Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
But no one is debating "your point". It is agreed by everyone that the military should not be above the law. Also no one has said "Go, it's yours".
Can you please explain why you are not using quotes but instead arguing points that were never raised? I cannot debate phantom arguments.
I actually believe I am addressing a point brought up in this thought:
When we are at war, and indeed we are at war with Islamist terrorists, we are better off to trust our military than not.
Both rule law and civilan control won't allow that.
If you want to debate Dresden then do so, but according to the facts and not a science fiction novel
It goes to the claim you made that we don't oppose or openly oppose these things in the past. We did. Didn't have instant media, and like today, we often spoke in oter medium, like in novels. But, people did nenounce wrong acts even then.
You didn't need to point out either that Islam is a religion. I think pretty much every literate person in the world understands that. Why bother adding points that need not be made? And who is against Islam? Are you really reading the posts?
You said we were fighting Islam. That is fighting a religion.
There is no country called Islam, but there are certainly Islamic dominated countries. And those Islamic terrorists you referred to are the ones we are after.And of course the KKK and skinheads are not relevant too the discussion, nor are there countries where they dominate.
None of those countries attacked us either. And those terrorist who attacked us came form SA, not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. And they can be found in nearly every country in the world. Again, no country attacked us. And you miss the point with the KKK and the skin heads. If I were to say that we need to stop Christains, or fight Christians, because of acts by people in the KKK or skinheads, then I would eb doing what you're doing with Islam.
Those who were behind the act, an act of war, were going to be tried in NYC to allow them a political platform and upset an entire city. This would made a helluva precedent. Terrorists have homes and support and we must attack them where they live. I hope you are not making the claim that it is only terrorists who attack and there are no support groups, or governments, behind them.
So, trying Mcvey in Oklamhoma city would have been too upsetting to them, and allow him a platform so we shouldn't have done it? Your argument makes no sense to me. It shoudln't make sense to anyone.
Really? How so?
As noted by Scheuer in Imperial Hubris, it allowed OBL a second bite at the apples, giving him a place to hurt us and bled us finnacially. Frankly, he had no way to hurt us so without brining our armed forces closer to him. It helped him on the propaganda front, and as the CIA pointed out some time ago, those trained in Iraq will be killing us for a long time to come. People not associated with any terrorist group prior to us invading Iraq answered the call to join, thus helping OBl with recriutment. it also took a small, limited organization and elevated their status, as being worth of being at war with a country as large as the US. And these are just a few ways.
Innocent people, if they are innocent, will always be killed in a war. Two is practically nothing compared with 9/11 and the hundreds of other terrorist acts directed against innocent and unwary people. Consider them occasionally. And my trust doesn't have to be blind.
Which is why war should be used only when neccessary. but they weren't kiled during a war, like in a firefight. but were picked up, while working, wrongly accused, tortured and killed. This is and should be illegal and denounced, always. Not excused. And it is aprt of the problem with having a place not subject to oversight, left to be run by those hammers who always see a nail, even when one isn';t there.
We can chose who to treat with some skepticism. You chose the military and I choose terrorists. And as for honesty and openness, dishonesty is encouraged in Islam (Al quaeda) and also by those who train the terrorists.
Al queads is Islam? See you're doing it again, making the two the same thing. They are not.
Second point. Deception is taught to many, including those in the US military. How to resist torture is also taught, also to the US military. This is understood all around. It is not the religion, Islam, that teaches deception. As well read as you are, you still need to make the proper distinctions.
terrorism is nothing more than a tactic. Christians used in in the conflict between Ireland and great Brittin. During that conflict, deception was used, even taught as a tactic. but we would not say, and be correct, that Christianity teaches deception.