RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble?

RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 11:45:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or FR So, ummm, Nazi war criminals must be hunted and brought alive to trial, but not certain others. When did I say that? Address your posts to the people who are actually saying that it's okay to shoot somebody without a trial. That isn't me.

Moonhead -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 11:49:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ As a war tactic, there is no doubt in my mind that dead was a much safer option than him being captured. I may not like the fact that he was shot unarmed, but as a war tactic? I understand it. Except you aren't at war with Saudi Arabia, and terrorists are traditionally prosecuted under civil, rather than military law. If you're recognising al queda as uniformed military combatants from a nation you're at war with, you'll be in a lot of trouble over breaches of the Geneva convention, won't you?

SilverMark -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:01:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: angelikaJ As a war tactic, there is no doubt in my mind that dead was a much safer option than him being captured. I may not like the fact that he was shot unarmed, but as a war tactic? I understand it. Except you aren't at war with Saudi Arabia, and terrorists are traditionally prosecuted under civil, rather than military law. If you're recognising al queda as uniformed military combatants from a nation you're at war with, you'll be in a lot of trouble over breaches of the Geneva convention, won't you? In this day and age can you not be a belligerent in a war although you don't represent a country? I understand your point but, he was a Saudi in Pakistan, with whom there is tacit approval for our actions. Does a terrorist have to represent a specific country to commit acts of war, such as bombings before you could kill him?

Moonhead -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:19:25 PM)
A terrorist is defined as somebody who isn't a uniformed military serviceman of a nation you're at war with, so yes. They're entitled to a civilian trial rather than being treated as an enemy combatant. If they're an enemy combatant, they can't be a terrorist. That's an either/or thing, sadly. (And Pakistan's approval of your actions is a whole other can of worms at this point, largely because the unelected fuckwit your country has been dealing with can't even control his government, let alone his country...)

Real0ne -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:32:18 PM)
from the senate approved law dictionary; TERROR. The state of the mind which arises from an event or phenomenon that may serve as a prognostic of some catastrophe: affright from apparent danger. See Riot; Rohbery; Putting In Fear. therefore a terrorist is one who scares people, therefore the governments of the world at large have scared and killed plenty of people. terrorist is another one of those aggregated syntax constructs that have no meaning in law that have now become the erroneous buzzwords of well.......IDIOTS. So lunarticks who are scared of their own shadow should be waterboarded and tortured then their brains blown out for scaring themselves. Taking law to the next level of idiocy! ~Patriot act quote: APPARENT. That which appears; that which is manifest; what Is proved. It is required that all things upon which a court must pass should be made to appear, if matter in pais, under oath; If matter of record, by the record. It is a rule that those things which do not appear are to be considered as not existing; de non apparentibua et non existentibus eadem eat ratio; Broom, Max. 20. What does not appear does not exist: quod non apparet, non est; La Frombois v. Jackson, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 600, 18 Am. Dec. 4G3; 1 Term 404; 12 M. & W. 316. In case of homicide when the term "apparent danger" is used it means such overt actual demonstration, by conduct and acts, of a design to take life or do some great personal injury as would make the killing apparently necessary for self-preservation; Evans v. State, 44 Miss. 762. No evidence OBL did anything what so ever with regard to 911. still waiting for evidence OTHER THAN NEWS MEDIA arm of guv.

Moonhead -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:40:17 PM)
There are legal and military definitions besides the dictionary one you couldn't be arsed scrolling down google to find.

mnottertail -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:42:07 PM)
Not to mention that nobody asked the fuckin senate their opinion on this one.

Real0ne -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:49:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead There are legal and military definitions besides the dictionary one you couldn't be arsed scrolling down google to find. I gave you the legal definition. you mean the military has their own fucking dictionary? well we didnt murder him we just took his fucking head off so there! NO court NO harm no crime everyone should be happy now! Do tell! oh and see how far google gets you in a court battle. you will be laughed right out of the building. which begs the question why you are even arguing in here in the first place.

Moonhead -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:50:31 PM)
Well, everybody knows that the Kenyan is Bush's third term, right?

Moonhead -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I gave you the legal definition. No you didn't. You didn't even define "terrorist", which you'll find isn't the same noun as "terror".

Lucylastic -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:56:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not to mention that nobody asked the fuckin senate their opinion on this one. Can you imagine the clusterfuck if that had leaked out

Moonhead -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 12:59:14 PM)
I doubt a Republican senate has any grounds to complain about a Democrat president not wanting to go through them after the fucking over Carter and Clinton got. Not that this will stop them, of course...

vincentML -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 1:46:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct Vincent Both "Fire in the Sky" and "Shattered Sword" also point out that the Japanese attitudes towards taking prisoners was pretty grim. Captured US fliers were beheaded on occasion, and one pilot who was tortured at the Battle of Midway as part of his interrogation was then thrown into the ocean with a filled 5 gallon jerrycan tied to his body. On the US side- when Japanese troop ships were sunk- US fliers were ordered to strafe the survivors in the water. (From Fire in the Sky). All too often we forget that most of these combatants on either side were often little more than teen agers. The youngest sailor on the Akagi was 17 IIRC and from my perspective as a sailor- the ocean is a common enemy. High ranking officers did give orders (and Doenitz was famous for this one) about leaving survivors to their fate in both the Atlantic and the Pacific but individual skippers either obeyed or disobeyed these orders according to their conscience. Sam Yes. That was my point. It was not a unique event for us. And of course I am not blind to the atrocities the Japanese committed. Assination is not something we are new at. Nor are atrocities committed in war. All I am saying is: we did it, we own it, no excuses, it was justified, it needed doing. I imagine that someone has already pointed out that by sending Seal Team Six into the compound instead of firing a missle from on high Obama spared the lives of three women and fifteen children. More than can be said for the innocent lives taken on 9-11. And allow me also to point out that OBL said there were no innocents in his war against the United States.

vincentML -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 1:52:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BOUNTYHUNTER Well I am no virgin to laying in wait to kill a high ranking officer or offical,WE did it plenty of times but they weren't in their home with family around thats what makes the difference.The grunts in nam didn;t like to take prisoners but thats what were there for to take people and attain info..BH Really? What is that? The principle of "oly, oly oxen, home free?" [8\|] The people in London, Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshima were in their own homes. Need I say more about the unfathomable awfulness of war?

Real0ne -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 1:54:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Not to mention that nobody asked the fuckin senate their opinion on this one. Can you imagine the clusterfuck if that had leaked out none never happen! Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

DomYngBlk -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 1:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Not sure what you are going on about. He was threatening when they got in the room. They had a finite amount of time. They had to make a decision. And they did. I am fine with it. Say your kid was killed. You and others have been looking for the killer but till now it has alluded you. All of the sudden you get information that a trusted friend that you have given copious amounts of money and protection to has the killer hidden away. Now, do you wait and not go get the killer and still talk to that friend? Or do you decide that friend is pretty untrustworthy and you better go ahead into his house and get the killer yourself....... People call the embassy up press charges have th elocal police units arrest him and start criminal proceedings. oh wait no you grab a gang of thugs go in blasting, dispose of the body at sea and quickly burn down the house and pretend the locals did not say that OBL did not live there. the american way. LMAO Mr. Tyranny What fantasy world do you live in?

DomYngBlk -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 1:57:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk He was threatening when they got in the room. Umm, if all they wanted was to not feel threatened, then they could have achieved that purpose by not entering his cell? quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk better go ahead into his house and get the killer yourself....... I quite understand that in the USA the Cardassian rules of law apply: the suspect is by definition guilty and all a judge has to do is to rubber stamp his name on the death order. I know that obl was not guilty, but lesser people will never know that because his opportunity to clear his name in a court of law was not permitted to him. He wasn't a terrorist and didn't have a hand in killing innocent humans?

hlen5 -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 1:59:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Do you see any parallels here, a bunch of combatants secretly enter another country to assassinate someone, tell me, where is that different from what terrorists do. Btw, assassinate is a word of Arabic origin, from about the time of the crusades If I'm queasy at all about the Seal team operation, it is because of this. We invaded a sovereign country. We have been allowed incursions into Pakistan to chase other al Queada members. I wonder if the Pakistanis are now truly incensed, or is the US just taking the heat? How do we know if there was communication and Pakistan doesn't want to admit it knew. The end result is OBL is dead and Pakistan's hands are "clean". On the other hand, OBL hiding in a military retirement zone is food for thought.

hlen5 -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 2:05:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Well, I would tell you that 9-11 was pretty much unprovoked but, in the minds of those who committed the atrocity us even existing is provocation enough for them. Bin Laden's manifesto stated he was attacking the US because we infidels had invaded (by the SA government's invitation or agreement) Muslim lands. Among his aims was the goal of bankrupting us. I'd say he was fairly effective.

Moonhead -> RE: A bullet in the brain, is it questionble? (5/10/2011 2:13:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Really? What is that? The principle of "oly, oly oxen, home free?" [8\|] The people in London London wasn't the only town over here to be bombed during the second world war, you'll find. A lot of the midlands and the northeasst took even worse beatings.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.640625E-02