Login Register Sign up for the GRM e-newsletter

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Speaking of terrorists.... « 1 2 3 4 5 »
  • Datsun1500

    Nov. 15, 2009 1:35 p.m. Datsun1500 Dork

    Drewsifer wrote:

    By what you're saying, we shouldn't be allowed to put him on trial at all. If he's not entitlted to Rights, then he's not covered by our legal system.

    No, what I am saying is he committed a war crime and gets a Military trial, just like the other war criminals throughout history.

    Drewsifer wrote: But yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The best way to spread the ideals of freedom, and right and wrong, is to live it. It isn't bullets, or soldiers (although there is always a time and a need for those). It's showing people that you can life in world where you are entitled to certain rights. The extremists will cry, but the average person will listen. Look at Iran. I think anyone willing to live by the rules in the Constitution, deserves those Rights.

    The only problem there is you think the world should live by your beliefs and systems, not theirs. The same way the Islamic guys think we should live by the rules of Islam. How is one guy fighting for what he believes is "right" different from another fighting for the same thing?

  • ignorant

    Nov. 15, 2009 2:42 p.m. ignorant PowerDork

    Datsun1500 wrote:

    The only problem there is you think the world should live by your beliefs and systems, not theirs.

    I interpreted it as meaning that WE should live by our beliefs.

  • Drewsifer

    Nov. 15, 2009 9:27 p.m. Drewsifer New Reader

    Datsun1500 wrote:

    Drewsifer wrote:

    By what you're saying, we shouldn't be allowed to put him on trial at all. If he's not entitlted to Rights, then he's not covered by our legal system.

    No, what I am saying is he committed a war crime and gets a Military trial, just like the other war criminals throughout history.

    Drewsifer wrote: But yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The best way to spread the ideals of freedom, and right and wrong, is to live it. It isn't bullets, or soldiers (although there is always a time and a need for those). It's showing people that you can life in world where you are entitled to certain rights. The extremists will cry, but the average person will listen. Look at Iran. I think anyone willing to live by the rules in the Constitution, deserves those Rights.

    The only problem there is you think the world should live by your beliefs and systems, not theirs. The same way the Islamic guys think we should live by the rules of Islam. How is one guy fighting for what he believes is "right" different from another fighting for the same thing?

    To a point you're right I suppose. You could argue that we're no different from them, ideologically. However, as I'm currently learning through Phoenix, it is a fallacy to say that everything is subjective, and all opinions are as good as any other. To oversimplify my statement, we're trying to spread the idea everyone can enjoy a certain amount of freedom, so long as they aren't a danger to anyone else. They're trying to spread a world where everyone is forced to conform to a specific religion.

    It has been argued that he can't be given a military trial. He isn't in any military. He isn't a Soldier. Is that a bit of a technicality? Yes. But as I said, there are issues with anywhere we're going to stick him.

  • Drewsifer

    Nov. 15, 2009 9:32 p.m. Drewsifer New Reader

    ignorant wrote:

    Datsun1500 wrote:

    The only problem there is you think the world should live by your beliefs and systems, not theirs.

    I interpreted it as meaning that WE should live by our beliefs.

    Yeah, that's what I was getting at. If we want other people to see eye to eye with us, we have to live our own beliefs first. Then, if we're on to something, people will join us.

  • Jensenman

    Nov. 15, 2009 10:21 p.m. Jensenman MegaDork

    Drewsifer, many years ago this country was founded in no small part on the premise that all men are equal and that people should be able to worship (or not; I am an atheist) as they please; the government cannot force anyone to follow a certain religion. That has led to all kinds of stuff like removing nativity scenes from government property, etc. It also means that no religious denomination can force their beliefs on others. I think we are on to something for sure.

    We as a country have followed this (for the most part) since 1776. I think we have walked the walk. So these folk see our tolerance and they HATE it, they call us godless heathens and infidels and plot our destruction.

    So who's not seeing eye to eye?

  • Drewsifer

    Nov. 16, 2009 4:34 a.m. Drewsifer New Reader

    Jensenman wrote:

    Drewsifer, many years ago this country was founded in no small part on the premise that all men are equal and that people should be able to worship (or not; I am an atheist) as they please; the government cannot force anyone to follow a certain religion. That has led to all kinds of stuff like removing nativity scenes from government property, etc. It also means that no religious denomination can force their beliefs on others. I think we are on to something for sure.

    We as a country have followed this (for the most part) since 1776. I think we have walked the walk. So these folk see our tolerance and they HATE it, they call us godless heathens and infidels and plot our destruction.

    So who's not seeing eye to eye?

    I'm at the end of my shift, so I'm sort of brain dead right now. Are you agreeing with me, or arguing? If you're agreeing, then hooray! You're right, this country is founded on the idea that you have the freedom of religion, and the freedom from religion. I absolutely agree with you.

    If you're arguing with me though, I have no clue whats going on.

  • ignorant

    Nov. 16, 2009 4:46 a.m. ignorant PowerDork

    Jensenman wrote: So these folk see our tolerance and they HATE it, they call us godless heathens and infidels and plot our destruction.

    Ohh Brother. Thats scary and I'm not going to touch it.

    But I think if you look a little further into the subject you'll find that these guys hate us for two reasons now.

    1. The inconsistent application of our policy in the region (i.e. not living up to our professed values during our dealings there)

    2. Cause we're over there shooting at them. In the same vein of the Rebel soldier who was asked by his Yankee captors why he was fighting and he replied, something to the effect of, because you're down here.

  • Wally

    Nov. 16, 2009 5:36 a.m. Wally UberDork

    I don't really have a preferance what type of trial they have but I wish that they could hold this circus somewhere other than Lower Manhattan. It is a traffic nightmare already and with the proposed added security measures they might as well close down altogether.

  • Jensenman

    Nov. 16, 2009 7:34 a.m. Jensenman MegaDork

    Drewsifer wrote:

    Jensenman wrote:

    Drewsifer, many years ago this country was founded in no small part on the premise that all men are equal and that people should be able to worship (or not; I am an atheist) as they please; the government cannot force anyone to follow a certain religion. That has led to all kinds of stuff like removing nativity scenes from government property, etc. It also means that no religious denomination can force their beliefs on others. I think we are on to something for sure.

    We as a country have followed this (for the most part) since 1776. I think we have walked the walk. So these folk see our tolerance and they HATE it, they call us godless heathens and infidels and plot our destruction.

    So who's not seeing eye to eye?

    I'm at the end of my shift, so I'm sort of brain dead right now. Are you agreeing with me, or arguing? If you're agreeing, then hooray! You're right, this country is founded on the idea that you have the freedom of religion, and the freedom from religion. I absolutely agree with you.

    If you're arguing with me though, I have no clue whats going on.

    No argument.

    The statement is that they are not seeing eye to eye with us. We practice religious tolerance, they don't and are willing to kill Americans over it. But somehow lots of folks say we are the bad guys.

  • Jensenman

    Nov. 16, 2009 7:44 a.m. Jensenman MegaDork

    ignorant wrote:

    Jensenman wrote: So these folk see our tolerance and they HATE it, they call us godless heathens and infidels and plot our destruction.

    Ohh Brother. Thats scary and I'm not going to touch it.

    It's the truth.

    ignorant wrote:

    But I think if you look a little further into the subject you'll find that these guys hate us for two reasons now.

    1. The inconsistent application of our policy in the region (i.e. not living up to our professed values during our dealings there)

    Are you referring to our Israel policy? That's a whole 'nother can of worms which was opened by the entire Western world. Britain presided over the creation of the modern Israel, then walked away and left them to get clobbered. So we stepped in. Would you suggest we just let the Arab world overrun them? Nazi actions of WWII were bad enough, that would have been genocide by apathy, even worse.

    Or maybe it's because we buy oil from the Saudis. Okay, who else should we buy oil from? The Russians? Then we would be helping prop up a country which is both reverting to Communism and is said to be full of thugs who are perverting the idea of capitalism. Can't win.

    ignorant wrote:

    1. Cause we're over there shooting at them. In the same vein of the Rebel soldier who was asked by his Yankee captors why he was fighting and he replied, something to the effect of, because you're down here.

    I would like to direct your attention back to the first WTC attack in 1993, the USS Cole, the Lockerbie bombings, the yada yada yada ad nauseam. After all that, damn right we are over there shooting at them. About frickin' time.

    Yamamoto said after the Pearl Harbor attack, 'I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant.' History repeats itself for those too dumb to learn from it.

  • RX Reven'

    Nov. 16, 2009 9:57 a.m. RX Reven' Reader

    Hi Jensenman,

    This is RX-Reven’s boss and I just wanted to thank you for providing posts that are so well written that my employee feels no need to take time from his work to participate in this thread.

  • ignorant

    Nov. 16, 2009 5:35 p.m. ignorant PowerDork

    Jensenman wrote: A bunch of mumbo jumbo...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles and our current situation are intertwined. Figure it out for yourself.. Some bullE36 M3 about hating us cause we're tolerant dosen't cut it buddy... You gotta go deeper..

    You're looking at the symptoms and no the disease...

  • pinchvalve

    Nov. 16, 2009 5:51 p.m. pinchvalve UltraDork

    Would you want to be surrounded by a few million angry New Yorkers who wanted to kill you? Good luck guaranteeing their safety!

  • oldsaw

    Nov. 16, 2009 6:51 p.m. oldsaw HalfDork

    In reply to pinchvalve:

    Terrorists love to be surrounded by infidels, but politicians hate to be surrounded by PO'd voters.

    When the trial procedings go south the biggest losers won't be carrying a Qur'an.

  • Jensenman

    Nov. 16, 2009 7:52 p.m. Jensenman MegaDork

    ignorant wrote:

    Jensenman wrote: A bunch of mumbo jumbo...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles and our current situation are intertwined. Figure it out for yourself.. Some bullE36 M3 about hating us cause we're tolerant dosen't cut it buddy... You gotta go deeper..

    You're looking at the symptoms and no the disease...

    Symptoms and disease are inextricably intertwined.

    Of course the Treaty of Versailles has a part in it. For instance, Britain cobbled together modern day Iraq from bits and pieces of the leftovers of the Ottoman empire. The British also ran Palestine until 1948, when they handed it over to the founders of the modern state of Israel. Funny; I don't see the US listed as running anything in the Mideast as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. Quite the opposite; the US pursued a policy of isolationism until Yamamoto sank some ships in a sneak attack.

    If you want to really get down to it, the current problems in the Mideast can be blamed on the Crusades. (It really goes back even further than that.) Hey, that was interesting: hundreds of year ago Muslims and Christians were fighting over Palestine (today's Israel), each trying to force their religion on the other and, if they wouldn't accept it, kill them. Sound familiar?

    The problems are not new in any way. The only thing new is the weaponry.

    The US was founded on religious tolerance. Heck, lots of the people who first settled here left their homelands over religious persecution. That whole thing was still pretty new and raw to the Founding Fathers so they made sure our government could not choose one religion over another. Say whatever you want, AFAIK that was the first time a country had that kind of tolerance written into its founding documents.

    And that pisses off the intolerant to no end. To the point that they want to kill the non believer infidels over it.

  • Jensenman

    Nov. 16, 2009 7:53 p.m. Jensenman MegaDork

    RX Reven' wrote:

    Hi Jensenman,

    This is RX-Reven’s boss and I just wanted to thank you for providing posts that are so well written that my employee feels no need to take time from his work to participate in this thread.

    Glad I could contribute to your productivity.

  • oldsaw

    Nov. 16, 2009 8:44 p.m. oldsaw HalfDork

    Jensenman wrote:

    ignorant wrote:

    Jensenman wrote: A bunch of mumbo jumbo...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles and our current situation are intertwined. Figure it out for yourself.. Some bullE36 M3 about hating us cause we're tolerant dosen't cut it buddy... You gotta go deeper..

    You're looking at the symptoms and no the disease...

    Symptoms and disease are inextricably intertwined.

    Of course the Treaty of Versailles has a part in it. For instance, Britain cobbled together modern day Iraq from bits and pieces of the leftovers of the Ottoman empire. The British also ran Palestine until 1948, when they handed it over to the founders of the modern state of Israel. Funny; I don't see the US listed as running anything in the Mideast as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. Quite the opposite; the US pursued a policy of isolationism until Yamamoto sank some ships in a sneak attack.

    If you want to really get down to it, the current problems in the Mideast can be blamed on the Crusades. (It really goes back even further than that.) Hey, that was interesting: hundreds of year ago Muslims and Christians were fighting over Palestine (today's Israel), each trying to force their religion on the other and, if they wouldn't accept it, kill them. Sound familiar?

    The problems are not new in any way. The only thing new is the weaponry.

    The US was founded on religious tolerance. Heck, lots of the people who first settled here left their homelands over religious persecution. That whole thing was still pretty new and raw to the Founding Fathers so they made sure our government could not choose one religion over another. Say whatever you want, AFAIK that was the first time a country had that kind of tolerance written into its founding documents.

    And that pisses off the intolerant to no end. To the point that they want to kill the non believer infidels over it.

    Islamic attacks on the "west" pre-date the Crusades by a few hundred years.

    Everyone has four cheeks to turn, but there seems to be a singular entity that wants blood from each of them. One entity offers all its' cheeks for flagellation and the other repeatedly has taken advantage of every opportunity. The wounds may heal but the scars, memories and history cannot be erased.

    Current events make our Constitutional-founders bigger heroes than ever. They escaped oppression until it found them again, they attempted diplomacy until it failed, then they said "no more" and fought and died for freedom.

    Sad, but it appears that the enlightened among us seem stuck on the diplomacy thing. Maybe the "next time" will affect their perceptions.

  • Drewsifer

    Nov. 16, 2009 10:45 p.m. Drewsifer New Reader

    There's only two things I can't stand. People who are intolerant of other peoples cultures

    And the dutch.

  • oldsaw

    Nov. 16, 2009 11:45 p.m. oldsaw HalfDork

    Drewsifer wrote:

    There's only two things I can't stand. People who are intolerant of other peoples cultures

    And the dutch.

    So, what do you have against Islamic extremists?

    Just askin'?

  • MitchellC

    Nov. 16, 2009 11:57 p.m. MitchellC HalfDork

    Jensenman wrote:

    I'm perfectly willing to live my decadent scummy Western infidel way and let the pure devout fundamentalist Islamic live his way. But if he decides that I should be put to death for not believing as he and then acts violently on that (thus trying to force his beliefs on me in the most virulent way possible: convert or die!), why it's triple tap time.

    Many who lived in Central or South America from the sixties to the eighties would probably like to say something about this. Our past isn't so squeaky clean.

  • Jensenman

    Nov. 17, 2009 9:35 a.m. Jensenman MegaDork

    Never said it was. We aren't perfect.

    Having said that, let me ask: when people leave other countries due to persecution (and the Roman Polanski types don't count!) where do they go, for the most part?

    Yup. I'm just stupid and/or naive enough to still believe in the promise this country was founded upon.

  • racerfink

    Nov. 17, 2009 11:15 p.m. racerfink New Reader

    Since some people think we have to play this game the "Right" way...

    Being a Federal Case now, doesn't that mean that the suspect should have his Miranda Rights read to him when he was arrested? Guess was wasn't read to him when the MILITARY arrested him? Any one want to bet against me that the lawyers ask for this case to be thrown out because they weren't read their rights?

  • JeepinMatt

    Nov. 17, 2009 11:17 p.m. JeepinMatt Reader

    Drewsifer wrote:

    There's only two things I can't stand. People who are intolerant of other peoples cultures

    And the dutch.

    Man, what is that from? I know it's from something. Austin Powers 3, maybe?

  • Drewsifer

    Nov. 18, 2009 1:08 a.m. Drewsifer New Reader

    JeepinMatt wrote:

    Drewsifer wrote:

    There's only two things I can't stand. People who are intolerant of other peoples cultures

    And the dutch.

    Man, what is that from? I know it's from something. Austin Powers 3, maybe?

    Yeah, Austin powers 3. From Austins dad.

    @JeepinMatt, that is one of the problems with this case. A terrorist doesn't fit perfectly anywhere. He wasn't arrested by civilians (like you said) he doesn't really belong in civilian courts. He isn't a soldier, so he isn't a good fit for military courts. International courts don't really want to to touch him. So what do we do?

  • JeepinMatt

    Nov. 18, 2009 1:15 a.m. JeepinMatt Reader

    Drewsifer wrote:

    @JeepinMatt, that is one of the problems with this case...

    @ who?

« 1 2 3 4 5 »  

You'll need to log in to post.