Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

Poll

Should the U.S. execute the 9/11 conspirators?

Yes53%53% - 14
No46%46% - 12
Total: 26
2012-06-18 01:35:58
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5713|Ventura, California

Dilbert_X wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I'm sick of this "Civilized" bullshit. Shoot the fuckers
Its what Jesus would do.
That's 1 man in hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel. He needs to be given a trial, and if he's found guilty of their murder he should take the same path as anybody else that murders should take. It sucks, and I hate to say that, but murder is murder.
Why not just shoot the fucker? Why bother with the "civilised" bullshit?

Oh he's white and not a muslim, sorry.
Where did I say the men responsible for the 9/11 attacks didn't deserve a trial? Fuck off trollderp
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2012-06-18 01:39:23
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Where did I say the men responsible for the 9/11 attacks didn't deserve a trial? Fuck off trollderp

Sh1tfy wrote:

I'm sick of this "Civilized" bullshit. Shoot the fuckers.
So why not jus get on a shoot Staff Sgt Tough Guy?
Or did Jesus say bayoneting children while they sleep is OK?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-06-18 01:43:23)

Fuck Israel
2012-06-18 01:44:28
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

-Sh1fty- wrote:

~6000 US troops are also alive and at home with their families.
Most of whom died in Iraq - for some reason yet to be explained.
Fuck Israel
2012-06-18 03:11:13
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6861|Little Bentcock

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Do military personell come under your blanket of "any body who plays a part of ending another's  right to life"?
Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.
Except I'm not trolling, what the difference between an afghani killing heaps of people because he think's it is right and a soldier killing heaps of people because he thinks it is right?
2012-06-18 05:17:44
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6238|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

~6000 US troops are also alive and at home with their families.
Most of whom died in Iraq - for some reason yet to be explained.
The reasons were clear (albeit wrong), you just refuse to accept them.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-06-18 05:18:10)

inane little opines
2012-06-18 05:25:22
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5275|Massachusetts, USA

-Sh1fty- wrote:

LOL

yeah 9/11 never happened and 3000 civilians are at home with their families celebrating father's day, oh and ~6000 US troops are also alive and at home with their families.
We have no right to be in the middle east, and using it as our stomping ground. We had 0 reason to invade Iraq, there were no WMDs, Saddamn had nothing to do with 9/11 and Bin Laden was no where in Afghanistan either. He was in Pakistan and our intel agencies knew it. Stop trying to justify our invasion of two 3rd world countries.

9/11 was not an invasion, 9/11 was an attack. One attack does not give us complete authority to invade two countries on a whim. You're basically blinded by patriotism and you don't even want to question your government. The US government is one of the most corrupt, brutal and ignorant governments in the world.

6000 troops alive and home with their families, hah. Don't make me fucking laugh. What about the other 500,000 troops that are deployed around the world on foreign soil. Half of which are probably in the middle east.

You need to get the whole "US MILITARY IS BEST MILITARY" bullshit out of your head or you're going to end up dead in a ditch in some shitty third world country. Fighting a war so that the fat cats in Washington can line their pockets with taxes they impose on the poor and the rest of your family.

Take some time, stop, look at the world around you and start thinking. Look at something from every angle, and you will understand. Until you do that, you will be labeled as another ignorant, white, Christian-American. We seem to have so many of those these days.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2012-06-18 05:29:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:

Osama declared war on the US back in 1993 (If memory serves me right) and what's happening in Afghanistan is most definitely called a 'war'.

As always though you're just being a  [Mod:  removed word that means "person who annoys me, so I'm going to slander you to make me feel superior"] about it because you dislike the US. Those who signed the Geneva convention wouldn't have hesitated to put these people down like they did with their own contemporary adversaries in Nuremberg.


** declaration of war was made in 1996
Only nation states can declare 'war'. Likewise its only possible to declare war against nation states.
This is why the 'war on terror' 'war on drugs' war on zits' etc are so absurd.

The US did not make a declaration of war, no declaration of war was made by Congress, the attack on Afghanistan was made under "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists", not a war.

So - anyone caught up in Afghanistan can't be described as an 'unlawful combatant" in a war which doesn't exist, they're simply terrorists  - as they always have been.

Inventing a whole new category of enemy, creating new courts and so on to make torturing them easier and prosecuting them less hard and less open to scrutiny is a feeble cop-out when they could have been tried as terrorists or criminals.
The reasons were clear (albeit wrong), you just refuse to accept them.
Nope.
The more time that passes the more clear it is those were never the reasons. Blair is now freely saying regime change was the objective all along, he'd do it all again and he'd like to have a go at Iran.
Fuck Israel
2012-06-18 05:38:49
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6238|...
The war in Afghanistan has everything to do with 9/11. Going there was the right choice, the only thing you could really dispute is the way the US government and military went about the war.

Iraq, well... I guess we all got our opinions on that one. What baffles me is that people believe going into Iraq wasn't justifiable whatsoever. There are many valid arguments for why the confrontation with & removal of Saddam were inevitable and good things. The reasons presented to the public (WMDs, Al Qaeda) are just part of a bigger picture. A wrong part though - while even then it's still possible to argue the WMD case, even if none were found.

Note; I'm not defending shifty, rail at him as much as you like.
inane little opines
2012-06-18 05:45:23
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
You don't find it strange that we invaded Iraq - which had no WMDs, no connection with terrorism, was not a totalitarian islamic theocracy - and left Iran - which was well into all three and had been for decades -  totally untouched?

Strange when the enemy was supposedly Islamic theocrats hellbent on using WMDs for terrorism?

You don't find it strange that Pakistan is still our ally when they've been harbouring AQ, including Bin Laden, from day one?

The Iraq invasion had to do with many things. 9/11 and WMDs are not in there.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-06-18 05:47:52)

Fuck Israel
2012-06-18 05:57:51
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6238|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Only nation states can declare 'war'. Likewise its only possible to declare war against nation states.
This is why the 'war on terror' 'war on drugs' war on zits' etc are so absurd.

The US did not make a declaration of war, no declaration of war was made by Congress, the attack on Afghanistan was made under "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists", not a war.

So - anyone caught up in Afghanistan can't be described as an 'unlawful combatant" in a war which doesn't exist, they're simply terrorists  - as they always have been.

Inventing a whole new category of enemy, creating new courts and so on to make torturing them easier and prosecuting them less hard and less open to scrutiny is a feeble cop-out when they could have been tried as terrorists or criminals.
This has to do with some practical issues. The intent was not to declare war on Afghanistan as Afghanistan was not perceived as 'the enemy', and by declaring war on the country you create more enemies that you don't want. 'The enemy' were the terrorists that used the country as their home base as it were.

Now that brings the policymakers in a difficult position, as such a situation is not covered by the GC. At the time the GC was drawn up, the notion that a (rather large) group of people could nestle themselves inside a given country (Afghanistan) and pose a threat to another nation great enough that it warrants the use of military force (and even the invasion of another country) to combat it, didn't exist.

It was necessary to approach this situation in a unique manner because these were a different type of terrorists and subjecting them to established laws would probably have had negative consequences for the war effort. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that I agree with torture.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Nope.
The more time that passes the more clear it is those were never the reasons. Blair is now freely saying regime change was the objective all along, he'd do it all again and he'd like to have a go at Iran.
These were (some of) the reasons. Regime change was another, obvious reason.
inane little opines
2012-06-18 06:12:45
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
Now that brings the policymakers in a difficult position, as such a situation is not covered by the GC. At the time the GC was drawn up, the notion that a (rather large) group of people could nestle themselves inside a given country (Afghanistan) and pose a threat to another nation great enough that it warrants the use of military force (and even the invasion of another country) to combat it, didn't exist.
Which is fine, because AQ never approached that level.
It was necessary to approach this situation in a unique manner because these were a different type of terrorists and subjecting them to established laws would probably have had negative consequences for the war effort.
Nope. Not that its worked either.
These were (some of) the reasons. Regime change was another, obvious reason.
Regime change was the reason, WMDs, invented connections between AQ and Iraq were pretexts.

Do you find it at all strange we're stomping round and round in circles in Afghanistan when AQ and other islamic crazies are comfortably set up in and not really far off from taking control of nuclear armed Pakistan?
Fuck Israel
2012-06-18 06:15:08
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6238|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

You don't find it strange that we invaded Iraq - which had no WMDs, no connection with terrorism, was not a totalitarian islamic theocracy - and left Iran - which was well into all three and had been for decades -  totally untouched?

Strange when the enemy was supposedly Islamic theocrats hellbent on using WMDs for terrorism?

You don't find it strange that Pakistan is still our ally when they've been harbouring AQ, including Bin Laden, from day one?

The Iraq invasion had to do with many things. 9/11 and WMDs are not in there.
Saddam's regime was subject to inspections for WMD allegations since about 1991. There's plenty of evidence that covers the research his regime did in these areas. True, when the US conducted the invasion it became clear that he really had stopped trying to produce multitudes of WMDs, however this was only because he feared more sanctions from the UN or otherwise an invasion (by his own admission, dunno if I can reproduce a link but if memory serves me right that's been the conclusion brought forth after the invasion based on known material and/or testimonies of his close associates). Despite this fact he did make it appear as if he had these weapons because of his fear for Iran; it was a vital instrument in his regional power struggle. The US was mislead by his posing into believing he really did have WMDs and intended to use them. An honest mistake

Even so, if we consider Saddam's history it's hard to believe (naive even) that he would have just stayed put. The UN inspections and worldwide scrutiny weren't going to last forever. I personally am convinced that he would have rebooted his research were he given the chance. He was most interested in expanding his influence and power in the region and there's no way he would've simply 'given up' on that goal. I wouldn't go as far as speculating that the products of his research would've fallen into terrorist hands for their use, I do however believe that the amount of 'big weapons' et al should be kept to a minimum because of the dangers of, say, nuclear proliferation.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at 'day one'. He moved into Pakistan via tora bora. Afghanistan was nevertheless still dangerous. Clinton wanted to deal with Afghanistan before Bush did because even then it was already known to be a terrorist hot spot, Afghanistan was a failed state in every sense of the concept and had to be dealt with.

In comparison to Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and Pakistan were less pressing matters.
inane little opines
2012-06-18 06:20:37
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6238|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Regime change was the reason, WMDs, invented connections between AQ and Iraq were pretexts.
The AQ links thing was more of a pretext than the WMD story.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you find it at all strange we're stomping round and round in circles in Afghanistan when AQ and other islamic crazies are comfortably set up in and not really far off from taking control of nuclear armed Pakistan?
As I said before, Afghanistan had to be dealt with. I suppose the people inside the Bush & Obama administrations believe the terrorism problem in Yemen and Pakistan can be solved more easily by cooperating with the existing regimes (which does make sense). There was no such thing as cooperating with the taliban to oust AQ etc. Besides this point even the US doesn't have the military resources to occupy both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan and Iran. Not to mention that literally invading half the Middle East probably wouldn't figure so well on their international reputation.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-06-18 06:21:46)

inane little opines
2012-06-18 09:41:50
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5713|Ventura, California

Adams_BJ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Do military personell come under your blanket of "any body who plays a part of ending another's  right to life"?
Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.
Except I'm not trolling, what the difference between an afghani killing heaps of people because he think's it is right and a soldier killing heaps of people because he thinks it is right?
Good god you're impossible to argue with.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2012-06-18 09:48:35
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,741|6976|Cinncinatti

Adams_BJ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Do military personell come under your blanket of "any body who plays a part of ending another's  right to life"?
Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.
Except I'm not trolling, what the difference between an afghani killing heaps of people because he think's it is right and a soldier killing heaps of people because he thinks it is right?
plenty but you give 0 other info to answer your question
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2012-06-18 10:26:47
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5275|Massachusetts, USA

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:


Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.
Except I'm not trolling, what the difference between an afghani killing heaps of people because he think's it is right and a soldier killing heaps of people because he thinks it is right?
Good god you're impossible to argue with.
That's funny, the same could be said about you.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2012-06-18 12:07:12
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5941|College Park, MD
Put them in general population at San Quentin.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2012-06-18 12:08:33
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5275|Massachusetts, USA
We don't need anymore fuckups in our already crowded prisons.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
2012-06-18 12:09:59
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5824

Implying that everyone in prison is a fuck up.
2012-06-18 13:24:21
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6932
Fuck what the haters say. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.
x
2012-06-18 14:15:47
rdx-fx
...
+955|6830
Give 'em plane tickets to Afghanistan (or Pakistan),
a cellphone with lifetime unlimited minutes,
and an implanted GPS (for backup, in case they ditch the phone).

The USAF can take care of the rest of the process.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/General_Atomics.png
Manufacturers of the MQ-9 Predator B, the US Navy Railgun, and assorted nuclear & atomic items

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-06-18 14:20:20)

2012-06-18 14:24:09
rdx-fx
...
+955|6830
To be a little more serious, though...

Freedom of speech, open discussion, dissenting viewpoints, and the open market of ideas are all good things.
If we start suppressing, oppressing, or killing people simply for being different - we have lost sight of what civilization could've been.

On the other side of the coin, though..
If you're running around chanting "Death to America!", don't be terribly surprised if America says "You first!"

edit: No, introspective navel-gazing, and asking "why? why do they hate us?! <cry>" isn't really something our politicians and CEOs are aware of as an option.

Last edited by rdx-fx (2012-06-18 14:41:39)

2012-06-18 14:44:39
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5713|Ventura, California
Are you saying we should change so that they "like us"?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2012-06-18 14:46:24
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6739|so randum
are you dumb
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2012-06-18 16:36:27
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6861|Little Bentcock

RTHKI wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Troll somewhere else Adams. There's a difference between murder and killing for the defense of your country.
Except I'm not trolling, what the difference between an afghani killing heaps of people because he think's it is right and a soldier killing heaps of people because he thinks it is right?
plenty but you give 0 other info to answer your question
afghani man grows up being told that the west are full of infidels, and he will make the world a better place by killing them, and secure himself a spot in heaven in doing so. When he grows up he seeks out an organisation in a wish to become a hero and bring pride to his family.

american boy grows up being told that commies/nazies/terrorists are bad people, and he will make the world a better place by killing them. When he grows up he seeks an organisation in a wish to become a hero and bring pride to his family.

but when you come down to it, you are still just killing people.

What makes one version of killing people any different to ANY other version of killing people? I'm sure everyone that kills someone feels justified in doing it, but you're still killing people. Self defence might be the only one that can be excluded, but neither of the 2 above scenarios are that.

is basically the point im getting at.

e: oh and I should point out I'm not arguing on whether being in the military is good or bad, just that shifty's statement of "I believe that anybody that plays a part of ending another's right to life, revokes their basic right to life in the process. Therefore they merit death." is wrong

Last edited by Adams_BJ (2012-06-18 16:44:46)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard