the Celebrity won an undeserved award

[MojoJD_IHB]

As for torture during interrogation... while I support the ethical treatment of people captured on the field of combat, that support is conditional on reciprocal treatment. Targeting civilians earns an automatic exception to ethical treatment. I'm not advocating we begin targeting civilians in return, but I am not inclined to conform to the Geneva Convention either.

I always hate this argument. Stop and then ask, why does this not apply to neighborhood street gangs in LA, or Santa Ana? These ORGANIZATIONS with indoctrinated "soldiers/terrorists" go out and perform their illegal activities, spread their self-promoting propaganda, and target innocent civilians not only for theft, but for random acts of terrorizing and intimidating violence.

Are you suggesting that we go out and torture members of any gang that we arrest? Or is it ok because they come from a different culture.

I cant stand people bending and warping the law because its suits their present needs/fears. The law is the law. Apply it evenly across the board if the essential underlying facts are the same. We are dealing with a dangerous criminal organization and they should not be treated any more harshly than a gang member or the mob, once arrested.

Do you see what I am saying? If you still want to argue that this treatment is not harsh enough, then you should be for turning up the heat on all criminals, right? I mean hey, domestic street violence has killed WAY more people than the 9/11 attacks... show my why they deserve more of my fear and hatred.

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

Still no answers. Maybe this will work?

Maybe not.

 

[Nude_IHB]

As for torture during interrogation... while I support the ethical treatment of people captured on the field of combat, that support is conditional on reciprocal treatment. Targeting civilians earns an automatic exception to ethical treatment. I'm not advocating we begin targeting civilians in return, but I am not inclined to conform to the Geneva Convention either.

I always hate this argument. Stop and then ask, why does this not apply to neighborhood street gangs in LA, or Santa Ana? These ORGANIZATIONS with indoctrinated "soldiers/terrorists" go out and perform their illegal activities, spread their self-promoting propaganda, and target innocent civilians not only for theft, but for random acts of terrorizing and intimidating violence.

Are you suggesting that we go out and torture members of any gang that we arrest? Or is it ok because they come from a different culture.

I cant stand people bending and warping the law because its suits their present needs/fears. The law is the law. Apply it evenly across the board if the essential underlying facts are the same. We are dealing with a dangerous criminal organization and they should not be treated any more harshly than a gang member or the mob, once arrested.

Do you see what I am saying? If you still want to argue that this treatment is not harsh enough, then you should be for turning up the heat on all criminals, right? I mean hey, domestic street violence has killed WAY more people than the 9/11 attacks... show my why they deserve more of my fear and hatred.

Aside from the minor detail that those gang members, have rights... as American citizens... that guarantee them due process, defense lawyers, etc, the other major difference is that street gangs aren't declaring war on the country, attacking police stations, killing school children, or sending suicide bombers into crowded malls. The criminal acts of gangsters are already covered by current laws and their activities are as closely monitored as modern police intelligence operations allow. Foreign nationals are only entitled to the same treatment when on our soil, just as our citizens are not privy to the Bill of Rights when in foreign countries. This difference in legal standards was the reason for the creation of a mutually agreed upon standard at the Geneva Convention in the first place, so that all nations would treat prisoners of war equally, but it also laid out specific definitions of who met those standards and who did not:

Art. 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention: (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

That is taken directly from the Geneva Conventions, and I have bolded the specific portions that address this point. ObL, AQ, and other terrorist organizations specifically AVOID "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" by targeting civilians, concealing themselves in order to avoid being recognized as a combatant, and deliberately avoiding any sort of rank-and-file structure organizing them into a standing army.

In other words, your argument attempts to compare apples to oranges and makes as much sense as you claiming "rights" as a political prisoner when ticketed for a traffic violation in Greece.

 

[MojoJD_IHB]

But this explanation fails to account for the legal anomalies of declaring foreign nationals, who are on our soil, to be "foreign combatants" - using the "prisoner of war" concept to exempt them from the protections of the US Constitution while, paradoxically, not recognizing them as foreign combatants under the Geneva convention so that they do not have to comply there either.

And who cares if they target "innocent school children and use suicide bombs". Its no different that killing a boy waiting for the bus on the corner in a drive-by shooting. Life is valuable and should be guarded equally, no matter how old the individual or the specific criminal intent motivating the killing.

If being off US soil is your key gripe, why are we not going after the leading members of the triads and south-american drug warlords and TORTURING their officers to get better intel to bomb their HQ? One could, again, argue that members of these organizations actively kill just as many or more American citizens and police officers every year. One group likes money, using violence and intimidation to get it. The other likes religious ideology, using violence and intimidation to get it.

My MAIN argument is that we give WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT to the importance of the war on terror. Its the "it" thing right now. Its blinding people to blatant abuses (or making them complacent) and diverting precious resources from established problems where even a little money could go a long way and produce more results in our society's well-being. I am disappointed at the lack of balance and principled decision-making.

 

[bltserv_IHB]

7 Years of GW Bush and his administrations "War on Terror" has had a lasting effect

on the American Psyche. The anger that was felt after 9/11 needed to have an outlet

and that outlet was "The War on Terror". It was a huge blanket that covered just about

any action his administration wanted. The Bill or Rights went into the shreader on several points.

Now here we are 8 years later and we have a different administration. And thankfully

we are making changes that will more effectively use our resources rather than just

throwing money and men down some mythical black hole. Revenge is better served chilled.

Some here perceive any changes other than troop escalation as weakness. But using all our

tools seems to be the order of the day. Intel, Allies, Diplomacy, Patience, and

a well thought out exit strategy will rule the policy of today.

I always loved listening to those old Viet Nam live broadcasts. The one where the Leuitenant

was in the process of burning the village. "We need to save these people from the Viet Cong"

So the best way to keep the enemy out of the village is to burn it down. Same logic we

are using in Afghanistan. We will just bomb them into democracy and eliminate the Taliban.

Now the only job avaliable is to shoot Americans for the Taliban.

 

[Nude_IHB]

But this explanation fails to account for the legal anomalies of declaring foreign nationals, who are on our soil, to be "foreign combatants" - using the "prisoner of war" concept to exempt them from the protections of the US Constitution while, paradoxically, not recognizing them as foreign combatants under the Geneva convention so that they do not have to comply there either.

If they are here legally, they get the protection of our laws. If they aren't, they get removed and sent to a detainment facility based on our classification of them. Would you prefer we treat them as spies who are simply executed after military tribunal? The very fact that there are"legal anomalies" indicates that the issue is not covered by current law or treaty, leaving any administration detaining people who can't be let back onto the streets for public safety reasons but also have no clear rights under international treaties. Furthermore, you seem to have invented some magical solution in your head that doesn't meet any real world legal criteria. It's not like we can negotiate with Al-Qaeda as representatives of all terrorists everywhere, or meet their army's commanders to exchange prisoners. Your argument is all emotion and no logical thought process, leading you to conclude that an appeal to emotion is the same as fact and reason.

And who cares if they target "innocent school children and use suicide bombs". Its no different that killing a boy waiting for the bus on the corner in a drive-by shooting. Life is valuable and should be guarded equally, no matter how old the individual or the specific criminal intent motivating the killing.

Taking your analogy to it's logical conclusion, Pol Pot was merely a murderer, Timothy McVeigh was no different than OJ Simpson, and Darfur just needs more cops. One drug dealer killing another drug dealer in a turf war is not the moral equivalent of raping, mutilating, and murdering a school full of 10 year-old kids. Innocent bystander deaths in a gang dispute is not the same as bombing a subway for of people commuting to work. If you support any form of hate crime sentencing enhancement and still think there is no difference between a drive-by and a beheading, you are being hypocritical... motivation matters greatly.

If being off US soil is your key gripe, why are we not going after the leading members of the triads and south-american drug warlords and TORTURING their officers to get better intel to bomb their HQ? One could, again, argue that members of these organizations actively kill just as many or more American citizens and police officers every year. One group likes money, using violence and intimidation to get it. The other likes religious ideology, using violence and intimidation to get it.

And here is where you reveal the error in your thinking: you think since the methods are similar, so must be the motives. But the motives of the drug dealer are selfish, he wants money and power. Those motives are shared by everyone involved, from the street dealer to the head of the cartel... they don't care about anything else but making money and consolidating the power to make more money and protect their business. The motives of the terrorist, on the other hand, are not selfish but religious; they want to crush those who would deny their God's existence and His law as THE law. They don't care about money or power for themselves, they only want to expand the influence of their religion and destroy anyone who would oppose that. This is why you don't see any suicide-bombing drug dealers, it's antithetical to their motives. You can not treat each the same and expect identical results.

Also, we've had a "War on Drugs" for as long as I have been alive. We aren't more aggressive because whenever the military starts shooting people and blowing things up, some yahoo starts screeching about improper use of force and human rights and American Imperialism. If I remember correctly, we invaded Panama to arrest Noriega, we have extradited the leaders of the Cali cartel to the US and we helped pinpoint Pablo Escobar so the Colombian government could kill him... sounds like we are actively doing what we can with the co-operation of friendly governments.

My MAIN argument is that we give WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT to the importance of the war on terror. Its the "it" thing right now. Its blinding people to blatant abuses (or making them complacent) and diverting precious resources from established problems where even a little money could go a long way and produce more results in our society's well-being. I am disappointed at the lack of balance and principled decision-making.

You are completely entitled to voice your opinion. However, if it is misinformed, ill-supported, or factually incorrect you can expect to be annihilated on teh intarwebz.

 

[gypsyuma_IHB]

@blt:

I'm not the one thinking short and small... if you remember... I was the one who asked the question about what to after we pull them back.

AND WE BOTH ANSWERED.... YOU JUST DIDN'T LIKE THE ANSWER.. I SAID INVEST IN THIS COUNTRY, AND BLT GAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF FORTIFYING PORTS AND BORDERS AND OTHER STUFF.... BUT STLL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.

Maybe you're thinking bigger, but your cohorts are not... as exampled by the fact that at least one thinks terrorism is a fallacy (which you do not) and that if we stop "attacking" them, they will cease their efforts.

THAT WOULD BE ME, THANKS. AND YES, I THINK THIS WHOLE NOTION THAT TERRORISTS ARE THE EVIL ENEMY, THE DEMON THAT WE MUST CHASE THE WORLD OVER IS A FALLACY. I GAVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE HOW THE AFGHAN MEN ARE BEING FORCED TO JOIN THE TALIBAN BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY PAYING "JOB" THERE IS LEFT AFTER WE DESTROYED THEIR COUNTRY - SO THIS IS THE EVIL DEMON TERRORIST WORTH BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY FOR AND KILLING OUR SOLDIERS FOR? THE MEDIA HAS TAINTED YOUR MIND WITH THAT BUSH SHITE OF US VERSES THEM - IT IS ALL NONSENSE!!!

And why do you keep thinking that I'm for a war against Islam?

THIS HAS NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION - IT IS POLITICS. THE OPPOSITION JUST USES RELIGION AS A MEANS TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE INTO DOING WHAT THEY WANT.

I'm not for a war against anything, I'm for being able to have a presence in dangerous areas abroad so that we are able to protect our homeland with proper intelligence, deterrence and preparation. I don't care if it's Islam, North Korea, Russian or Chinese... threats are threats, independent of source. You still haven't responded to my query about your local police, do you want them to stop patrolling your neighborhood and just sit in their station working on gun detection technology? Sometimes, deterrence by physical presence is very good at preventing crime/terror. They don't actually have to put a "finger" on every wannabe criminal, they just need to let them know they can respond if they try to do anything. Using your "solution", should our police no longer investigate possible criminals? Just let them run around planning crimes and just work on creating unbreakable locks, infallible alarm systems and anti-gun/knife shields? Now, I'll admit to being hyperbolic based on scale but the concept is similar.

SO WE HAVE TO POLICE THE PLANET NOW? AND YOUR EXAMPLE ABOUT THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE.... WELL THE PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY WANT THEM THERE. DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN WANT US THERE?????

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

With all due respect, there are people who had loved ones killed in those events and would consider them extreme terrorist acts. It doesn't matter how small or large it is... an attack of any size needs to be prevented. If you think that we should only be concerned about nuclear terrorism... than I am not the one thinking short and small (I would think biochemical would be just as devastating and much harder to detect).

 

[gypsyuma_IHB]

But this explanation fails to account for the legal anomalies of declaring foreign nationals, who are on our soil, to be "foreign combatants" - using the "prisoner of war" concept to exempt them from the protections of the US Constitution while, paradoxically, not recognizing them as foreign combatants under the Geneva convention so that they do not have to comply there either.

And who cares if they target "innocent school children and use suicide bombs". Its no different that killing a boy waiting for the bus on the corner in a drive-by shooting. Life is valuable and should be guarded equally, no matter how old the individual or the specific criminal intent motivating the killing.

If being off US soil is your key gripe, why are we not going after the leading members of the triads and south-american drug warlords and TORTURING their officers to get better intel to bomb their HQ? One could, again, argue that members of these organizations actively kill just as many or more American citizens and police officers every year. One group likes money, using violence and intimidation to get it. The other likes religious ideology, using violence and intimidation to get it.

My MAIN argument is that we give WAY TOO MUCH WEIGHT to the importance of the war on terror. Its the "it" thing right now. Its blinding people to blatant abuses (or making them complacent) and diverting precious resources from established problems where even a little money could go a long way and produce more results in our society's well-being. I am disappointed at the lack of balance and principled decision-making.

THANK YOU!!!! THIS was my point exactly - all this hype over the "War on Terror" and who is a "Terrorist". UGH! Where does it end???

And another example of your argument above - what the hell is going on in Mexico? All those drug cartels mass murdering people...... kidnapping people... and this on both sides of the border! Why are we not going in and bombing Mexico to kingdom come, and taking over their government and installing a puppet? Why the hypocrisy?

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

@gyspyuma:

Why are you responding to what I wrote to blt when you haven't responded what I wrote to you?

However, I will respond to your comments again... although you don't have to yell:

AND WE BOTH ANSWERED…. YOU JUST DIDN’T LIKE THE ANSWER.. I SAID INVEST IN THIS COUNTRY, AND BLT GAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF FORTIFYING PORTS AND BORDERS AND OTHER STUFF…. BUT STLL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU.

It's not that I didn't like the answer, it's that you didn't explain exactly how that would help (see above where you did not respond to my questions about that). It's not about not being good enough... it's about being realistic. So you agree that building a wall around the United States will stop the terrorist attacks?

THAT WOULD BE ME, THANKS. AND YES, I THINK THIS WHOLE NOTION THAT TERRORISTS ARE THE EVIL ENEMY, THE DEMON THAT WE MUST CHASE THE WORLD OVER IS A FALLACY.

That is different from thinking terrorism itself is a fallacy. I don't think we can effectively chase them all over the world either but I do believe that anyone who would send people to forcibly take over our planes and kill thousands of people is an evil enemy.

I GAVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE HOW THE AFGHAN MEN ARE BEING FORCED TO JOIN THE TALIBAN BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY PAYING “JOB” THERE IS LEFT AFTER WE DESTROYED THEIR COUNTRY - SO THIS IS THE EVIL DEMON TERRORIST WORTH BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY FOR AND KILLING OUR SOLDIERS FOR? THE MEDIA HAS TAINTED YOUR MIND WITH THAT BUSH SHITE OF US VERSES THEM - IT IS ALL NONSENSE!!!

Again, there are some things I don't agree with... but do you actually think that if the US pulled all of our troops out of the Middle East, terrorism will cease to exist (you have yet to answer that)?

THIS HAS NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION - IT IS POLITICS. THE OPPOSITION JUST USES RELIGION AS A MEANS TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE INTO DOING WHAT THEY WANT.

So wait, you're thanking bltserv for his posts but you don't agree with him. He doesn't think terrorism is a fallacy (hence the wall-building answer) and he attributes it all to religion. You guys need to get on the same page.

SO WE HAVE TO POLICE THE PLANET NOW? AND YOUR EXAMPLE ABOUT THE LOCAL POLICE FORCE…. WELL THE PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY WANT THEM THERE. DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN WANT US THERE?????

You can read the other responses about policing the planet to get your answer. As for Afghanistan wanting us there... I'll use the Omnipotent Weapon of Anecdotal Evidence:

There is a waiter at the Irvine Olive Garden who is in the military. I overheard him telling his story of being in Afghanistan to the table next to us and he said that despite all the destruction he saw, the one thing that made him proud of being over there was the thanks these Afghan kids gave him when he was there. He said nothing compared to seeing how happy the people were that they were there. I made sure before we left to shake his hand and thank him for his service to our country.

Now, either he exaggerated or lied, or I'm exaggerating or lying... but there are Afghan people who may want us there. And maybe there are not. The point of a presence isn't to make all the residents happy (I'm sure drug lords hate when the police patrol their inner projects), but to try to prevent further crimes/terror/fallacies from occurring.

I think we agree on certain principles more than you want to believe... what I'm getting at here is what actions do we take in the aftermath of a pull out to further protect our safety? We can pour millions of dollars into their infrastructure and build a force field around the western hemisphere of the world... but I honestly don't think that will change the extremists' (or any of our enemies') point of view towards the United States. Last I checked, Obama isn't getting very high approval ratings from the terrorist groups either.

You're asking the frog to trust the scorpion.

 

[MojoJD_IHB]

Nude: where to begin.

If they were treated as spies and executed - fine. But that is not the case because they are not spying from a foreign sovereign nation. Even then, most spies are NOT executed, but detained and later traded or sentenced. Death is an optional punishment. Either way, ITS DUE PROCESS! so its fine. Whatever the end result, give the captives a date where their actions will be judged and sentence be dolled out. Indefinite detainment without charge is unacceptable.

Its a pretty large leap for you to say that because I have my views it must be "all emotion and no logical thought process." If you could refrain from showing your weakness through ad hominem attacks, I would appreciate it. What I called an "anomaly" was another word for an exploitation of a legal loophole. Just because it exists, doesn't mean you should act in a way that is counter to our system of laws; counter to the way the laws would operate if they did, in fact, govern these circumstances.

And your analogy regarding Timothy McVay and OJ is misguided. Timothy McVay committed many murders. He is no different than, say, a serial killer who goes around and kills 30 people. The law provides the highest sentences for these people. What, do you want them to be executed HARDER? They BOTH get due process and get their punishment. What part of this are you not getting?

Oh yeah, and please show me this instance of jihadist terrorists "raping, mutilating, and murdering a school full of 10 year-old kids." Or were you just trying to go for an extreme here? Either way, the example is ineffective, as the perpetrators of such a crime would get the maximum sentence available under the law; often the death penalty. What is your point?

Also, I do not support hate crime legislation whatsoever. Whether you beat someone up for their wallet, or because they're a different race than you, its battery and the punishment should be the same. Want it to be more of a deterrent? Apply stricter penalties across the board. You keep going back to "OMG DIFFERENT MOTIVE." Well, motive doesnt play a role in our system of laws. It may help get you convicted by convincing a jury that you had a reason to do something, but its not a requisite element of most crimes (excluding hate crime legislation, which is BS). The feds dont care if you lied on your tax return to fund your favorite charity or to buy a new boat. You get convicted of the same crime. The law does not care why you tagged that wall, stole that TV, committed identity theft, jacked that car. Aside from very limited cases of "legal justification," which only works in the opposite direction and is not pursued by a DA/Fed Prosecutor, the law doesnt car.

I think you simply arent getting that once you mean to go murder someone with malicious intent, the specific reasons are not important. Malicious intent is enough. My example about the drug dealers does not reveal a flaw. Just because you point out that one group does something for money while another is an ideological extreme does not make them different under enforcement. Both groups do anything, regardless of human cost, in self interest. No, granted, drug lords dont use suicide bombers... THEY USE BOMBS! They're blowing shit up all the time in south america. Does the remote control make it ok? Are you less culpable when you sent 10 paid assassins into a community center to "send a message" than if you were to send in a suicide bomber? Where is the substance of your reasoning? Both of these things happen and people die.

And when you say that they used to go after these people until people starting whining about human rights abuses.... WELL YEAH - THATS THE GOD DAMNED POINT!!!

You seem to be particularly afraid of the Islamic extremist point of view and want to use "extralegal" means of dealing with it. You don't seem to understand that we have a nation based on written, predetermined laws to govern our legal response to prevent abuse by those in power. What you are suggesting is selectively turning a blind eye to our legal system's principles in order to effectuate your desired end. Move to China already. This kind of thinking, no matter how popular right now with fear-mongers, will always be contrary to what this country was founded upon; predictable due process - whether it be taxing your tea or locking you in prison without charging you.

 

[MojoJD_IHB]

People tend to look at the short term

And thats exactly what your doing. Thinking short and small.

The real threat to this country is not by WHOM but by WHAT.

And that threat is a IND. "Improvised Nuclear Device". If by some chance a few Kilos

of enriched Uranium are smuggled in this country undetected and somehow a detonation

device is rigged. You could see an event that will really ruin everybodys day.

The most important thing this country can do on the war on terror is to control the

fissionable material on this planet. And 99% of it is either Russian or American.

It easily detectable and requires significant sheilding to be transported properly.

We need to get our technology working to protect ourselves from this threat.

The billions we are spending attempting to root out a few remaining Taliban or Al Qaeda

is not money well spent at all. Unless your going to fight a war against all of Islam

picking away at the "sore" is not the answer. Terrorist exist. You not going to eliminate them all

by sending troops. Kind of like stopping World Communisum in the Jungles of Viet Nam. It aint going to work. Ever.

You think the Cole, African Embassy Bombings, or even 9/11 itself were extreme acts of terror ?

Well you dodnt want to be around in the next 10 years when the terrorist succeed in making and delivering

a IND to this country. It could have a yeild similar to Hiroshima and the death toll? Unimaginable.

We need to protect our ports and our borders from these materials entering this country and its

technically very feasable.

Start thinking long term. Running around the world trying to put our finger on every potential threat

is not sustainable long term or economically.

I like your message, so sorry to cut in The whole "dirty nuke" thing was a false scare too. Many nuclear physicists and professors have gone on shows saying "Hell, if they set one off at Disneyland, I'd go the next day. Yeah, I'd burn my clothes the next day, but its not like thousands of people are going to drop dead from one of these going off. The biggest concern is just an expensive cleanup and public panic."

You cannot set off a nuclear detonation just by blowing up uranium.

To the extent that your analogy applies to a suitcase bomb theory, then yes. I agree.

 

[Nude_IHB]

Nude: where to begin.

If they were treated as spies and executed - fine. But that is not the case because they are not spying from a foreign sovereign nation. Even then, most spies are NOT executed, but detained and later traded or sentenced. Death is an optional punishment. Either way, ITS DUE PROCESS! so its fine. Whatever the end result, give the captives a date where their actions will be judged and sentence be dolled out. Indefinite detainment without charge is unacceptable.

Its a pretty large leap for you to say that because I have my views it must be "all emotion and no logical thought process." If you could refrain from showing your weakness through ad hominem attacks, I would appreciate it. What I called an "anomaly" was another word for an exploitation of a legal loophole. Just because it exists, doesn't mean you should act in a way that is counter to our system of laws; counter to the way the laws would operate if they did, in fact, govern these circumstances.

And your analogy regarding Timothy McVay and OJ is misguided. Timothy McVay committed many murders. He is no different than, say, a serial killer who goes around and kills 30 people. The law provides the highest sentences for these people. What, do you want them to be executed HARDER? They BOTH get due process and get their punishment. What part of this are you not getting?

Oh yeah, and please show me this instance of jihadist terrorists "raping, mutilating, and murdering a school full of 10 year-old kids." Or were you just trying to go for an extreme here? Either way, the example is ineffective, as the perpetrators of such a crime would get the maximum sentence available under the law; often the death penalty. What is your point?

Also, I do not support hate crime legislation whatsoever. Whether you beat someone up for their wallet, or because they're a different race than you, its battery and the punishment should be the same. Want it to be more of a deterrent? Apply stricter penalties across the board. You keep going back to "OMG DIFFERENT MOTIVE." Well, motive doesnt play a role in our system of laws. It may help get you convicted by convincing a jury that you had a reason to do something, but its not a requisite element of most crimes (excluding hate crime legislation, which is BS). The feds dont care if you lied on your tax return to fund your favorite charity or to buy a new boat. You get convicted of the same crime. The law does not care why you tagged that wall, stole that TV, committed identity theft, jacked that car. Aside from very limited cases of "legal justification," which only works in the opposite direction and is not pursued by a DA/Fed Prosecutor, the law doesnt car.

I think you simply arent getting that once you mean to go murder someone with malicious intent, the specific reasons are not important. Malicious intent is enough. My example about the drug dealers does not reveal a flaw. Just because you point out that one group does something for money while another is an ideological extreme does not make them different under enforcement. Both groups do anything, regardless of human cost, in self interest. No, granted, drug lords dont use suicide bombers... THEY USE BOMBS! They're blowing shit up all the time in south america. Does the remote control make it ok? Are you less culpable when you sent 10 paid assassins into a community center to "send a message" than if you were to send in a suicide bomber? Where is the substance of your reasoning? Both of these things happen and people die.

And when you say that they used to go after these people until people starting whining about human rights abuses.... WELL YEAH - THATS THE GOD DAMNED POINT!!!

You seem to be particularly afraid of the Islamic extremist point of view and want to use "extralegal" means of dealing with it. You don't seem to understand that we have a nation based on written, predetermined laws to govern our legal response to prevent abuse by those in power. What you are suggesting is selectively turning a blind eye to our legal system's principles in order to effectuate your desired end. Move to China already. This kind of thinking, no matter how popular right now with fear-mongers, will always be contrary to what this country was founded upon; predictable due process - whether it be taxing your tea or locking you in prison without charging you.

Neither US Code nor the Military Code of Justice care a whit about the origin of the spy, merely the activity. When the Bush administration planned military tribunals, the roar from the left was deafening. Are you on board with military tribunals for those people caught up in the anomalies/loopholes?

Going back to my original point, the Geneva Conventions specifically exclude these type of combatants and we are under no obligation to extend them that courtesy. Since they target civilians, I does not bother me that they were not treated as POWs. If they want to act in a manner that meets those treaties, I will be first in line championing their humane treatment.

You made the strawmen, I merely gave them faces. Your argument is that we should treat them equally but they are not, in fact, equal.

Look, we can go back and forth all day, but the bottom line is that you want to extend the Bill of Rights and due process to everyone, citizen, resident, or otherwise. I don't. Your view is that these are criminals and must be prosecuted, my view is that we are at war with an unconventional enemy. Under your view, we are wrong and violating the rights of prisoners. Under my view, we are right and doing the best we can in an admittedly gray area, but the rules of war apply, not the rules of peace time civil society.

Civil prosecutions are an ineffective way to fight a war. We tried it after 1993, it did nothing. We tried the humanitarian approach in Mogadishu and we were forced to run away. We fired a cruise missile that killed a few janitors in an aspirin factory and the world laughed at us. Every time we were attacked, we responded as if it were a criminal act. This deterred no one. We are at war. War time, war rules. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that is the way I see it. You can't convince me I am wrong, I can't convince you I am right, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.

As for the school, I never said "jihadists": google Beslan

 

[MojoJD_IHB]

Yes, many people in the last 5 years have been all geared up about this being a "war" - I think it was self serving and a fallacy. If you want to declare war on (fill in the blank of the organization), then fine. Do that and engage them as such. But a war on "terror"? Has anyone thought how many different kinds of things you can squeeze into that word? If you derive your war powers from the word "terror" - you have a blank check.

I mainly wanted to hear your explanation in the reverse, namely: why should we not be applying these "wartime" methods to urban street gangs? When you catch one, putting him in prison will not deter future crime and violence. Just like what people say about a terrorist - when they get released, they are just going to go back to being a threat. Many, if not all, of the criteria fit nicely into the check-boxes for a terrorist organization. Why not, eh? I just believe that good reasoning should work in both directions.

Hell, what is stopping the government from declaring that anyone who commits a fraud on our sacred investment markets is out to destroy the fabric of our nation, and therefore an enemy of the state... therefore not deserving of rights under the constitution... therefore not protected from rules on torture to find out co-conspirators, indefinite detainment (just in case they're wrong, but now you are angry and might do bad things), summary execution, etc.

 

[Minimorty_IHB]

Yes, many people in the last 5 years have been all geared up about this being a "war" - I think it was self serving and a fallacy. If you want to declare war on (fill in the blank of the organization), then fine. Do that and engage them as such. But a war on "terror"? Has anyone thought how many different kinds of things you can squeeze into that word? If you derive your war powers from the word "terror" - you have a blank check.

I mainly wanted to hear your explanation in the reverse, namely: why should we not be applying these "wartime" methods to urban street gangs? When you catch one, putting him in prison will not deter future crime and violence. Just like what people say about a terrorist - when they get released, they are just going to go back to being a threat. Many, if not all, of the criteria fit nicely into the check-boxes for a terrorist organization. Why not, eh? I just believe that good reasoning should work in both directions.

Hell, what is stopping the government from declaring that anyone who commits a fraud on our sacred investment markets is out to destroy the fabric of our nation, and therefore an enemy of the state... therefore not deserving of rights under the constitution... therefore not protected from rules on torture to find out co-conspirators, indefinite detainment (just in case they're wrong, but now you are angry and might do bad things), summary execution, etc.

These urban street gangs (like from L.A.?) are U.S. citizens. As such, they have certain rights detailed under the Bill of Rights and various other laws that protect the rights of U.S. citizens. These are not "wartime" criminals. Again, so many people on this board try to compare apples to oranges. It is not that difficult. Let me lay it out for you:

U.S. Citizen Killers - treated under Bill of Rights, given a lawyer, prosecuted through the court system.

Foreign National Killers - treated under Geneva Convention and other wartime rules

Al Qaida and Other Terrorists (neither US citizens or foreign nationals) - this is gray area. We do what is necessary to protect the US.

 

[Nude_IHB]

Yes, many people in the last 5 years have been all geared up about this being a "war" - I think it was self serving and a fallacy. If you want to declare war on (fill in the blank of the organization), then fine. Do that and engage them as such. But a war on "terror"? Has anyone thought how many different kinds of things you can squeeze into that word? If you derive your war powers from the word "terror" - you have a blank check.

I mainly wanted to hear your explanation in the reverse, namely: why should we not be applying these "wartime" methods to urban street gangs? When you catch one, putting him in prison will not deter future crime and violence. Just like what people say about a terrorist - when they get released, they are just going to go back to being a threat. Many, if not all, of the criteria fit nicely into the check-boxes for a terrorist organization. Why not, eh? I just believe that good reasoning should work in both directions.

Hell, what is stopping the government from declaring that anyone who commits a fraud on our sacred investment markets is out to destroy the fabric of our nation, and therefore an enemy of the state... therefore not deserving of rights under the constitution... therefore not protected from rules on torture to find out co-conspirators, indefinite detainment (just in case they're wrong, but now you are angry and might do bad things), summary execution, etc.

Again, citizenship decides treatment. As for why we aren't filling Gitmo with Baker St. Boys or F-Troop members, you can't be so ignorant as to not know of the Posse Comitatus Act. I'm sure you think you've got me cornered in some way, but there is no conflict for me. If you are a citizen lobbing bombs, you have rights. If you are a soldier lobbing bombs, you have rights. If you are neither a citizen nor a soldier lobbing bombs, expect to rot in the most miserable conditions we can create until we figure out what to do with you.

 

[gypsyuma_IHB]

TO IRVINE HOME OWNER:::::

YOU WROTE:

It's not that I didn't like the answer, it's that you didn't explain exactly how that would help (see above where you did not respond to my questions about that). It's not about not being good enough... it's about being realistic. So you agree that building a wall around the United States will stop the terrorist attacks?

MY RESPONSE:

I read all the time about how little containers actually get checked at our ports, and how the border to Canada is wide open. So do I think we should build a wall? Hell no. I think we should stop pissing the entire world off first and foremost with our death and destruction machine. And that of israel too - our other de facto killing machine. But after that, well isn't Homeland Security supposed to figure out how best to utilize money to improve the safety of this country? Securing our nuclear plants. Our dams. All that stuff. I am not going to pretend I know how that is to be best handled, but I hope you get the gist. Just because I cannot spout off HOW those are secured does not mean it is better to spend BILLIONS to continue to blow up sand dunes in the Middle East.

YOU WROTE:

That is different from thinking terrorism itself is a fallacy. I don't think we can effectively chase them all over the world either but I do believe that anyone who would send people to forcibly take over our planes and kill thousands of people is an evil enemy.

MY RESPONSE:

I have no idea WHO was responsible for 9/11, and I think we will never know the truth likely. BUT, what did the Taliban and the Afghan people have to do with that? What did Sadam and the Iraqi people have to do with that? Even our government admits not jack shit. So let's stop pretending that what we are doing is so noble and justified - you are kidding yourself. ANd since when is revenge noble?

YOU WROTE:

Again, there are some things I don't agree with... but do you actually think that if the US pulled all of our troops out of the Middle East, terrorism will cease to exist (you have yet to answer that)?

MY RESPONSE:

Overnight? No. Eventually? Likely But maybe you should be the one asking yourself if killing another 150,000+ Iraqis is going to make us any safer.

YOU WROTE:

So wait, you're thanking bltserv for his posts but you don't agree with him. He doesn't think terrorism is a fallacy (hence the wall-building answer) and he attributes it all to religion. You guys need to get on the same page.

MY RESPONSE:

I do NOT agree with that part, but the rest has been right on. IF I ever met that guy in person, we could have a chat. My guess is he has never even been to the Middle East and never even had a real conversation with a Muslim. Yeah....... but the other stuff I do agree with, just not that shite.

It is not that I don't understand your POV, I just don't agree with it. I am anti-war in general, so of course I wouldn't. I think it was Joe Biden that was talking once about how after we left Afghanistan the first time, that the government was asked to provide like 1-2 million dollars to build schools for the Afghan kids, and they said no. All the kids were then schooled in the Madrasats, and that is how the Taliban was born. I am not saying to invest Billions of dollars to all these countries, but I am saying it is better to use our money for shite like this than to kill and maim those same kids and kill their parents and destroy their homes and starve them. Would that make YOU happy?

Ok, I have to run or I would write more, sorry.

 

[irvine_home_owner_IHB]

gypsy:

I also see where you are coming from but I don't agree with you repeated assertions that the primary goal of the US military is to "kill children and parents". I have not once said anything about war being noble or justified or that revenge is warranted. Again, to me, the purpose of military presence in known terrorist regions isn't to find the exact person/people responsible for 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks, it's to prevent future ones. Granted (again), maybe it's not the correct way, but I'm not too sure the opposite will "eventually" cause terrorism to go away.

War and death are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. Do you see me saying we should invade North Korea? They are becoming just as credible a threat... but I think the way the US and the UN are trying to handle it is correct. At the same time, you don't see North Koreans sending suicide bombers over to or allies or posting videos threatening our citizen's lives with beheadings.

And I still think you are missing the point... if it was so easy to do as you suggested... why hasn't it been done yet?

You don't need to answer that, we can just call it a day and say we don't see eye to eye. I usually don't like to discuss politics but it does give me insight when people can actually discuss them civilly.

 

[trrenter_IHB]

I think the conflict in Pakistan proves that giving them a piece of land and leaving them alone does not work.

Pakistan sends 30,000 troops for all-out assault on Taliban

They need to send 30,000 troops because they essentially let the Taliban have Waziristan.

I am sure that the Pakistan troops should abide by the Geneva Convention while:

Over the past two weeks militants have launched a series of audacious attacks across the country, including the suicide bombing of a United Nations office in Islamabad

Military sources predicted the fighting would last at least six weeks and would concentrate on the Taliban strongholds of Ladha and Makeen. Some think it may take longer

This is why you chase them around like dogs and keep them running. When you let them set up shop you are hosed and they don't care who they attack or how they attack them.

So now lets reverse the question and now ask your self how would an enemy soldier be treated by AQ and the Taliban?

I would say that we should not be held to any rules our enemies don't agree to.

 

[Nude_IHB]

I would say that we should not be held to any rules our enemies don't agree to.

You are never going to win the Nobel Consolation Peace Prize that way.

 

[gypsyuma_IHB]

YOU WROTE:

I also see where you are coming from but I don't agree with you repeated assertions that the primary goal of the US military is to "kill children and parents".

MY RESPONSE:

I didn't say that was the primary goal either, but you cannot deny that has been the result. We are BOMB DROPPERS. Do you think those bombs only kills the bad guys? This isn't like we can get away with all that just because we have good intentions - the world doesn't care!

YOU WROTE:

I have not once said anything about war being noble or justified or that revenge is warranted. Again, to me, the purpose of military presence in known terrorist regions isn't to find the exact person/people responsible for 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks, it's to prevent future ones.

MY RESPONSE:

ANd I am saying THIS is not the way to go about it. It is like us bombing all of California to get at the gangs that plaque the state. Just like the other guy, I think Mojo said. If you are not willing to bomb California to try to root out the gang problem, then why in the world are we destroying Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you not see that it is US that has created the current problems in Pakistan? We have shoved the pissed off Taliban down there, and they are reeking havoc - BRAVO, WELL DONE USA! YIPPEEE.... Another country on the brink of destruction, and THIS ONE HAS NUKES!

YOU WROTE:

Granted (again), maybe it's not the correct way, but I'm not too sure the opposite will "eventually" cause terrorism to go away.

MY RESPONSE:

Ok, answer me this question...... Why is it that Canada has not seen any terrorism activity? How about Switzerland? Ireland? Spain? Australia? I could keep going if you want. Maybe it is because those countries are not off causing problems where their nose doesn't belong! And even before you get started on the 9/11 excuse, let me just say one word - ISRAEL. And then let me follow that word up with - SAUDI ARABIA. And EGYPT. We are the ones who have helped israel oppress the Palestinian since 1948. And whether or not you like that - I gaurantee you that the Muslim world DOES NOT. And they also don't like our puppet governments in Saudi and Egypt.

We have to STOP being the Superpower. STOP policing the planet. STOP bullying. STOP dictating. We have to be a good citizen of the planet and play within the confines of the UN, which we need to build back up since we destroyed it.

ONLY THEN.... will terrorism against this country decline, as will the hatred for us.

YOU WROTE:

War and death are horrible and should be avoided as much as possible. Do you see me saying we should invade North Korea? They are becoming just as credible a threat... but I think the way the US and the UN are trying to handle it is correct. At the same time, you don't see North Koreans sending suicide bombers over to or allies or posting videos threatening our citizen's lives with beheadings.

MY RESPONSE:

Well, that is because we haven't invaded that country yet. And we haven't had South Korea take that country over and oppress it and its neighbors like israel is doing for us in the Middle East. If we did that, well then, I think the North Koreans might just disappoint you.

YOU WROTE:

And I still think you are missing the point... if it was so easy to do as you suggested... why hasn't it been done yet?

MY RESPONSE:

I think it has to do with our "WE ARE THE SUPERPOWER" mentality. I gave the reasons above why that must stop. ALong with this superiority complex that we have, we are simply put - war-mongers. Hate to be blunt. I am not talking about EVERYONE in this country, naturally. It just amazes me that the same people who spout the nonsense "If you cannot stand by our troops, stand in front of them" are also the first to want to just nuke anyone that disagrees with us.

We need a serious shift in mentality. I think it is starting because we see the BILLIONS of dollars it takes to be war-mongers, and now all of a sudden we want out. Gee, it takes hitting the collective pocketbook for some people to see the light.

YOU WROTE:

You don't need to answer that, we can just call it a day and say we don't see eye to eye.

MY RESPONSE:

Oh no no no ..... you don't get off that easy. LOL

NOW we can call it a day if you want.

YOU WROTE:

I usually don't like to discuss politics but it does give me insight when people can actually discuss them civilly.

MY RESPONSE:

I am all about the civility - which is what I want for this country on the whole. And we NEED to discuss and with civility. Look what our politics have turned into - its a DISGRACE! The world must be getting a good laugh at our clown politicians about now. I know for a fact that Canadians think we are just plain nutso. What has happened to us? THIS is not the kind of country I want to leave my children when I am dead and buried, that is for sure.