We've got this idea that if we just stick to our "morality" then we'll all be O.K. and the world will cool down.  Reality check needed - badly.

Look, I'm not saying we just go around and torture anybody who wails death to America.  When it's necessary and being used on someone that we KNOW has information that could save lives, we should seek the most effective - but the most humane - form of interrogation.  If that calls for waterboarding, so be it.  However we shouldn't put the Webster Definition before our own people's safety.  Lately, we've been doing things like that, and that's why I think we've lost our will to do almost anything here in America. 

[Snakebit.]

Oh and one more thing before I split for the next day or two, Roberto and all, you'd rather honestly NOT waterboard someone because you think it falls under the "definition" of torture?  Go with Webster not your brains I see.  What webster won't tell you is that risking and probably losing countless innocent lives just to keep your quote "civilized manners" is not only stupid but levels beyond that.  In this case, the ends justify the means.  In fact, not wateboarding someone to save a life is uncivil.  So, here is your choice plain and simple:

A) Saving Innocent lives (who knows how many) and sticking a terrorist's head in a bucket
or
B) Putting a detainee in your local prison for the rest of his life and not saving innocent lives (troops and civilians alike)

Choice is obvious.  Apparently a terrorist's mental stability is more important than innocent lives.  A terrorist, a mortal enemy of all things western like you and me, you'll sympathize for and probably kill your neighbor in the process.  Be friggin proud. 

/castration

Papa , how do you know for sure a person is a terrorist without a trial ? 'because it is obvious' That won't do , give me a clear way to differ a terrorist and a civilian in a war zone . How are you sure someone is a terrorist ?

I'm not the one that decides that.  You know, there are people in gitmo that we KNOW (For sure, like a fact) are terrorists, KNOWN terrorists.  Don't get this idea in your head that we are stupid and don't have ways of knowing who had/has plans to engage in terrorist activity.  

There is some Grade A scum in there.  Where will it go?  U.S. soil?  Hope we got max security for the rest of their lives.

Non-us citizens are scum ? They could be tortured and  Us civilians can't ? Talk about double standards .
Where are you getting this?  Of course not.  In fact some of the detainees were u.s. citizens, and should get a trial.  All I was saying was that if we've known of this terrorist for a long time, if we have intel, video, whatever, of that person committing or helping to engage in terrorist activity, why should a trial be given?  There is no evidence for this person, and there is infinite against him/her.  That's what I mean by obvious.  They know why they are there.  The terrorists I mean.  They are going to wonder why they are let loose.  

And still no one has anything to say about the 60-70 men that returned to the battlefield?  No one?  No surprise there.

And Lennard, I only ask that question because it's a good question.  Still haven't gotten an answer.  If it's such a BS thing to ask you then why won't you say why?  It's fair.  The job of the president is to protect the people, is it not?  It's a parent's job to protect their children.  It's not unfair to say that the president has to protect the people like they are his/her children, is it?  So, I ask you, if you were president or a parent, would you use this technique of interrogation if it meant possibly saving the lives of your children/people?  If not, you are not fit to be either one.  That's what I'm saying.  If you won't do your job because you sympathize for known terrorists then you should not have that job.  Criticizing the president for doing what he deemed necessary to protect his people is ridiculous.  

Spekkio, I said that liberals have socialist ideas in their back pockets and it's what they've been pushing for lately.  It is not what they would have been pushing for originally.  That's why I'm saying that current day libs is not old day libs.

The question remains not answered !  How are you sure they a-grade scum ? Who decided they are ? How did you figure that out ? How did you make it sure for a FACT , they are terrorist ? Did you give them a trial ? Did they present any witnesses or evidence ? I am not saying your are stupid but 'thinking about something against the law is not a crime' but doing something against the law IS a crime. And you need evidence and witnesses to prove it . Without it being proved in court its not a fact.

If you have INFINITE evidence then go to court and PROVE they are terrorists . But if you don't then let them go. They are kept in Guantanamo because they don't have enough evidence to trial and convict them . That is the biggest problem .

Why do laws exist tell me papa skull ? Why should we break laws and NOT GO TO TRIAL/Court and just CONVICT someone and torture/kill him ? Does that sound like something barbaric and uncivilized ?
Geeez , you are right i just called you barbaric and uncivilized if you haven't understood that.



To Spekkio. May be i am just comparing my country presidential functions your country presidential functions. In my country (Estonia) has SOME [small] executive functions of the goverment. Yes he has the right to veto decisions but our parlament (your word for it is congress) can override his veto with 2/3 + 1 votes . But our president has under some conditions some abilities of the legislative branch . Its really hard to explain because i am kinda studying law so its easier for me to understand . And i think your president has those rights too. But ill try to explain it .

Our president and probably yours too (i am not sure) has the ability to issue bylaws . (Russian word for this is постановление and Estonian is määrus) I think that is the correct translation. There are 3 types of this bylaws and under some conditions they can take form of new law (Then again hard to explain. All 3 of those types are laws but word law in juridical practice has over 20 translations. This time i mean law as a written working law for example anything from your constitution. The right to live , the right to have a trial .... so on ) .  If some part of our lives is badly regulated by laws/rights than the president can issue bylaws which will do that job but they then will take the form of laws.(if i am not mistaking it is called Praeter Legem Bylaw.) And i think , that is what Bush used for those laws to get passed. And if he did so then it is NOT anti-constitutional. (That is it in a nutshell )



Little copy paste to help you understand . To spekkio .

Regulations(Snakebits add regulation = bylaw in my translation) may be classified according to several principles. By their regulatory scope and connection with laws, regulations may be classified as intra legem, praeter legem or contra legem regulations. Intra legem regulations (Durchführungverordnungen) are legislative acts whereby the executive power is authorised to implement a law in force. Such regulations specify the rules for a law to be implemented and must be in conformity therewith. In theory, researchers are of the opinion that intra legem regulations may only specify the regulation of areas which are regulated by law.*10 Praeter legem regulations (gesetzesvertretende Verordnungen) are legislative acts governing areas which are unregulated by law. In this respect, such regulations substitute for laws. Contra legem regulations (gesetzesändernde Verordnungen) amend and repeal laws.

Source http://www.juridica.ee/international_en.php?document=en/international/1996/1/6175.ART.2.pub.php. Juridica international .Year 1996 . Page 3 paragraph 2.

One more edit. Again to make it easier to understand. If your president wanted to change something in the constitution then he would need 2/3 approval of the congress for his new law. But regulation is an another Akt . It is not a 'law' and your congress can not issue regulations by the way . So your president doesn't need 2/3 approval to issue regulations and as stated above SOME regulations can turn into new laws if some conditions are met . (If part of our society is not regulated/ badly regulated . This time it was about Terrorism , there were no laws before about terrorism so your president issued some regulations about it )


And one more thing. Our president has the ability to issue only praeter legem and intro legem regulations BUT he can't issue contra legem regulations {the ones that can CHANGE existing laws } and if Bush Changed something in the constitution that would be Anti-constitutional but if he just added new laws then it is not. May be president in America has the ability to issue Contra legem regulations i am not sure but i really doubt that.

[Farley4Fan]

The question remains not answered !  How are you sure they a-grade scum ? Who decided they are ? How did you figure that out ? How did you make it sure for a FACT , they are terrorist ? Did you give them a trial ? Did they present any witnesses or evidence ? I am not saying your are stupid but 'thinking about something against the law is not a crime' but doing something against the law IS a crime. And you need evidence and witnesses to prove it . Without it being proved in court its not a fact.

It was answered.  I'M NOT THE ONE THAT DECIDES IT.  Intelligence decides it, multiple things do.  By your logic, how do we know that OSAMA BIN LADEN IS A TERRORIST FOR SURE ZOMG!!?!  There are people that we KNOW work for terrorist groups, like those on the al Qaeda list, because of assets on the ground/in the air/in the network.  Whatever.  We have way of finding these people, and we have ways of detaining these people, and we have ways of interrogating these people.  Sure, there may be the occasional mistake of someone being put in Gitmo, but that is far outweighted by the intel we've gathered from the real ones.  We HAVE evidence, the terrorists do not, and that's the only circumstance where I wouldn't care if a trial was skipped.  Would we give a trial to Bin Laden?  Probably not.  Should you care?  No.

If you have INFINITE evidence then go to court and PROVE they are terrorists . But if you don't then let them go. They are kept in Guantanamo because they don't have enough evidence to trial and convict them . That is the biggest problem .

Haha really?  They don't have enough evidence for those at Gitmo?  Nope.  There are some all-star big namers in Gitmo.  Ones that even admit to engaging in terrorist activity.  Whether it be helping the taliban/al qaeda, or being part of the taliban/al qaeda, a lot of them admit to it.  There's evidence, and it's not even all the evidence we have.

Why do laws exist tell me papa skull ? Why should we break laws and NOT GO TO TRIAL/Court and just CONVICT someone and torture/kill him ? Does that sound like something barbaric and uncivilized ?
Geeez , you are right i just called you barbaric and uncivilized if you haven't understood that.

The detainees aren't just "breaking laws".  They have potentially life saving information, and you are basically killing innocent people by not acting fast and obtaining that information - so there you have it.  You are breaking the law by letting someone die.  Would you rather potentially kill someone just so that achmed can wait 6 months to be convicted/interrogated/killed/thrown right back in prison?  Law has a place, but so does common sense.  Save a life, give rights to a terrorists, your choice.  Law, or common sense.  Law exists so that those who abide by it are not punished and those who do not are.  Law exists to keep peace and organization.  You'll put a terrorists rights before somebody's life, obviously.  That's a flaw, a heavy heavy flaw.

To Spekkio. May be i am just comparing my country presidential functions your country presidential functions. In my country (Estonia) has SOME [small] executive functions of the goverment. Yes he has the right to veto decisions but our parlament (your word for it is congress) can override his veto with 2/3 + 1 votes . But our president has under some conditions some abilities of the legislative branch . Its really hard to explain because i am kinda studying law so its easier for me to understand . And i think your president has those rights too. But ill try to explain it .

I know about presidential functions and power.  I also know about the responsibility the president takes when he assumes office.  The biggest one being the safety of the people.  If that can be helped and achieved by "robbing" a few terrorists of their "rights" then it's what will be done.  The terrorists know why they are there.  Don't make them look like victims.  Terrorists are the victims nowadays, there's a big cut in the overall castration.

Our president and probably yours too (i am not sure) has the ability to issue bylaws . (Russian word for this is поÃ'Ã'‚ановление and Estonian is määrus) I think that is the correct translation. There are 3 types of this bylaws and under some conditions they can take form of new law (Then again hard to explain. All 3 of those types are laws but word law in juridical practice has over 20 translations. This time i mean law as a written working law for example anything from your constitution. The right to live , the right to have a trial .... so on ) .  If some part of our lives is badly regulated by laws/rights than the president can issue bylaws which will do that job but they then will take the form of laws.(if i am not mistaking it is called Praeter Legem Bylaw.) And i think , that is what Bush used for those laws to get passed. And if he did so then it is NOT anti-constitutional. (That is it in a nutshell )

The right to live!  There you go!  There you have it!  If someone's rights are possibly being infringed, their right to live, then we must do what is necessary to prevent that from happening.  Right?  Or is the right to a trial more important than the right to live?  Hmm?  The right to live is the basic right, THE right, the right to rule them all if you will.  So someone's rights will be infringed either way in the situation we are in right now.  Either the terrorists rights (right to a trial, keep in mind the terrorists technically should not have the same rights anyways), or the possible victim's rights (right to live).  Which will it be?  It's rather obvious to me if one of them has to be broken.  All this little problem has been is a simple choice.  It's all it boils down to.

Will you sympathize for the terrorists (the ones who would slit the throats of you and I given the chance), or willl you do what it takes (even waterboarding) to save the lives of people like you and I? 

Little copy paste to help you understand . To spekkio .

Regulations(Snakebits add regulation = bylaw in my translation) may be classified according to several principles. By their regulatory scope and connection with laws, regulations may be classified as intra legem, praeter legem or contra legem regulations. Intra legem regulations (Durchführungverordnungen) are legislative acts whereby the executive power is authorised to implement a law in force. Such regulations specify the rules for a law to be implemented and must be in conformity therewith. In theory, researchers are of the opinion that intra legem regulations may only specify the regulation of areas which are regulated by law.*10 Praeter legem regulations (gesetzesvertretende Verordnungen) are legislative acts governing areas which are unregulated by law. In this respect, such regulations substitute for laws. Contra legem regulations (gesetzesändernde Verordnungen) amend and repeal laws.

Source http://www.juridica.ee/international_en.php?document=en/international/1996/1/6175.ART.2.pub.php. Juridica international .Year 1996 . Page 3 paragraph 2.

One more edit. Again to make it easier to understand. If your president wanted to change something in the constitution then he would need 2/3 approval of the congress for his new law. But regulation is an another Akt . It is not a 'law' and your congress can not issue regulations by the way . So your president doesn't need 2/3 approval to issue regulations and as stated above SOME regulations can turn into new laws if some conditions are met . (If part of our society is not regulated/ badly regulated . This time it was about Terrorism , there were no laws before about terrorism so your president issued some regulations about it )


And one more thing. Our president has the ability to issue only praeter legem and intro legem regulations BUT he can't issue contra legem regulations {the ones that can CHANGE existing laws } and if Bush Changed something in the constitution that would be Anti-constitutional but if he just added new laws then it is not. May be president in America has the ability to issue Contra legem regulations i am not sure but i really doubt that.

[frvge]

Careful, by "removing rights," you are gnawing away the very basic fundamentals of your whole government and legal/judisical system. A very, very dangerious premise. Those fundamentals shouldn't be messed with. Not ever. Else there's no point in having them.

[Snakebit.]

The question remains not answered !  How are you sure they a-grade scum ? Who decided they are ? How did you figure that out ? How did you make it sure for a FACT , they are terrorist ? Did you give them a trial ? Did they present any witnesses or evidence ? I am not saying your are stupid but 'thinking about something against the law is not a crime' but doing something against the law IS a crime. And you need evidence and witnesses to prove it . Without it being proved in court its not a fact.

It was answered.  I'M NOT THE ONE THAT DECIDES IT.  Intelligence decides it, multiple things do.  By your logic, how do we know that OSAMA BIN LADEN IS A TERRORIST FOR SURE ZOMG!!?!  There are people that we KNOW work for terrorist groups, like those on the al Qaeda list, because of assets on the ground/in the air/in the network.  Whatever.  We have way of finding these people, and we have ways of detaining these people, and we have ways of interrogating these people.  Sure, there may be the occasional mistake of someone being put in Gitmo, but that is far outweighted by the intel we've gathered from the real ones.  We HAVE evidence, the terrorists do not, and that's the only circumstance where I wouldn't care if a trial was skipped.  Would we give a trial to Bin Laden?  Probably not.  Should you care?  No.

If you have INFINITE evidence then go to court and PROVE they are terrorists . But if you don't then let them go. They are kept in Guantanamo because they don't have enough evidence to trial and convict them . That is the biggest problem .

Haha really?  They don't have enough evidence for those at Gitmo?  Nope.  There are some all-star big namers in Gitmo.  Ones that even admit to engaging in terrorist activity.  Whether it be helping the taliban/al qaeda, or being part of the taliban/al qaeda, a lot of them admit to it.  There's evidence, and it's not even all the evidence we have.

Why do laws exist tell me papa skull ? Why should we break laws and NOT GO TO TRIAL/Court and just CONVICT someone and torture/kill him ? Does that sound like something barbaric and uncivilized ?
Geeez , you are right i just called you barbaric and uncivilized if you haven't understood that.

The detainees aren't just "breaking laws".  They have potentially life saving information, and you are basically killing innocent people by not acting fast and obtaining that information - so there you have it.  You are breaking the law by letting someone die.  Would you rather potentially kill someone just so that achmed can wait 6 months to be convicted/interrogated/killed/thrown right back in prison?  Law has a place, but so does common sense.  Save a life, give rights to a terrorists, your choice.  Law, or common sense.  Law exists so that those who abide by it are not punished and those who do not are.  Law exists to keep peace and organization.  You'll put a terrorists rights before somebody's life, obviously.  That's a flaw, a heavy heavy flaw.

To Spekkio. May be i am just comparing my country presidential functions your country presidential functions. In my country (Estonia) has SOME [small] executive functions of the goverment. Yes he has the right to veto decisions but our parlament (your word for it is congress) can override his veto with 2/3 + 1 votes . But our president has under some conditions some abilities of the legislative branch . Its really hard to explain because i am kinda studying law so its easier for me to understand . And i think your president has those rights too. But ill try to explain it .

I know about presidential functions and power.  I also know about the responsibility the president takes when he assumes office.  The biggest one being the safety of the people.  If that can be helped and achieved by "robbing" a few terrorists of their "rights" then it's what will be done.  The terrorists know why they are there.  Don't make them look like victims.  Terrorists are the victims nowadays, there's a big cut in the overall castration.

Our president and probably yours too (i am not sure) has the ability to issue bylaws . (Russian word for this is постановление and Estonian is määrus) I think that is the correct translation. There are 3 types of this bylaws and under some conditions they can take form of new law (Then again hard to explain. All 3 of those types are laws but word law in juridical practice has over 20 translations. This time i mean law as a written working law for example anything from your constitution. The right to live , the right to have a trial .... so on ) .  If some part of our lives is badly regulated by laws/rights than the president can issue bylaws which will do that job but they then will take the form of laws.(if i am not mistaking it is called Praeter Legem Bylaw.) And i think , that is what Bush used for those laws to get passed. And if he did so then it is NOT anti-constitutional. (That is it in a nutshell )

The right to live!  There you go!  There you have it!  If someone's rights are possibly being infringed, their right to live, then we must do what is necessary to prevent that from happening.  Right?  Or is the right to a trial more important than the right to live?  Hmm?  The right to live is the basic right, THE right, the right to rule them all if you will.  So someone's rights will be infringed either way in the situation we are in right now.  Either the terrorists rights (right to a trial, keep in mind the terrorists technically should not have the same rights anyways), or the possible victim's rights (right to live).  Which will it be?  It's rather obvious to me if one of them has to be broken.  All this little problem has been is a simple choice.  It's all it boils down to.

Will you sympathize for the terrorists (the ones who would slit the throats of you and I given the chance), or willl you do what it takes (even waterboarding) to save the lives of people like you and I? 

Little copy paste to help you understand . To spekkio .

Regulations(Snakebits add regulation = bylaw in my translation) may be classified according to several principles. By their regulatory scope and connection with laws, regulations may be classified as intra legem, praeter legem or contra legem regulations. Intra legem regulations (Durchführungverordnungen) are legislative acts whereby the executive power is authorised to implement a law in force. Such regulations specify the rules for a law to be implemented and must be in conformity therewith. In theory, researchers are of the opinion that intra legem regulations may only specify the regulation of areas which are regulated by law.*10 Praeter legem regulations (gesetzesvertretende Verordnungen) are legislative acts governing areas which are unregulated by law. In this respect, such regulations substitute for laws. Contra legem regulations (gesetzesändernde Verordnungen) amend and repeal laws.

Source http://www.juridica.ee/international_en.php?document=en/international/1996/1/6175.ART.2.pub.php. Juridica international .Year 1996 . Page 3 paragraph 2.

One more edit. Again to make it easier to understand. If your president wanted to change something in the constitution then he would need 2/3 approval of the congress for his new law. But regulation is an another Akt . It is not a 'law' and your congress can not issue regulations by the way . So your president doesn't need 2/3 approval to issue regulations and as stated above SOME regulations can turn into new laws if some conditions are met . (If part of our society is not regulated/ badly regulated . This time it was about Terrorism , there were no laws before about terrorism so your president issued some regulations about it )


And one more thing. Our president has the ability to issue only praeter legem and intro legem regulations BUT he can't issue contra legem regulations {the ones that can CHANGE existing laws } and if Bush Changed something in the constitution that would be Anti-constitutional but if he just added new laws then it is not. May be president in America has the ability to issue Contra legem regulations i am not sure but i really doubt that.

Papa are you stupid or only pretending to be ?  People ARE siting there because your country can't put them on trial because of the lack of evidence . Same goes to your special forces . They can't tell who is CLEARLY a terrorist and who is CLEARLY not a terrorist . Bin Laden is not siting in Guantanamo . There may be big names there but they STILL NEED A TRIAL . Your country has been preaching democracy/freedom of speech /equality/tolerance for the last 100 years BUT in the end you don't follow them . You are slowly degrading to the level of those terrorists who cut people heads off and then film it on tape saying 'hahahaha Alah Akbar hahahahaha' . Why should Iraqi citizens or citizens from afghanistan help you in your way of rebuilding THEIR country when you don't give a crap about their rights. Your only argument for the 4 pages was like . Come on , i know you will torture them because they MIGHT know something that will save lives.

Then how about i give you a counter argument . How would you feel if i wrote a letter to the fbi saying that you are a terrorist and you would be put in Guantanamo and get tortured ? Is that okay with you ?
Will you be displeased with that ? Or you ll say 'i am okay with that!' ..


Oh and by the way . Your not saving lives but not acting fast enough is wrong . You are torturing/ denying people human rights / may be even killing some . So i don't see hows that is better . Again better to save your own people and kill the big mean stranger. One or the other way there will be bad things happening for one of the sides. Again you are denying people human rights , but it is written in your constitution that you should not deny them + you also signed in under the Declaration of human rights made by UN.


You will give a trial to Bin Laden. He is a political figure . You gave a trial to Sadam Husein ? Yeah you did . You give trials to other bad bad bad people.


The right to live doesn't mean that you can torture/kill other people . The right to live means that your government respects human rights and follows them . It means that they won't kill their own people or any other people living on their own land without a CLEAR reason which is decided by COURT. {Death Penalty}.


Many terrorist slit other people's throats for a reason . Because they were driven to that point by historical and social circumstances. People don't kill other people without a reason and religion is just a way to justify their wrongdoings . Its almost the same as that Crime rate rises during the economical crisis.

[Spekkio]

One more edit. Again to make it easier to understand. If your president wanted to change something in the constitution then he would need 2/3 approval of the congress for his new law. But regulation is an another Akt . It is not a 'law' and your congress can not issue regulations by the way . So your president doesn't need 2/3 approval to issue regulations and as stated above SOME regulations can turn into new laws if some conditions are met . (If part of our society is not regulated/ badly regulated . This time it was about Terrorism , there were no laws before about terrorism so your president issued some regulations about it )

This is incorrect. Our President does not have the power to issue "bylaws;" all the laws that are in effect today have been voted on and approved by a majority in Congress. The President can only act within the framework of the law, which was modified by Congress shortly after 9/11. Also, not all laws need a 2/3 vote to pass; the 2/3 rule is only in effect for overriding a Presidential veto and other special circumstances which escape me at this moment.

If the President acts outside of the law, he is subject to impeachment and, upon conviction, removal from office.

[Farley4Fan]

kill the big mean stranger

Absolutely ridiculous.  Terrorists aren't so mean are they?  Nah, they're just some dudes that don't like us that much and so we should do whatever it takes to make sure they like us!  Right?  You think we got every single detainee at Gitmo just plain wrongly?  Hahah, no, not at all.  How about one of the key plotters of 9/11?  He's there, but whoops!  Our bad!  We can't tell for sure, der der der, let's just let him go.  The al Qaeda list?  All wrong?  We can't be so sure can we!  Don't underestimate our intelligence assets.  That's YOUR biggest flaw.  Sure, there may be a few that we got out of a mistake, and that's why a trial should be given at least to those that we aren't so sure about.  Even then, we must use caution.

Many terrorist slit other people's throats for a reason . Because they were driven to that point by historical and social circumstances. People don't kill other people without a reason and religion is just a way to justify their wrongdoings . Its almost the same as that Crime rate rises during the economical crisis.

And this...  You call me stupid and then, this?!  ahahaha....  People don't kill people without a reason?  Are you implying that we did something to deserve 9/11?  Did we do anything wrong prior to that other than support most of the mid-east's mortal enemy Israel? Well, we brought some freedom, liberated some countries, made a few mistakes along the way, but it doesn't matter because this is just what radicals are.  Radical.  They don't care about reason and don't think twice about why they do what they do.  They just DO.  There are a few phrases in the Quran that say "kill the infidel" (don't deny it) and so they do just that, try to kill the infidel.  If we really wronged the middle eastern countries, and really did something to deserve their hatred (which is just religious craziness wrapped in a ball of jealousy and envy) then we'd have much more enemies there than just a few rebels killing in the name of Allah.  Iran is really only our enemy because they think we've underestimated them and their power, and so they've been bred and forced to hate us.  What I'm saying is that if we did something horrible, like nuke one of their cities or something, then it would be a world war and not a war on terror and radical islam.

It seems to me that you are thinking that terrorists are the victims, and we are the big mean aggressor.  "People don't kill without reason", referring to terrorists as just "big mean strangers", what gives man?  Don't be ridiculous.  Terrorists are the victims?  Exactly my point.

[Cyntrox]

Many terrorist slit other people's throats for a reason . Because they were driven to that point by historical and social circumstances. People don't kill other people without a reason and religion is just a way to justify their wrongdoings . Its almost the same as that Crime rate rises during the economical crisis.

And this...  You call me stupid and then, this?!  ahahaha....  People don't kill people without a reason?  Are you implying that we did something to deserve 9/11?  Did we do anything wrong prior to that other than support most of the mid-east's mortal enemy Israel? Well, we brought some freedom, liberated some countries, made a few mistakes along the way, but it doesn't matter because this is just what radicals are.  Radical.  They don't care about reason and don't think twice about why they do what they do.  They just DO.  There are a few phrases in the Quran that say "kill the infidel" (don't deny it) and so they do just that, try to kill the infidel.  If we really wronged the middle eastern countries, and really did something to deserve their hatred (which is just religious craziness wrapped in a ball of jealousy and envy) then we'd have much more enemies there than just a few rebels killing in the name of Allah.  Iran is really only our enemy because they think we've underestimated them and their power, and so they've been bred and forced to hate us.  What I'm saying is that if we did something horrible, like nuke one of their cities or something, then it would be a world war and not a war on terror and radical islam.

It seems to me that you are thinking that terrorists are the victims, and we are the big mean aggressor.  "People don't kill without reason", referring to terrorists as just "big mean strangers", what gives man?  Don't be ridiculous.  Terrorists are the victims?  Exactly my point.

Lol, try reading your own posts in the "I am an atheist" thread.

[Snakebit.]

kill the big mean stranger

Absolutely ridiculous.  Terrorists aren't so mean are they?  Nah, they're just some dudes that don't like us that much and so we should do whatever it takes to make sure they like us!  Right?  You think we got every single detainee at Gitmo just plain wrongly?  Hahah, no, not at all.  How about one of the key plotters of 9/11?  He's there, but whoops!  Our bad!  We can't tell for sure, der der der, let's just let him go.  The al Qaeda list?  All wrong?  We can't be so sure can we!  Don't underestimate our intelligence assets.  That's YOUR biggest flaw.  Sure, there may be a few that we got out of a mistake, and that's why a trial should be given at least to those that we aren't so sure about.  Even then, we must use caution.

Many terrorist slit other people's throats for a reason . Because they were driven to that point by historical and social circumstances. People don't kill other people without a reason and religion is just a way to justify their wrongdoings . Its almost the same as that Crime rate rises during the economical crisis.

And this...  You call me stupid and then, this?!  ahahaha....  People don't kill people without a reason?  Are you implying that we did something to deserve 9/11?  Did we do anything wrong prior to that other than support most of the mid-east's mortal enemy Israel? Well, we brought some freedom, liberated some countries, made a few mistakes along the way, but it doesn't matter because this is just what radicals are.  Radical.  They don't care about reason and don't think twice about why they do what they do.  They just DO.  There are a few phrases in the Quran that say "kill the infidel" (don't deny it) and so they do just that, try to kill the infidel.  If we really wronged the middle eastern countries, and really did something to deserve their hatred (which is just religious craziness wrapped in a ball of jealousy and envy) then we'd have much more enemies there than just a few rebels killing in the name of Allah.  Iran is really only our enemy because they think we've underestimated them and their power, and so they've been bred and forced to hate us.  What I'm saying is that if we did something horrible, like nuke one of their cities or something, then it would be a world war and not a war on terror and radical islam.

It seems to me that you are thinking that terrorists are the victims, and we are the big mean aggressor.  "People don't kill without reason", referring to terrorists as just "big mean strangers", what gives man?  Don't be ridiculous.  Terrorists are the victims?  Exactly my point.

How can i reason with you ? You are just repeating the same thing over and over again. How are you sure they all are terrorist. You are innocent unless proven otherwise in the court . If you like that much that your special forces can label ANYONE without ANY EVIDENCE a terrorist and also DON'T need to go to court than go move to North Korea or China . Those governments will be happy to welcome you there.

Don't give me crap like there are all obviously Al Qaeda super stars there . 95% of them are not OBVIOUSLY SUPER STAR TERRORIST CELEBRITIES.


Said by papa skull : And this...  You call me stupid and then, this?!  ahahaha....  People don't kill people without a reason?  Are you implying that we did something to deserve 9/11?  Did we do anything wrong prior to that other than support most of the mid-east's mortal enemy Israel?

Answered by papa skull : Well, we brought some freedom, liberated some countries, made a few mistakes along the way, but it doesn't matter because this is just what radicals are.

Oh but it does matter.

Bringing freedom and ruining several countries along the way is very nice . Somalia is a prime example of that right now. Why is iran so pissed at you ? Oh hell i think an american sponsored coup in the 60's has something to do with that if i am not mistaking and a  'islamic revolution' in the 80's also didn't help you with your reputation in there. If you treat a country like crap don't expect it to treat you back nicely .
Its not just iran there are countries like Egypt which has similar things happening in them.

You support israel but why ? Israel was totally wrong about not letting palestinians build their own country. In 1917 the queen of the british empire signed a declaration of Belfore ( i think this is its name i don't rememmber) that promised the creation of both Jewish and Arabic countries but in 1947 (i think if i remember my history well) only a Jewish country was formed . Like what gives ? And for the time the Jews only said 'this is the territory given to us by god' (They returned back home after 2k years of traveling) But since i don't believe in god i found that version total and utter bullshit.)

Lately the process sped up a bit. But the country still isn't their . There is a difference between drawing a border between 2 places and creating full institutions of power , health care and wellfare.

And nope i don't support hamas terrorists . I Support the idea of the palestenian country being established but i don't support by which means hamas tries to do so.

Notice how mostly Arab populated countries are the ones to suffer ? And i guess arabs do have a reason to have a grudge against the Us.

[Westfall]

Notice how mostly Arab populated countries are the ones to suffer ? And i guess arabs do have a reason to have a grudge against the Us.

Notice how Obama went to an Arab network to let the Muslim and Arab people know that they are no foes of the U.S. and that we want to work with them to weed out the group we are actually supposed to be looking for...Al Qaeda.

...but Papa is right, Obama was a bad idea................cuz Bush was awesome and McCain would've been wowzoarz.

[Spekkio]

The biggest one being the safety of the people.

Wrong. The biggest part of the Presidential oath is to uphold the Constitution.

[Snakebit.]

Notice how mostly Arab populated countries are the ones to suffer ? And i guess arabs do have a reason to have a grudge against the Us.

Notice how Obama went to an Arab network to let the Muslim and Arab people know that they are no foes of the U.S. and that we want to work with them to weed out the group we are actually supposed to be looking for...Al Qaeda.

...but Papa is right, Obama was a bad idea................cuz Bush was awesome and McCain would've been wowzoarz.

Notice how we talked about prior 9/11 because he asked the reasons.

And i haven't heard about that by the way . Well thats a + for Obama then from me.

[Roberto1223]

in the end, im pretty sure torture will still exist in like top secret operations that rely on it for the completion of an objective etc.

and this isnt jsut an assumption nor is it intuition, im saying this because its the reality. lol.