RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike

RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (Full Version)

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

Message

DomKen -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 2:38:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun The two situations are entirely different though. In war they were actively engaged in combat...just like I have no issues with a Police Officer shooting an armed suspect engaging in violent actions, citizen or not. This guy was riding in a car though when a drone fired and killed him. And the question "How many law abiding US citizens lives is it worth?" is the same justification used for a lot of other injustices that I can't bring myself to support. So, in your opinion, he should have been left alone to continue planning violence against the US?

Raiikun -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 2:56:44 PM)
I didn't say that. :p

thompsonx -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 3:02:31 PM)
quote: The US Constitution has long been held to only apply inside the US territory and to restrain certain behaviors of the US government outside those borders. This from the u.s. constitution under the powers of congress: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

tiemeupalso -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 3:07:58 PM)
Raiikun thats exactly what you said.if we didnt kill him when we had the chance,then he woudl be free to go on planning terrorist attacks

thompsonx -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 3:15:31 PM)
quote: So, in your opinion, he should have been left alone to continue planning violence against the US? Is there a law against someone planning violence against the u.s.?

DomKen -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 3:32:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: So, in your opinion, he should have been left alone to continue planning violence against the US? Is there a law against someone planning violence against the u.s.? A few dozen of them. For instance USC 18 chapter 113b section 2332B http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002332---b000-.html

Raiikun -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 3:33:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tiemeupalso Raiikun thats exactly what you said.if we didnt kill him when we had the chance,then he woudl be free to go on planning terrorist attacks That's a False Dilemma logical fallacy there.

DomKen -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 3:34:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun I didn't say that. :p Then precisely what should have been done? Should we have risked a SEAL team's lives simply to capture one guy? Precisely how many lives of law abiding US citizens is this guy worth?

Raiikun -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 3:45:25 PM)
Are you suggesting then we should sacrifice a bit of our ideals then for a bit of security?

farglebargle -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 3:46:30 PM)
Well, until they're convicted in a court of law, they're by definition innocent of any crimes. So, the next question would be, if you're going to be arresting them, why aren't you sending the FBI instead of a SEAL team?

Lucylastic -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 4:03:58 PM)
If the game changes you gonna loose if you dont adapt.Terrorism is not like the old rules. SO yeah, one person terrorist instead of an army ... much different tactics needed. War on terror.. means different than WW2 or Vietnam or Falklands or even the IRA.

Nosathro -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 5:04:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun I didn't say that. :p Then precisely what should have been done? Should we have risked a SEAL team's lives simply to capture one guy? Precisely how many lives of law abiding US citizens is this guy worth? Didn't we do that with bin-Laden?

thompsonx -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 5:06:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: So, in your opinion, he should have been left alone to continue planning violence against the US? Is there a law against someone planning violence against the u.s.? A few dozen of them. For instance USC 18 chapter 113b section 2332B http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002332---b000-.html This from USC 18 chapter 113b section 2332B (5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that— (A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; It would appear that voting might be a terrorist act since it seeks to affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; If voting the bastards out is not a form of intimidation designed to retaliate against goverment conduct then what is?

thompsonx -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 5:17:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic If the game changes you gonna loose if you dont adapt.Terrorism is not like the old rules. SO yeah, one person terrorist instead of an army ... much different tactics needed. War on terror.. means different than WW2 or Vietnam or Falklands or even the IRA. Viet nam and ireland and ww2 would all fit into the terrorist concept. Viet nam and ireland because of all of their very physical one on one approach and ww 2 because of the bombing campaigns directed at civilians.

Politesub53 -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 5:22:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I find it humorous - in a droll, sad way - that many of the same people who screamed "Violation of the Constitution!" and "Violation of American morality!" when the Bush admin authorized "enhanced interrogation" of non-citizens are either quiet, or actively support this President who actually kills American citizens through basically the same process and justification. So ... you can kill them, just don't hurt them? [8\|] Bizarro World, here we are. Firm oddly enough, that is exactly my position, and I posted as much when Bush was in office. The difference with Gitmo is that the majority of those sent there were not terrorists, unlike Awlaki who had posted his intentions on the net.

DomKen -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 9:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Are you suggesting then we should sacrifice a bit of our ideals then for a bit of security? No, I'm saying this was never our ideals. This guy had declared himself our enemy no matter what technicality made him a citizen. If he had fallen into our laps sure he should have been caught and put on trial but he didn't and when we got a chance we ended a man who had been involved in 2 terrorist attacks on this nation and was planning more. But you're still not answering the question, what should we have done?

DomKen -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 9:10:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun I didn't say that. :p Then precisely what should have been done? Should we have risked a SEAL team's lives simply to capture one guy? Precisely how many lives of law abiding US citizens is this guy worth? Didn't we do that with bin-Laden? We didn't know for sure it was OBL and the risk was considered acceptable to be sure we had him.

DomKen -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/9/2011 9:14:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: So, in your opinion, he should have been left alone to continue planning violence against the US? Is there a law against someone planning violence against the u.s.? A few dozen of them. For instance USC 18 chapter 113b section 2332B http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002332---b000-.html This from USC 18 chapter 113b section 2332B (5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that— (A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; It would appear that voting might be a terrorist act since it seeks to affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; If voting the bastards out is not a form of intimidation designed to retaliate against goverment conduct then what is? You left a big part of the law out and tried to change the meaning of the law. The actual language: quote: (5) the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that— (A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and (B) is a violation of— (i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 175c (relating to variola virus), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 832 (relating to participation in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States) [2] 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(II) through (VI) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to government property or contracts), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2156 (relating to national defense material, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2281 (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2332f (relating to bombing of public places and facilities), 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), 2339 (relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism), 2339D (relating to military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization), or 2340A (relating to torture) of this title; Notice how you have to be doing part A by violating one of the other statutes listed in part B for it to be a terrorist act. So no voting is not a terrorist act by this law and you knew that when you made your post. This is why most people ignore you, you're dishonest and frequently make shit up to try and justify your claims.

Nosathro -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/10/2011 7:13:12 AM)
Never the less it was a Seal Team that was sent quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun I didn't say that. :p Then precisely what should have been done? Should we have risked a SEAL team's lives simply to capture one guy? Precisely how many lives of law abiding US citizens is this guy worth? Didn't we do that with bin-Laden? We didn't know for sure it was OBL and the risk was considered acceptable to be sure we had him.

Nosathro -> RE: TERROR - US Two U.S.-Born Terrorists Killed in CIA-Led Drone Strike (10/10/2011 7:32:36 AM)
(A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; This sentence has so many meaning. For example don't Coperations give money to members of government to influence how the government conducts itself. What about the on going occupation of Wall Street, they been called a "mob" and are trying to get government to change. I can see so many politiions saying they are being intimidated when a grass root group passes out a petition to recall him. Then there is the statement in our Declaration of Independence "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" Then there is this 2340A (relating to torture) of this title; I would agrue that Bush Jr and his adminstration fall under this act. Didn't they use torture, oh I am sorry according to VP it not torture it is enhanced interagation technques.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375