“war on terror” = “war on due process” ?

[jdhill 0]

Quote

If you don't see it already, pointing out the most obvious examples is not going to change that.

So you've got none, huh? Perhaps I don't understand your definition of "a threat", or maybe its "global"...

I do not see other religions propagating violence at indiscriminate targets on a trans-national level in the name of their religion... I'm sure there is anecdotal cases of it, but to put it on the same scale what we see from islam...

Is the religious right trying to gain more influence here in the US, sure, but it is through a peaceful democratic process... is it a threat on a global scale, not really.

Are there some jews who don't want to move and are willing to use violence to resist, yes... but that is as much about land (if not more so) as it is about their religion... perhaps this one has more of global impact given where it is, but it is far from being as wide spread as is the islamic threat.

So instead of being condescending, you could point to the great threats you see from other religions, obvious or not...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

So you've got none, huh?

Yes, I have some names. But listing them only starts a new argument, which will require more time than I care to take, and will never be resolved in SC.

A religous extremist is a religous extremist. The danger does not lie in which name they might use to refer to their Creator.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

dunno. If he had a trial we'd find out. If he's got no explanation he'll be found guilty. Why ought he not be tried and convicted?

Maybe I am just delusional here. THis guy gets caught with the taliban and you think that he is innocent.

How about the guy that with 4 other people robs a bank....when he gets arrested just says, "oh, I'm not with those guys, I was going to make a deposit."

Don't bother, these people that support the threat think that combatants caught in a war zone should be treated as criminals, even though that's not the case and even though that's the doctrine that Clinton tried, and it failed miserably.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Channman 2]

Maybe in the future we need to kill these individuals in the field of battle. It will most certainly free up space on DZ.com servers, make more room for others at Club Gitmo and free up precious tax dollars.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I second the motion just to kill our enemies in battle. Some of you may disagree but will never have to face our enemies nor ever be affected by them..doe's that make the Jihadi's and other terrorists of this world any less dangerous because some people feel they are mistreated?....the notion that our enemies deserve any fair treatment other that to be killed outright is rediculous at best. I wonder how many of those individuals who are so damned concerned about the welfare of detainees ( who are Alive! by the way) would be allowed to live if any of them were ever captured by terrorists or for that matter any hostile nation. All you would get is beheaded at best and I mean a slow painful sawing of of your head at the neck as you bleed out, and death doesnt come quick either. The bright side is at least Al Jazeera will be playing your hit video over and over so all the world and your family can see it at naseum. SO WHO'S SIDE DO YOU WANNA BE ON?

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

I second the motion just to kill our enemies in battle. Some of you may disagree but will never have to face our enemies nor ever be affected by them..doe's that make the Jihadi's and other terrorists of this world any less dangerous because some people feel they are mistreated?....the notion that our enemies deserve any fair treatment other that to be killed outright is rediculous at best. I wonder how many of those individuals who are so damned concerned about the welfare of detainees ( who are Alive! by the way) would be allowed to live if any of them were ever captured by terrorists or for that matter any hostile nation. All you would get is beheaded at best and I mean a slow painful sawing of of your head at the neck as you bleed out, and death doesnt come quick either. The bright side is at least Al Jazeera will be playing your hit video over and over so all the world and your family can see it at naseum. SO WHO'S SIDE DO YOU WANNA BE ON?

Osama thanks you for your support.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[CornishChris 5]

Notice how just days after their capture the 'enemy combatants' who tried to bomb London are being charged with offences instead of being held indefinitely without trial.

Good work i say.

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Notice how just days after their capture the 'enemy combatants' who tried to bomb London are being charged with offences instead of being held indefinitely without trial.

Good work i say.

Yup, because they are british national!!!
Unlike the enemy combatants on the battlefield.

Just like John Walker Lihnd(Sp?) who was an American fighting with the taliban.

He was caught and brought back to the USA for a trial.


BUT I GUESS YOU MISSED THAT POINT.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[AlexCrowley 0]

Thats because you limeys are liberal socialist assholes who want to give these psychos therapy!

How will the UK assist with the war on TERRORISM if they're going to coddle these cold blooded killers by swaddling them up with a justice system rather than shipping them to countries with highly questionable human rights records for daily torture^H^H^H^H^H^H^H debriefings? What next? Tucking them into bed with some Koranic bedtime stories and Ovaltine??!?!!?

Next someone in their leadership will step forward and try to talk some whiney liberal nonsense to communicate with these murderous thugs rather than simply flying our F-16s over Muslim neighborhoods and bombing the shit out of them - hell, lets take out half of London if it means forever ridding the world of TERRORISM.

Remember if you think that killing these animals with extreme prejudice is wrong then you're a helping them win! You bastards! Terrorist-helper-winner!

9/11 showed the world what TERRORISM IS. No one knew what it meant before that day. And at that point those extremist islamic bastards showed their true colors. The world knew that we were at war at that moment. The legal system, filled with liberal activist judges would keep them safe, give them rights...huh, using a Koran as toilet paper is torture? Bullshit!

Now, burning a flag - THATS TERRORISM RIGHT THERE!!!!! Its a battle, the world is the new battlefield and on a battlefield in war there are no rules!


Did I do that right?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Yup, because they are british national!!!
Unlike the enemy combatants on the battlefield.
...
BUT I GUESS YOU MISSED THAT POINT.

Ahh, so foreign nationals should enjoy no protection under the law? Now I understand.

Thank you for stating so clearly that the ideals upon which your legal system was built are no longer convenient and therefore no longer valid.

Thank you for explaining that I as a foreign national should be very careful and thank (preferably the christian) God that I don't look like a terrorist, as I would otherwise be put in the box with all the other guys who should not have due process.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...