Page 32 of 38 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 373

Thread: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

  1. #311
    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
    How do you know one from the other without due process.
    That's what military tribunals are for.


    Again,hold the innocent for as long we like. I'm sure the innocent appreciate that.
    Their feelings are irrelevant.

    And as we saw, the tribunals were lacking.
    They are not lacking anything.

    Slow,
    Due to Democratic obstructionism.

    Again, this is not your grandfathers war.
    In many ways it's worse.

  2. #312
    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
    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?
    I'm not in a position to know, why don't you tell us?

  3. #313
    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
    Can someone translate this for me?



    It is a statistic. It was all attacks from the last 2 days.



    Yet again has nothing to do with anything I said.



    It means exactly what I said it means in context.



    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.



    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?



    I have shown I know exactly what you typed. To say otherwise is a lie.




    Yea.



    OK I have no idea what possessed me to continue. I apologies to anyone who has to read this.

    You should apologise to the people who have had to read your ignorant and foolish attempt here (yes, I know it's a "personal attack", but it's an apt description of your last few posts).

    I'm idiot for even trying but here's an explaination of the ice-cream comment:

    [ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ice+cream+and+murder&aq=f &oq=&aqi=]ice cream and murder - Google Search[/ame]


    Don't you think you ought to have stopped yourself from commenting on my post when you couldn't understand the reference I was making? Or google, for Christ's sake. A smarter person would have stopped and maybe thought: what the hell is she saying? Maybe I should ask her if she means what I think she means? Jumping to conclusion and get it all wrong like you did just make you look foolish. And so what if English is not my first language? I have had no problem communicating with people in the last two decades. I'll even bet I can read and write better than a lot of people born in countries where English is spoken. I can certainly understand inferences better than you, that's for sure. Maybe instead of blaming my language ability, you should examine your own ability to read between the lines and your store of general knowledge.

    And one more thing: a list from 2 days is not "statistic". If you can, you ought to take a class, or do some reading up. You can get plenty of information from this wonderful thing called the "interweb".
    Last edited by nonpareil; 01-07-10 at 10:10 AM.

  4. #314
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    How do you know one from the other without due process. We've seen people got it wrong and the consequences were deadly.
    Goes right to the heart of my question that Boo and others have left unanswered.

    Due process means what it says, it's not merely a word you throw around. Means there is a process already established....and these man are due that process. Doesn't mean "some form" of process, doesn't mean Obama's or Holder's, doesn't mean values anyone grew up with, doesn't mean you make something up based on the fact that we've never faced this type of threat(even though we have).

    It means, these men are given our rule of law DUE them upon being detained. And for enemy combatants captured abroad, the process due has NEVER included access to our courts much less even being able to challenge their detentions.

    So, when those members mistakenly trying to argue "due process" do so, they need to be reminded they're speaking to precedence there. And if they remain consistent and objective, they'll quickly ascertain the process due to these enemy combatants is consistent with US law and precedence.

    BTWE, how many times have yourself and Atticus seen the Mockingbird movie...Gregory Peck wasn't it?
    Last edited by Charles Martel; 01-07-10 at 12:36 PM.
    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.

  5. #315
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Goes right to the heart of my question that Boo and others have left unanswered.

    Due process means what it says, it's not merely a word you throw around. Means there is a process already established....and these man are due that process. Doesn't mean "some form" of process, doesn't mean Obama's or Holder's, doesn't mean values anyone grew up with, doesn't mean you make something up based on the fact that we've never faced this type of threat(even though we have).

    It means, these men are given our rule of law DUE them upon being detained. And for enemy combatants captured abroad, the process due has NEVER included access to our courts much less even being able to challenge their detentions.

    So, when those members mistakenly trying to argue "due process" do so, they need to be reminded they're speaking to precedence there. And if they remain consistent and objective, they'll quickly ascertain the process due to these enemy combatants is consistent with US law and precedence.

    BTWE, how many times have yourself and Atticus seen the Mockingbird movie...Gregory Peck wasn't it?
    We have no system of law to cover picking up people around the world. remember, a large number were not on a battlefield, in any kind of firefight, but picked up because someone accused them. Like any accused, the due process should involve much of the rights we grant. There is no precedence for the kind of thing we're doing today.

    Bush early on had a decision to make. He choose to treat this like a war, but then said the GC didn't apply. He set out to side step rule of law. Early on, he could have set up the GC as the rule of law to follow. But after years of inaction, the courts had to step in and rightly demanded more. The tribunals ended up causing more problems as they were often not fairly run. Many on your side ignore this because they see everyone as guilty. But for those innocent, this was not something that could ever be seen as justice.

  6. #316
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by ScummyD View Post
    That's what military tribunals are for.
    They proved inadequate. They were slow, often unfairly run, and innocent people were held, tortured and wrong for far too long.


    Their feelings are irrelevant.
    Says the man not in their shoes.

    They are not lacking anything.
    Yes, they were. Justice. A reasonable time frame to determine guilt and innocence. Fair play.

    Due to Democratic obstructionism.
    Tell yourself anything you like to excuse it, but reality is (besides having a liberal bias ) that things would have been slower without democrats putting pressure on the administration.

    In many ways it's worse.
    That may be, but you can't use the same rules for a different situation. We're not fighting soldiers, and we can't assume every person taken off the streets is guilty. This requires a proper due process and not a sham.

  7. #317
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    We have no system of law to cover picking up people around the world.
    Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the specific authorization given to the President from Congress, he can pick anyone "be believes" threatens the US. The War Powers Act specifically engaged to do just that. Your colossal errors come from a basic unawareness of our rules of law.

    remember, a large number were not on a battlefield, in any kind of firefight, but picked up because someone accused them.
    Oh I remember. But, it was you telling me the mountain passes of Tora Bora where many of these men were picked up wasn't the battlefield. Sure, there were a few arrested in their homes, or on the street. However, most were captured on the battlefield, you refuse to admit the Pakistan/Afghan mountains are the battlefield, so....

    Like any accused, the due process should involve much of the rights we grant. There is no precedence for the kind of thing we're doing today.
    There is much precedence, it's just you...once again...aren't aware if it. And see your error here.....the "due process" should involve...? JD, due process is process due any citizen, no enemy combatant whether precedence or not has EVER been given our process due. Ever. Now, if you'd like to spark on about what due process should be, fine, do that.

    Bush early on had a decision to make.
    And made it.

    He choose to treat this like a war, but then said the GC didn't apply.
    That's because the GC has specific rules about enemy combatants out of uniform targeting cililians. What you're completely and rather naively unaware of JD3...is that under the GC, these men could be immediately shot...on sight. Do you deny this is true if we're applying the GC? Think afore you just throw stuff like this out, you look a tad silly here.

    He set out to side step rule of law.
    and all of the sudden look who can assume and read minds.

    Early on, he could have set up the GC as the rule of law to follow.
    And had nearly all shot...correct?

    But after years of inaction, the courts had to step in and rightly demanded more.
    Placing them at Gitmo...JD....and pouring water into their sinus cavities..and then preparing military tribunals...wasnt inaction. Stop misrepresenting reality, you and I and everyone on this forum know what you've said here isn't true.

    The tribunals ended up causing more problems as they were often not fairly run.
    Guess that's why Obama is continuing them with many of these combatants, huh? You have no idea of the content or how these tribunals were held, they resulted in KSM and his cohorts pleading guilty, Obama stopped many more tribunals when he entered office. Lies will be confronted on this forum, JD, and you're not telling the trught here. shame on you. You know better than this, you were raised better than this, Boo Radley's character was better than this.

    Many on your side ignore this because they see everyone as guilty.
    Trying to read minds, JD?

    But for those innocent, this was not something that could ever be seen as justice.
    To the exact contrary, this has ALWAYS been something that's ALWAYS been seen as justice in fact, has no exception. Enemy combatants have simply never been given rights or due process. Sorry, you're wrong and I appeal to your better half to stop with the untruths.
    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.

  8. #318
    Guru
    Skateguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston/Heights
    Last Seen
    02-07-12 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,571

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Kenyans like a good war. When I saw all his in laws on TV, they looked like they all had pretty good spears.
    "Don't be particular bout nothin, but the company you keep"

  9. #319
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And the specific authorization given to the President from Congress, he can pick anyone "be believes" threatens the US. The War Powers Act specifically engaged to do just that. Your colossal errors come from a basic unawareness of our rules of law.
    rather opened ended isn't that? Explains why the courts had to interfere.

    Oh I remember. But, it was you telling me the mountain passes of Tora Bora where many of these men were picked up wasn't the battlefield. Sure, there were a few arrested in their homes, or on the street. However, most were captured on the battlefield, you refuse to admit the Pakistan/Afghan mountains are the battlefield, so....
    Again, like the taxi cab driver turned in by the enemy in order to get inside our circle, walking in a country doesn't make you part of a battlefield. A field of battle is where a fight, a battle is taking place. You definition is too broad.



    There is much precedence, it's just you...once again...aren't aware if it. And see your error here.....the "due process" should involve...? Due process is process due any citizen, no enemy combatant whether precedence or not has EVER been given our process due. Ever. Now, if you'd like to spark on about what due process should be, fine, do that.
    Please, show this precedence of us picking up people around the world and holding them without due process.

    And made it.
    Made a wrong one.

    That's because the GC has specific rules about enemy combatants out of uniform targeting cililians. What you're completely and rather naively unaware of...is that under the GC, these men could be immediately shot...on sight. Do you deny this is true if we're applying the GC? Think afore you just throw stuff like this out, you look a tad silly here.
    No. They are not spies. There is no uniform, so civilian clothes is the uniform. Again, you can't ignore reality just to suit you.

    and all of the sudden look who can assume and read minds.
    Not doing that. Reading his actions.


    And had nearly all shot...correct?
    No. That's your misreading.

    Placing them at Gitmo....and pouring water into their sinus cavities..and then preparing military tribunals...wasnt inaction. Stop misrepresenting reality, you and I and everyone on this forum know what you've said here isn't true.
    Again, you misrepresent the comment. The inaction was in getting people promptly released who were wrongly imprisoned.

    Guess that's why Obama is continuing them with many of these combatants, huh? You have no idea of the content or how these tribunals were held, they resulted in KSM and his cohorts pleading guilty, Obama stopped many more tribunals when he entered office. Lies will be confronted on this forum and you're not telling the trught here. shame on you. You know better than this, you were raised better than this, Boo Radley's character was better than this.
    KSM pleaded guilty before anything was done. He wanted credit. And I've told no lies.

    Trying to read minds, JD?
    Nope. Simply reading what is written.

    To the exact contrary, this has ALWAYS been something that's ALWAYS been seen as justice in fact, has no exception. Enemy combatants have simply never been given rights or due process. Sorry, you're wrong and I appeal to your better half to stop with the untruths.
    A person picked up off the street, having done nothing, is not an enemy combatant. Because we have these people, and can't assume everyone guilty (not reading but simply reading you comment), it is not the same as past wars.

  10. #320
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,296

    Re: Obama considering military strikes after Christmas Day aircraft plot

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    We have no system of law to cover picking up people around the world. remember, a large number were not on a battlefield, in any kind of firefight, but picked up because someone accused them. Like any accused, the due process should involve much of the rights we grant. There is no precedence for the kind of thing we're doing today.

    Bush early on had a decision to make. He choose to treat this like a war, but then said the GC didn't apply. He set out to side step rule of law. Early on, he could have set up the GC as the rule of law to follow. But after years of inaction, the courts had to step in and rightly demanded more. The tribunals ended up causing more problems as they were often not fairly run. Many on your side ignore this because they see everyone as guilty. But for those innocent, this was not something that could ever be seen as justice.
    How in the world do you know where these people were picked up? GW Bush called this a war because that is what it is. We were attacked three times on 9/11 in three different areas of the country. Only a true loon would ignore that fact and call this a police action.

    Because you cannot bring yourself to call this a war and "your" President cannot call this a war, although that is changing, the fact remains military tribunals have been set up for these animals and yet you would give them U.S. Constitutional rights. There is no justification for that and the American people overwhelmingly agree with that there is no justification for doing that. Obama keeps making up reasons for closing GITMO and not once have you are anyone else called him on the lies he is telling.

    You and the other Obama supporters are always going to change the playing field to suit your positions while ignoring what is going on around the world. Apparently it is ok to bring enemy combatants into this country and give them U.S. Constitutional Rights but then attack areas of Pakistan with drones without giving those people U.S. Constitutional rights. Which is it, Boo, a war or a police action. If it isn't a war then why is Obama launching drone strikes in a sovereign country?

Page 32 of 38 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... 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
  •