• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Photos show U.S. GIs posing with dead Afghans[W:1146]

no, terrorism is a crime. Every state in the Union lists it as an individual crime.....with its own set of punishments.

Do you understand the difference between a war and a police op?
 
Do you understand the difference between a war and a police op?

I do.

And war was the wrong direction to go. It was too large, too bulky, too expensive, and too ineffective.
 
And war was the wrong direction to go. It was too large, too bulky, too expensive, and too ineffective.

I don't think war was the wrong way to go, I think that the way we did it was rushed and based both on American bloodlust and demands for revenge, plus the Bush administration realizing that it could push through personal agendas in the guise of fighting terrorism. Had we actually cared who we went to war with, instead of this ill-defined "war on terrorism" nonsense, had we waited until we actually had the facts instead of pretending we knew what we were talking about, things would have been much better. The whole "we're going to fight terrorism worldwide, no matter what" nonsense is just that.
 
terrorism is a crime in most countries too.

So, we try them in a court of law? That assumes they are criminals and not active participants in an war.
 
I do.

And war was the wrong direction to go. It was too large, too bulky, too expensive, and too ineffective.

We had already tried the law enforcement approach and it was a failure.
 
So, we try them in a court of law? That assumes they are criminals and not active participants in an war.

We had already tried the law enforcement approach and it was a failure.

terrorists get tried & convicted all the time.

its worked just fine before and it will work just fine with KSM.

not wanting to arrest and try terrorists, suggests we might now have the evidence to prove he is a terrorist.
 
I do.

And war was the wrong direction to go. It was too large, too bulky, too expensive, and too ineffective.

I think that unfortunately, there were a lot of outcomes that our political and military leaders just didn't think of. I don't mean that as a criticism, I don't know that anyone could have accurately foreseen the stuff that has happened. Hindsight says that it sure would be nice if we could have avoided the mess we're in now. On the other hand, what ops might have been carried out in the US when Zarqawi and the non-Afghan Al-Quaeda weren't occupied in Iraq.

With Iraq's money and the crap they moved to Syria still available for use? A cluster**** sandwich any way you look at it.
 
terrorists get tried & convicted all the time.

its worked just fine before and it will work just fine with KSM.

not wanting to arrest and try terrorists, suggests we might now have the evidence to prove he is a terrorist.

Yeah, it worked great before 9/11. Oh, wait...
 
terrorists get tried & convicted all the time.

its worked just fine before and it will work just fine with KSM.

not wanting to arrest and try terrorists, suggests we might now have the evidence to prove he is a terrorist.

Putting terrorists in jail accomplishes nothing. There is no deterrent factor and they win by being allowed to speak at trial.
 
Yeah, it worked great before 9/11. Oh, wait...

Clinton's reason for turning Sudan down when they offered us Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter in the late 90's?

He wasn't sure the DoJ had enough evidence for a conviction at trial.
 
A serious question to all..


I've asked this question many times, including to lawyers: If we had Bin Laden in custody right now, of what crime could he be tried and convicted in a US Court?

Anyone?
 
terrorists get tried & convicted all the time.

its worked just fine before and it will work just fine with KSM.

not wanting to arrest and try terrorists, suggests we might now have the evidence to prove he is a terrorist.

You confuse the individual terrorist with a militarized organization. The argument used to tell people that "we weren't at war with Afghanistan, just the Taliban" is the same crap people pull when they try to separate Germany from the Nazi Party. Our needs to not offend people gives our enemies license to survive and laugh at us.

And there is a difference between an Apocalyptic Terrorist and a Practical Terrorist. You can relate to a Practical Terrorist, send him to prison for rehabilitation, and release him (IRA, McVeigh, etc.). But an Apocalyptic Terrorist, who hears God's voice in his ear, needs to be convinced that his God is wrong (Thomas Muntzer, Phillip II, Osama Bin Laden). These types must be killed.
 
Last edited:
A serious question to all..


I've asked this question many times, including to lawyers: If we had Bin Laden in custody right now, of what crime could he be tried and convicted in a US Court?

Anyone?

the attack on the USS Cole.

the attack on the two African embassies

9-11.
 
the attack on the USS Cole.

the attack on the two African embassies

9-11.

Good luck with.....lol

Do you think detaining them at places like Guantanamo is more trouble than it's worth?

Don't you think its easier just to shoot them when found, instead of becoming poster children for Amnesty International?

If not, why?
 
**War on Terror** is an intentional PC mis-nomer. Terror is a tactic, you do not make war on tactics.

By their very nature, terrorist cannot be defeated by waiting for the events to occur or arresting suspected terrorists for conspiracy or some such. Once the event occurs, the terrorist insurgent has already one - punishment is irrelevant.

Thanks for explaining and I agree with you.
 
I never said that they did.

Are we done here, Rev?




Then why should we condemn them while respecting those who truer to kill them?


Once again, you failed to make a simple statement. Say "these soldiers did not commit a war crime", or say "these soldiers committed a war crime".


Simple as that.
 
Good luck with.....lol

Do you think detaining them at places like Guantanamo is more trouble than it's worth?

Don't you think its easier just to shoot them when found, instead of becoming poster children for Amnesty International?

If not, why?

we are the United States. Not the USSR, Cuba, Iran, China, or North Korea.
 
You confuse the individual terrorist with a militarized organization. The argument used to tell people that "we weren't at war with Afghanistan, just the Taliban" is the same crap people pull when they try to separate Germany from the Nazi Party. Our needs to not offend people gives our enemies license to survive and laugh at us.

And there is a difference between an Apocalyptic Terrorist and a Practical Terrorist. You can relate to a Practical Terrorist, send him to prison for rehabilitation, and release him (IRA, McVeigh, etc.). But an Apocalyptic Terrorist, who hears God's voice in his ear, needs to be convinced that his God is wrong (Thomas Muntzer, Phillip II, Osama Bin Laden). These types must be killed.

The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. I actually think you're confusing arguments, and making connections not really there.
 
Back
Top Bottom