Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You simpky do not know what you are talking about. You should stop. Really.
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?
And war was the wrong direction to go. It was too large, too bulky, too expensive, and too ineffective.
terrorism is a crime in most countries too.
I do.
And war was the wrong direction to go. It was too large, too bulky, too expensive, and too ineffective.
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.
I do.
And war was the wrong direction to go. It was too large, too bulky, too expensive, and too ineffective.
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.
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...
I do.
And war was the wrong direction to go. It was too large, too bulky, too expensive, and too ineffective.
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.
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.
I don't think there would be enough evidence to tie him to any of those enough to warrant a conviction.
**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.
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?....
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?
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.