Page 30 of 38 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 373

Thread: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

  1. #291
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    don't you think that by conducting the cases where we are sure of conviction in a court of justice
    Who is we? And how can you be "sure of conviction" if the whole point of a court of justice is due process and thus assumption of innocence? What in the world? Have you taken into account no miranda rights, no habeus corpus, wouldn't this man stand a fraction of a chance of having the entire case thrown out if not immediately then upon appeal? KSM was water-boarded 200 times. His cohorts taken out of country, off the battlefield, into a prison where they'll be for ten years by the time this circus event in NY can occur. Subjected to high volume music, denied lawyers, ordered and forced fed by the US Military, under US Military rules and regs.

    it gives the US a better image and lessen the ability of terrorists to use the US's actions as propaganda material to convert more people or garner support,
    Our actions, no matter what, will inspire militant Islam, this reveals such a huge misunderstanding. When they were sneaking in terrorists in 1996 and declaring war and issuing Fatwas and bombing embassies and the US Cole and beheading people...and at their peak of rage....there was no Gitmo.

    There was Iraq. Our support for Israel. Our occupation of the Arabian Peninsula, but mostly because of Iraq. Because of our continued occupation of an entire region, not the fact that we treat prisoners of war exactly the same as all other nations. Gitmo is theirs and yours new excuse, it pails to comparison to events such as the Palestinian plight and Iraq pre Bush invasion.

    isn't it smarter to evolve with the time and use the method most beneficial to the US in the long term?
    What is that "smarter and evolving with the time method", let me guess?

    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

  2. #292
    Educator
    ScummyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    06-09-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,130

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm not sure that is true. I see nothing that has to hinder anything. I think that is more an unfounded concern.
    How you can you say it's unfounded when suspects in criminal court have more rights than do enemy combatants in military courts? Setting all other differences, as we just saw the underwear bomber attained a lawyer and promptly accepted his right to remain silent.

    And if this was a war with a nation, in which we put people in POW camps and release them in a few years, I might agree. But as we're picking up people not on the battlefield, but all over the world and under questionable conditions, to be held indefinitely, well, we need something with real due process.
    None of this relates to anything happening today apart from targeting people all over the world.

    We are at war. The airliner is the battlefield. Your thinking is outdated and a relic of last century which only serves to lessen our nation and elevate our enemies.

  3. #293
    Educator
    ScummyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    06-09-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,130

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    Let's get serious a while:
    Yes, please do before you get more people killed.
    don't you think that by conducting the cases where we are sure of conviction in a court of justice,
    False. There is no sure conviction in criminal court.

    it gives the US a better image
    I care less about our image and more about our safety.

    and lessen the ability of terrorists to use the US's actions as propaganda material
    Your naive if you think that trying KSM in civilian court won't be used by al-Qaeda for propaganda purposes.

    In no other war in our history have we used our perceived notions of how our enemy viewed our actions against their comrades as a determinant in shaping how we treated enemies we captured.

    isn't it smarter to evolve with the time and use the method most beneficial to the US in the long term?
    Yes, it is and that means treating these circumstances as a matter of war and doing away with last century's notions of war as defined narrowly as armed conflict between states.

    By yours and Boo's standard the American Revolution wasn't a war because it was fought between a rag tag band of guerrillas and the British Empire. Totally senseless.
    Last edited by ScummyD; 01-06-10 at 12:47 AM.

  4. #294
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    Attacking me instead of my views is against the rules here.

    "Spoken like someone who does not understand either logic or statistics. - nonpareil

    Nothing but an irrelevant personal attack that has nothing to do with the debate at all.
    It's what you said. If what you said and how you think have nothing to do with the debate, in which you pushed yourself into without even understanding what it's about, then what is?


    And when I put up the statistics what would change?

    2010.01.04 (Mosul, Iraq) - Sunni bombers blast three civilians into pieces.
    2010.01.04 (Kirkuk, Iraq) - Three Iraqis are murdered in a Mujahideen double bombing.
    2010.01.03 (Bajaur, Pakistan) - Two tribal elders are blown to bits by a Taliban roadside bomb.
    2010.01.03 (Waziristan, Pakistan) - A bombing and separate rocket attack leave two people dead.
    2010.01.03 (Tal Abta, Iraq) - Three road construction workers are gunned down by Muslim terrorists.
    2010.01.03 (Hangu, Pakistan) - A Taliban roadside bomb ends the lives of four people.

    This is just 2 days. Do I need any more "statistics?"
    That's not statistics. But thanks for showing that you don't know anything about statistics. My suggestion: do some reading up before your next post.


    "Secondly, correlation is not causation. Even if (a big if) it is true that "the vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Muslims", it doesn't necessarily follow that the religion Islam is the cause." - nonpareil

    So you are admitting it had nothing to do with my statement.

    This has nothing to do with your equating Muslims terrorists with Christians.
    Duh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?


    So please enlighten us...

    How does this...

    "Secondly, correlation is not causation. Even if (a big if) it is true that "the vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Muslims", it doesn't necessarily follow that the religion Islam is the cause." - nonpareil

    Translate into my reasoning for you equating Muslim terrorism with Christians?

    You don't even make sense anymore. What does "Translate into my reasoning for you equating Muslim terrorism with Christians" means?

    First of all, I didn't "equate Muslim terrorism with Christians". If you say I did, you provide the context. I don't read minds, especially of someone half a world a way.

    OK. More fallacy that has nothing to do with anything I said.
    Just because you don't have the capacity to understand something doesn't make it a fallacy. Try reading it a few more times, perhaps you might get it eventually. It's not that hard really.


    OK...

    "So what if it is true that "violence committed in the name of Christianity in recent decades " is less than "that committed by Muslims"? Does that mean that Islam is a more violent religion than Christianity? If it is so, you should stop eating ice-cream, because it makes you want to kill people. I'll bet you don't even get the point I was making in my first post to scummy." - nonpareil

    I understand your "point" perfectly. Makes it no less wrong and illogical.

    Muslims are not responsible for "more" violence. They are responsible for MOST of the terrorist violence around the world, not just the US.
    No, you do not understand my point at all. Thanks again for proving it.


    He said exactly the same thing I did...

    "Your comparison is silly to say the very least. I know liberals love to trot out McCVeigh and Christians anytime a discussion on radical Islam happens, but the level and scale of violence on the part of Muslims bears no relation to that of Christians. Diverting attention away from Muslims to Christians is silly and unreasonable. If you want to go tit for tat, you list violence committed in the name of Christianity in recent decades and I list that committed by Muslims, then I will simply blow you out of the water ten times over. It's not even comparable. No where even remotely close." - ScummyD
    No, s/he's didn't. Well maybe s/he did, but who's to know, s/he's scummy.


    It was a lame personal attack because that is all it was.
    yeah, yeah, keep repeating that to yourself.

  5. #295
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by ScummyD View Post
    Yes, please do before you get more people killed.
    jeez, I didn't know I was so powerful.

    False. There is no sure conviction in criminal court.
    Sure. If you want to get literal. So be literal if you want.

    I care less about our image and more about our safety.
    The point, my dear scummy, is that a better image improves our safety. Less recruits and less people hating America might be said to have that effect.

    Your naive if you think that trying KSM in civilian court won't be used by al-Qaeda for propaganda purposes.
    And is it as effective? I mean, why are so many on the right so against the idea of using civilian courts in the first place?

    In no other war in our history have we used our perceived notions of how our enemy viewed our actions against their comrades as a determinant in shaping how we treated enemies we captured.
    Yeah, if it's never been done in the history, then it obviously shouldn't be done. Because all wars are the same anyway - just shooting and killing, nothing to do with how one is perceived at all.


    Yes, it is and that means treating these circumstances as a matter of war and doing away with last century's notions of war as defined narrowly as armed conflict between states.
    Sure. And it means doing away with the narrow notion that only a criminal court can be used because they are captured on the "battle field". Well the "battle field" can be a civilian airport or an army base. Taking careful considerations and use what's best in any given situation ought to be the policy forward, no?

    By yours and Boo's standard the American Revolution wasn't a war because it was fought between a rag tag band of guerrillas and the British Empire. Totally senseless.
    How do you know what's my standard?

    Anyway, my point works even better where we need to be loose with the boundaries of what a war is and what you need to do to "win" it. Since terrorists could be anyone, the way we capture and punish them should be flexible as well, and that means not sticking to the military court irregardless of the circumstances.
    Last edited by nonpareil; 01-06-10 at 05:11 AM.

  6. #296
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I'm fully aware of the completeness of stupity possible only to people able to vote for Democrats.




    For two excellent and irrefutable reasons that trump any possible motive those animals might have:

    My two daughters.

    Don't like that? Go stand in line on the terrorists' side.



    Meanwhile, since it was already explained to you that China is a strongarm nation, not a legitimate government, any legitimate government, including the US, has the moral authority and justification required to intervene - IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.

    I have no problems when foreign policy is conducted by my standards.

    If it was:

    the United States would be consuming it's own oil, minding it's own business, and focusing on freedom.

    Because you people have elected nothing but incompetents since 1988, the mess in the world is your fault, not mine.



    No, I'm not from Montreal.

    I was born in New York.
    I'll think of you as a comedian anyway, since if you're serious, you're so insane, it's funny.

  7. #297
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,499

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    Nonsense nonpareil typed. This is not his actual statement. It was removed to save space, since he really didn't say anything in the first place.
    Obviously English is not your first language. This makes it very hard to understand anything you are typing.

    This is a complete waist of time.

    Do you enjoy looking uninformed?
    Last edited by Black Dog; 01-06-10 at 11:26 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #298
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Some of this post can be used to rebuke a couple of the earlier posts regarding slow Obama.

    Remember folks, Bush's decisions did not come immediately.
    But his desire to attack Iraq did....he was looking for excuses from day one. It just took him some time to make Iraq the bad guy even tho intel could find no credible evidence that put Iraq and OBL in cahoots....

    Koolaid is Koolaid, and the conservatives who guzzle it are no smarter than the Rev. Jones drinkers...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  9. #299
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,499

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    It's what you said. If what you said and how you think have nothing to do with the debate, in which you pushed yourself into without even understanding what it's about, then what is?
    Can someone translate this for me?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    That's not statistics. But thanks for showing that you don't know anything about statistics. My suggestion: do some reading up before your next post.
    It is a statistic. It was all attacks from the last 2 days.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    Duh, how many times do I have to repeat myself?
    Yet again has nothing to do with anything I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    You don't even make sense anymore. What does "Translate into my reasoning for you equating Muslim terrorism with Christians" means?
    It means exactly what I said it means in context.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    First of all, I didn't "equate Muslim terrorism with Christians". If you say I did, you provide the context. I don't read minds, especially of someone half a world a way.
    You can't be serious?

    "So what if it is true that "violence committed in the name of Christianity in recent decades " is less than "that committed by Muslims"? Does that mean that Islam is a more violent religion than Christianity? If it is so, you should stop eating ice-cream, because it makes you want to kill people." - nonpareil

    Yes it does mean Islam tends do be more violent. Your ridicules "ice cream eating" comment then makes no sense.

    Islam in and of itself is not the sole factor, but it is part of the problem.

    You are trying to deny this.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    Just because you don't have the capacity to understand something doesn't make it a fallacy. Try reading it a few more times, perhaps you might get it eventually. It's not that hard really.
    It's funny. English is our first language and not yours. Yet you accuse more than one person of reading comprehension problems you don't agree with.

    Is personal attack all you have left?

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    No, you do not understand my point at all. Thanks again for proving it.
    I have shown I know exactly what you typed. To say otherwise is a lie.


    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    No, s/he's didn't. Well maybe s/he did, but who's to know, s/he's scummy.
    Yea.

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    yeah, yeah, keep repeating that to yourself.
    OK I have no idea what possessed me to continue. I apologies to anyone who has to read this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  10. #300
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,250

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    But his desire to attack Iraq did....he was looking for excuses from day one. It just took him some time to make Iraq the bad guy even tho intel could find no credible evidence that put Iraq and OBL in cahoots....

    Koolaid is Koolaid, and the conservatives who guzzle it are no smarter than the Rev. Jones drinkers...
    When will those with BDS ever stop with the lies and distortions and actually seek a cure for their disease

    The Lies of the "Bush Lied" Crowd
    By Michael Barone
    Townhall.com | July 20, 2004


    Official reports issued the last two weeks have conclusively refuted those who have been arguing that "BUSH LIED" about the dangers from Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction programs. The first report was that of the Senate Intelligence Committee. That committee has been rent by partisan divisions over the last year, but the report was unanimous.

    One prime conclusion of the report is that American intelligence organizations, like those of every other major country, did indeed believe that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and had ongoing WMD programs. That intelligence seems to have been mistaken. But given Saddam Hussein's documented development, possession and use of WMDs, and his refusal to account for their disposal, what intelligence evidence could have convinced a reasonable analyst that he no longer had them?

    As the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon -- a frequent Bush critic -- puts it, "It would have taken an overwhelming body of evidence for any reasonable person in 2002 to think that Saddam did not possess stockpiles of chemical and biological agents."

    So Bush was justified in relying on the intelligence. And "the committee did not fund any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."

    So much for the wild charges that Bush manipulated intelligence and lied about weapons of mass destruction. He simply said what was believed by every informed person -- including leading members of the Clinton administration before 2001 and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards in their speeches in October 2002 supporting military action in Iraq.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee report also refuted completely the charges by former diplomat Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration ignored his conclusion, based on several days in Niger, that Iraq had not sought to buy uranium in that country. Democrats and many in the press claimed that Wilson refuted the 16-word sentence Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, noting that British intelligence reported that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.

    But British intelligence stands by that finding, and the committee noted that Wilson confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger, whose main exports are uranium and goats, and intelligence analysts concluded that his report added nothing else to their previous knowledge. And the report flatly denied Wilson's statements that his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his mission to Niger -- it quotes Plame's memo taking credit for the appointment.

    The report issued last week in Britain by former civil servant Lord Butler reaches similar conclusions. It finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair did not pressure intelligence organizations to change their findings and that there was no "deliberate distortion" of intelligence or "culpable negligence." It supported the conclusion of British intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa.

Page 30 of 38 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •