If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   There once was a pris'ner in Gitmo / Who didn't talk and got hit mo' / When charges were pressed / The judge was distressed / And said torturers were full of shiatmo   (ap.google.com) divider line 296
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

17014 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jul 2008 at 7:30 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



296 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-07-22 09:00:21 AM
Wow
The level of moral relativism so far is startling. But I guess it's only wrong when liberals do it.
 
2008-07-22 09:00:42 AM
They guy is the enemy, not a mastermind, but he is the enemy.

Nuke him from orbit, it is the only way to be sure.



/so many losers and wussies in this thread defending this garbage.
 
2008-07-22 09:01:01 AM
It's often the judges who are first to officially say something is wrong. In this case, they know international law and they know they could be held complicit in previous torture regimens.

Radavan is the future cell-mate of guys like Rumsfeld, Miller, Cheney, Yoo, etc. It's too bad our laws won't be able to punish them but international law and courts can get our war criminals prosecuted and jailed.
 
2008-07-22 09:02:03 AM
palandor: Yea, that's really F'd up. If someone is in Git'mo, there is probably a reason and they probably belong there.

This. They eventually freed hundreds of innocent inmates after several years of internement, torture, etc. No other country would have treated them that well. They would have just kept them there indefinitely without trial to avoid embarrassment. America is the sole bastion of justice in this world.
 
2008-07-22 09:03:05 AM
This thread is stupid, we've had this discussion before. Let's do limericks instead.
 
2008-07-22 09:03:28 AM
I think these are going to be the most boring trial transcripts on the face of the planet and it angers me.

Who wants to read "Mr Hamdan (redacted) was (redacted) (redacted) on (redacted) within (redacted). Mr Hamdan then (redacted) (redacted) (redacted) goat herder."?
 
2008-07-22 09:04:17 AM
Mr Logo: palandor: Yea, that's really F'd up. If someone is in Git'mo, there is probably a reason and they probably belong there.

This. They eventually freed hundreds of innocent inmates after several years of internement, torture, etc. No other country would have treated them that well. They would have just kept them there indefinitely without trial to avoid embarrassment. America is the sole bastion of justice in this world.


Consider my gob well and truly smacked. 11/10, perfect troll. Would read again.
 
2008-07-22 09:04:46 AM
Persepolis: Other way around. He killed her family in front of her (including her 3 year old sister) then, after she saw all this and was totally alone in the world raped her. (Gang raped her, in fact) Then killed her, then burned her body.

The military has capital punishment, but *suprise* this guy didn't get it.

shiat, what DO you have to do to get it.


I think he's being prosecuted as a civilian, and they are seeking the death penalty.
 
2008-07-22 09:06:27 AM
joe90: trixter_nl: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

so as a native american that gives me a green light on any pale faces in the US right? Or is this statement going to have a ton of clauses added to it to suggest that europeans were not hostile when going to north america, and that they were not invading.

what are you on about? No-one called Native Americans terrorists and then executed them.. They just executed them because they were farking idiots, and it was a slightly different time period. Why stop there, let go back to cave man tribes, fighting over fertile swamp land?


You should do some reading, particularly in unbiased non-racist history. They werent idiots, and if I recall correctly it was the native americans that fed the pilgrims which ended up starting the thanksgiving tradition in america. Ya know cause the europeans couldnt find enough food and the natives helped em out trying to be a good sport.

They were executed first and foremost over money, secondary to that was their skin colour. They had the land, they had the resources, all the things that England wanted shipped back (and taxes paid locally on). Of great importance was timber and kerosene (obtained largely from cooking conifer trees and important in the tar mix used in ship building).

And to say it was a different time, I dont think that it was so different legally in the 1830s when the Cherokee nation petitioned the supreme court to honor land grant contracts and not have a forced death march to oklahoma from the eastern sea board. But ok maybe it was.

What about just after the civil war? Nope they were still hunted down because the civil war was not about making people equal, it was about money and power, and the north would have lost it if the crop production in the south was a foreign country. Course suspension of habeus corpus by lincoln and imprisonment of news paper editors who were critical of him and his policies without trial, without cause, and all for publishing would seem dubious. But I guess those are totally different times from today right? That would never happen today, what with those uneducated uncivilized people back then. Oh wait...

Hmm, lets go a little more recent, perhaps then we can see how different we are in recent times. World War II asians (mostly japanese, but anyone who might be japanese, know someone who is japanese, or whatever) was rounded up and sent to a concentration camp, er I mean detention center, where they were beaten, often to death, and during their internment all their possessions were taken. At the end of the war the gates were opened and they were told they could leave, but transportation, food, water, etc were not provided. Many of these people didnt even know where they were other than "not at home". But this is a totally different time right? I mean the japanese forces did attack pearl harbor prior to all of that so it was ok right?


What about today, as a native american I have to register with teh federal government, yeah cause I am so dangerous as a non european person or something. Bet you didnt know that to be a citizen of a tribal government you basically have to register with the federal government, sure you can drop your heritage, you can refuse to claim any of your birth rights, but if you want them, in any degree, you have to register. I even have my BIA issued ID card in my wallet as I type this.


Maybe the times arent that different between then and now. Maybe for the last oh I dont know as long as man has been around, people have been killing people. But that does not address the issue to which you agreed x100 that if someone hostile invades your country, you are not a terrorist for attacking them back. Does that hold for native americans attacking european types anywhere in the world simple because they, or someone they knew, or someone they were related to, or perhaps they just got in the way of someone who was one of these things, were a hostile invading force and occupied lands for the last few hundred years?

Are you ready to carve up an exception for one group, to which you have already stated was farking idiots even though its a factually wrong statement, appears racist on the surface, and generally does not support your claims.
 
2008-07-22 09:08:55 AM
Persepolis: what_now: Dude raped a 14 year old girl and then killed her whole family.

Other way around. He killed her family in front of her (including her 3 year old sister) then, after she saw all this and was totally alone in the world raped her. (Gang raped her, in fact) Then killed her, then burned her body.

The military has capital punishment, but *suprise* this guy didn't get it.

shiat, what DO you have to do to get it.


Refuse to fight.
 
2008-07-22 09:09:34 AM
dropdead: Wow
The level of moral relativism so far is startling. But I guess it's only wrong when liberals do it.


Nah, some people really enjoyed the "it depends on what your definition of is is" video. But we never saw the 1 whole hour of JOINT testimony by Bush and Cheney regarding the 9-11 attacks. We never will. And if an inserted cigar is worth a trial imagine how necessary a war crimes trial is for orders resulting in murder, rape, sodomy, torture, etc.

9-11 didn't change everything no matter how many times the bums say it. War criminals are war criminals no matter what and they will be tried either in US courts or in international war crimes tribunals. Bush, Cheney, Yoo, Gonzales, Geoffrey Miller, lots and losts of them are in danger of indictment and trial.

The necessity of putting them on trial in international courts is clear. If good old decent America can do these things, imagine what real despots can do. These trials will be one way to reassert international standards of treatment of prisoners, the illegallity of pre-emptive war, etc. before China and other nations decide they want to be a despotic super-power just like Bush Cheney was.
 
2008-07-22 09:10:18 AM
Wow. All the socio-political iconoclasts are out in force today.

I love a parade. All of them dressed alike in their Che t-shirts, shouting their slogans and waving their banners.

Kind of brings a tear to my eye [should have worn the gas mask].
 
2008-07-22 09:10:28 AM
RubberFootMan: trixter_nl: some would consider the ira a proper army, after all there was a civil war that preceeded that. Armies are not even listed as a choice, so if you shoot at anyone you are either a freedom fighter or terrorist, there is no other option.

The first use of Freedom Fighter in this thread was:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."

It wasn't an either/or option.



That may be, the first use of the word 'the' wasnt what I was commenting on either. I was commenting on the fact that it became an either/or situation and that others were basically trying to justify some point which logically was invalid by forcing an either/or situation.

Its amazing, this communication thing. How someone can say one thing, then someone says something else, then on the 2nd page of comments something else is said entirely. It would also suck if you could only comment on the first and only the first instance of any phrase, wording or sentence, and never on someone elses comments towards that thing.
 
2008-07-22 09:10:49 AM
At Bagram, the judge found Hamdan was kept in isolation 24 hours a day with his hands and feet restrained, and armed soldiers prompted him to talk by kneeing him in the back. His captors at Panshir repeatedly tied him up, put a bag over his head and knocked him the ground

That's what my high school teachers told me the Soviets and evil Commies did to people.

We've come a long way, haven't we?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2008-07-22 09:11:35 AM
RubberFootMan: Perhaps he, like any other right-thinking individual, decided that it is immoral to torture people.

Because people disagree over what right-thinking individuals are obligated to believe, the law prefers to have clearer standards than what a particular judge thinks is moral.
 
2008-07-22 09:12:28 AM
crapulence: joe90: Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

this.. x100

That would be great if they were actually from the countries they are fighting in, the majority of them aren't.


Are you actually trying to say that the majority of attacks in Iraq are NOT being perpetrated by Iraqis? Your ignorance astounds me. Iraq is a hairsbreadth away from a Civil War and our troops are caught in the middle, trying to keep the peace without really understanding the underlying cause. Sunnis attack Shiites, Shiites retaliate, and our poor guys are stuck trying to keep the peace.

An they are currently attacking civilians at markets and police recruiting stations. I think that pretty much makes them terrorists.

See my above statement. They are no more terrorists than the Confederates were.

I also wouldn't dare to compare what was done by the North Vietnamese to what might be happening at gitmo. Hell most are gaining weight since they are finally getting a nutritionally balanced/islam friendly diet.


I have no clue what you're getting at here. We didn't torture any North Vietnamese POW's. In fact, we treated them BETTER than the prisoners currently at Gitmo because they were properly labeled as POW's. Bush & his cronies are side-stepping the Geneva Convention by creating a new term for the Gitmo prisoners: "Enemy Combatants".

Now stop watching Fox News & start broadening your horizons with the BBC. You'll get far more balanced & unfiltered information that way instead of regurgitating Sean Hannity.
 
2008-07-22 09:12:31 AM
if someone hostile invades your country, you are not a terrorist for attacking them back.

not automatically. its possible to be defending your home and to go out and become a terrorist; if the chinese invaded the states, you would be a resistance fighter if you shot at chinese soldiers. if you went to china and blew up a school you would be a terrorist.
either way the chinese would take you prisoner. in one situation they would call you a POW, and in another they would call you a terrorist.

actually no, the chinese would probably shoot you on sight, but we're better than them right?

Does that hold for native americans attacking european types anywhere in the world

explain to me how you bombing the london underground is defending your home.
 
2008-07-22 09:14:12 AM
Whitewabbit: if someone hostile invades your country, you are not a terrorist for attacking them back.

not automatically. its possible to be defending your home and to go out and become a terrorist; if the chinese invaded the states, you would be a resistance fighter if you shot at chinese soldiers. if you went to china and blew up a school you would be a terrorist.
either way the chinese would take you prisoner. in one situation they would call you a POW, and in another they would call you a terrorist.

actually no, the chinese would probably shoot you on sight, but we're better than them right?

Does that hold for native americans attacking european types anywhere in the world

explain to me how you bombing the london underground is defending your home.


Explain to me how bombing civilian power, water, and agricultural infrastructure is liberation.
 
2008-07-22 09:14:48 AM
trixter_nl:
How many get away drivers have low education levels but still manage to get away? How many drivers in drive by shootings have low education levels but still manage to operate the car well enough to participate in drive bys, and oh yeah evade capture? The fact that the driver wasnt college educated does not speak much about those chasing after him.


You're painting a picture of a simple thug, not a terrorist mastermind or "the worst of the worst" and I agree with you.

trixter_nl:
The fact that he got caught by the very military forces you are insulting and apparently hate, shows that they can capture him, and that much is something the government claims, despite your protests to the opposite.


Reading comprehension much? I'm not insulting the military, nor do I hate them. The work they did immediately post-9/11 in Afghanistan was justified and important. And often very competent. Their civilian leadership... not so much. My point is that if this is the guy they choose to prosecute among the first as a "real bad-ass", then someone has their priorities scrambled. Or maybe many of the other people at Gitmo are even less relevant than he is.

Should he have been captured and interrogated? Absolutely. Did he assist bin Laden as a driver? It sure looks that way. Would he be a danger to cut free? I doubt it; drivers familiar with the area (with or without more than a 4th grade education) who are willing to work for $200/mo in that region are likely a dime a dozen.

bin Laden is not an idiot and I'm sure he has a clue about maintaining security. His driver isn't going to know squat beyond where he's to drive right now... or possibly a briefing immediately before any such trip to inform him of known hazards. I seriously doubt he was involved in any planning beyond at most suggesting where to stop for lunch.
 
2008-07-22 09:15:18 AM
kramers_hair: Whitewabbit:

explain to me how you bombing the london underground is defending your home.

Explain to me how bombing civilian power, water, and agricultural infrastructure is liberation.


Explain to me how this conversation is going to change anything at all.
 
2008-07-22 09:15:42 AM
Trust your government.

punistation.fuyucorp.biz
 
2008-07-22 09:15:59 AM
kramers_hair: Explain to me how bombing civilian power, water, and agricultural infrastructure is liberation.

no. because thats not my position and i have no idea why you think it is.
 
2008-07-22 09:16:13 AM
Whitewabbit: trixter_nl: But the question remains if, as the person I responded to indicated, an invading hostile force is all that it takes to make it so if you attack someone you are not a terrorist, does that not give me the right to attack any european type person I see fit to attack? Perhaps even anywhere on the globe.

dont be so bloody stupid. just because someone is not a terrorist does not mean they have a right to do whatever they damn well please. it is also possible to be a terrorist and defend your home, but defending your home does not make you a terrorist.

the world is not black and white, there are more types of people than "terrorists" and "saints"


Lets refresh shall we?

Whitewabbit: fighting hostile invading troops in your own country is not terrorism. sorry guys.

You said that if you are fighting invading troops in your own country you arent a terrorist. You omitted that quote in your response, so I felt that it was important to readd it since it directly bears on this conversation.

You now say that its possible to be a terrorist and defend your home. This makes me think that your initial statement is retracted and that is why you refused to include it for context, but that really does not matter much.

I never said that defending your home gives you a pass to do anything you want, I merely asked since you are someone who said that defending your home does not make you a terrorist if that applied to all people defending their home or only one group. It seems by your changing statements that it does apply to only one group. Kinda racist to differentiate people that way dont you think? I do, since you are making a set of rules for one group and a different set for another, but hey its not like that is the definition of racism, oh wait ...

You have provided more insight into your statement than I had originally hoped for, so thank you for that.
 
2008-07-22 09:18:07 AM
epoc_tnac: kramers_hair: Whitewabbit:

explain to me how you bombing the london underground is defending your home.

Explain to me how bombing civilian power, water, and agricultural infrastructure is liberation.

Explain to me how this conversation is going to change anything at all.


Explain to me why you think I expect it to.
 
2008-07-22 09:19:01 AM
gezortenplotz: Wow. All the socio-political iconoclasts are out in force today.

I love a parade. All of them dressed alike in their Che t-shirts, shouting their slogans and waving their banners.

Kind of brings a tear to my eye [should have worn the gas mask].


www.talkingpointsmemo.com

These lucky guys had their gas masks provided free of charge. And they have eye protection too.
 
2008-07-22 09:19:37 AM
what_now: Dude raped a 14 year old girl and then killed her whole family. I wouldn't call him a terrorist, I'd call him a scumbag who deserves a bullet and an unmarked grave.

Thanks to the Supreme Court applying public opinion polls and a bunch of worthless treaties instead of the Constitution, we can't do that either. (This seems to be a recurring problem.)

Silly_Sot: I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, there's the drooling savage within me that says "treat them like they'd treat us, even if any one of them is totally innocent."

Treating an opposing party exactly as they have treated you in the past is not drooling savagery at all. Quite the contrary.

sepuku2: Jackson knew that the Cherokee would be slaughtered by the State Militias and the Fedral Army at the time was too small to stop them. So he removed the tribes by force.

That's an interesting take on history, but I'm not sure that I buy that Jackson was scared of the states or wanted to protect Indians. First, Jackson was a staunch defender of the powers of the Federal Government to impose its will upon the states when the Constitution required it; he actually sought a law that would allow him to send federal troops to South Carolina in response to the state attempting to nullify a federal tarriff (the crisis was resolved before they were needed.) Second, Jackson had led troops against the Seminoles in Florida before he became President, and considered them to be dishonorable savages. He also explicitly campaigned for President on a policy in favor of removing Indians to lands west of the Mississippi river.
 
2008-07-22 09:20:15 AM
trixter_nl: Its amazing, this communication thing. How someone can say one thing, then someone says something else, then on the 2nd page of comments something else is said entirely. It would also suck if you could only comment on the first and only the first instance of any phrase, wording or sentence, and never on someone elses comments towards that thing.

There's no need to be snarky with me, I wasn't being snarky with you. I'd just, as you had, seen my original proposition distorted, and wanted to correct it.
 
2008-07-22 09:20:58 AM
Cornwell: Bit of a stretch, but I'll still give a +1.

This should lead to a calm and rational discussion once it goes green.


Beautiful work.

+1 subby and everyone else too as it is + 1 Tuesday!
 
2008-07-22 09:23:03 AM
trixter_nl: snipped...

i said the Europeans were idiots, not the native Americans.

The points is, if you had started aiming at soldiers i think were (then) within your right to do so, running into a school and blowing yourself up is different.. No matter, the corruption and all that shiate caused you to loose, and i think it sucks for you.

I think what has happened to your people is wrong, but you are looking at this the wrong way..

So, tell me, if this guy was running guns to the front line to whoever to shoot at Americans on his land should he:
a) be called a terrorist.
b) Tryed in his own yard
c) yanked off to gimto, tortured and then chucked on trial.

Part of the reason why i assume the worse of American is cause of even the things they did/do to your people....
 
2008-07-22 09:24:35 AM
squirmster: Cornwell: Bit of a stretch, but I'll still give a +1.

This should lead to a calm and rational discussion once it goes green.

Beautiful work.

+1 subby and everyone else too as it is + 1 Tuesday!


Feh. Thank the mod that corrected the typo.

/humble bow
 
2008-07-22 09:25:39 AM
dropdead: Wow
The level of moral relativism so far is startling. But I guess it's only wrong when liberals do it.


Yeah I couldn't possibly think of anything more un-American and morally reprehensible than giving criminals the right to a fair trial. It's not as if they have rights or anything.

No I agree. The best way to fight terrorism is to stoop to their level. It's never wrong when Americans do it.
 
2008-07-22 09:30:47 AM
sepuku2: trixter_nl: And not all nations fought, some tried their luck in court, they were told they werent white so they didnt count (Cherokee nation, of which I am a citizen did this)

The Cherokee Nation won their Supreme Court case. Andrew Jackson said "Let the Supreme Court enforce it then". He defied the court and ordered the removal anyway. Read some history of your own people sometime.


I have, and what you said does not in any way counter anything I have said. They tried their luck in court, you seem to agree saying the won, implying specifically that they did go to court. I said they were told they werent white so they didnt count, you say that someone defied the order and gave em the boot on a forced death march. I dont see where what I am saying is in any way in disagreement with what you are saying.

I do see where others disagree with you though.
In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Marshall court ruled that the Cherokees were not a sovereign and independent nation, and therefore refused to hear the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears#Cherokee_forced_relocation

The quote to which you refer is actually to a different case:
However, in Worcester v. State of Georgia (1832), the Court ruled that Georgia could not impose laws in Cherokee territory, since only the national government - not state governments - had authority in Indian affairs.

Jackson was saying (alledgely) that Marshall can enforce that decision, to stop the states from imposing laws in tribal lands.

Thank you for correcting my mistakes, had you not done that I probably wouldnt have dug this up for more people to read about and possibly learn some of their own history.

Lessee, guy on the penny and $5 violated the constitution, locked up news paper reporters for being critical of him without trial, habeus corpus, or generally a good time.

The guy on a $20 refused to enforce a supreme court decision which led to the theft of lands, forced death marches, and all that.

Who is next to get their face on american money?
 
2008-07-22 09:30:56 AM
+1 for Subby simply for being able to come up with limerick so early in the morning!

/must have coffee
//coffee
 
2008-07-22 09:31:44 AM
Once upon a time, we respected dead american soldiers.

But for every little girl you rape, for every witness you slaughter, for every man you torture, for every single one of you that's proud of such things... that time come again anytime soon.

punistation.fuyucorp.biz

They're willing to DIE to be free. Free from YOU. Remember that.

And remember Abeer Hamza.
 
2008-07-22 09:31:48 AM
Impudent Domain: I guess the moral of this story for future operations against irregulars and terrorists will be: Get what info you can out of them then summarily execute them.

It's the only option left--you cant use a full blown criminal court in this world against terrorists. so, to be effective in our intelligence operations, we can't bother to officially capture any more of them; they need to disappear. Oh well, its a unfair world.
 
2008-07-22 09:33:13 AM
Cockmaster: palandor: If someone is in Git'mo, there is probably a reason and they probably belong there.

Sorry, sarcasm meter must be broken...


There didn't seem to be anything sarcastic about what mattknows said. Go back and read it.
 
2008-07-22 09:34:44 AM
epoc_tnac: This. They eventually freed hundreds of innocent inmates after several years of internement, torture, etc. No other country would have treated them that well. They would have just kept them there indefinitely without trial to avoid embarrassment. America is the sole bastion of justice in this world.

Consider my gob well and truly smacked. 11/10, perfect troll. Would read again.


Thankyou thankyou, it's feedback like this that gets me out of bed in the morning :P
 
2008-07-22 09:35:24 AM
trixter_nl:

While I don't agree with his statement about defending your home and not being a terrorist (as I believe the WAY you fight makes you a terrorist); I think your example of going around with the "green light on pale faces in the US" is just a wee bit different.

Iraqis "defending" their home (with terrorism) against a current threat vs. you retaliating against crimes against your people from hundreds of years ago...

I think if you change up to apples and apples instead of apples and oranges you might make a bit more of an argument. If we take "how" native Americans fought against "pale faces" back in the day, no...I don't think I considered them terrorists. Possibly savages (some of them...), but defending their homeland none the less. Now if they had been caught giving small pox infested blankets to children....

You shooting pale faces in retribution would have none of that defense in my eyes (or many others I imagine).
 
2008-07-22 09:37:18 AM
AndreMA:
trixter_nl:
The fact that he got caught by the very military forces you are insulting and apparently hate, shows that they can capture him, and that much is something the government claims, despite your protests to the opposite.

Reading comprehension much? I'm not insulting the military, nor do I hate them.

Ahh it sure seemed like it, similar to how you assumed that saying this guy only has a 4th grade education and was a driver for osama and helped him evade capture was a dig at the military by the administration.

So just to be clear, when you do this its ok but when I do it, its wrong? I just want to know the rules for when you intentionally state something that is not factual as though it is factual, so I can reply accordingly next time since there seems to be a double standard for what is and what is not allowed.
 
2008-07-22 09:37:29 AM
The guy is likely to get convicted on the charge of carrying missiles to the front in Afghanistan (which he had when he was caught). With many of his confessions getting thrown out, he has a chance of being aquitted of his other charge of being one of Bin Laden's co-conspirators for the past 20 years. I doubt this guy was a big fish who had a part in planning 20 years worth of terrorist attacks considering he was just a driver with a fourth grade education.

Convicting him on the one offense they can definitively prove in court (carrying missiles), rather than an extremely broad charge based on nothing but tenuous admissions that came after the guy was tortured (co-conspirator) would seem like justice to me. The judge may not be a hero, but he's certainly doing his job right. Considering his jury is made of 6 military officers, only 4 of whom are needed to gain a conviction, I still don't like the guy's chances of beating either charge.
 
2008-07-22 09:37:58 AM
I look forward to similar rules being enacted within the US against US citizens.... just imagine how much easier it would be to convict a child rapist, if they 'encouraged him to confess' in a similar matter..... or a murderer..... or a burglar

In fact, if this is such a great way to encourage people to talk about their crimes, why not just roll it out wholesale throughout the entire US legal system
 
2008-07-22 09:39:27 AM
What I'm surprised hasn't been touched, is that this is a military judge...

Why does the military hate America??
 
2008-07-22 09:42:16 AM
The Dogs of War: that was pretty good
and i think it was Maxxlarge
i know it was you and your limericks!!!


Actually this one WASN'T me. The Beijing/Pollution one yesterday was, but bravo to Subby for both championing the cause and getting the meter right. :)
 
2008-07-22 09:47:00 AM
furterfan: I look forward to similar rules being enacted within the US against US citizens.... just imagine how much easier it would be to convict a child rapist, if they 'encouraged him to confess' in a similar matter..... or a murderer..... or a burglar

In fact, if this is such a great way to encourage people to talk about their crimes, why not just roll it out wholesale throughout the entire US legal system


Indeed, would save the taxpayers lots of money.
 
2008-07-22 09:49:21 AM
trixter_nl: AndreMA:
trixter_nl:
Ahh it sure seemed like it, similar to how you assumed that saying this guy only has a 4th grade education and was a driver for osama and helped him evade capture was a dig at the military by the administration.


The question mark at the end of my "So the U.S. Government is asserting that someone with a 4th grade education was useful in outwitting our soldiers?" was meant to imply sarcasm. The present Administration goes out of the way to wrap itself in the flag and (at least pretend to) support the troops and wouldn't deliberately insult them in public. The following sentence, "Why does the Administration hate and insult the military?" was similarly sarcastic, taking the premise of the first sentence to its absurd conclusion and repackaging a right-wing meme.

Perhaps I should have been clearer about my underlying point: If this guy is the best they can come up with after claiming for years the Gitmo held "the worst of the worst" -- never mind that we released a bunch for lack of any evidence -- then someone has been lying. And I don't think they wear a military uniform.

/is shocked, SHOCKED at the possibility that politicians and their appointees lie
 
2008-07-22 09:49:43 AM
MaxxLarge: The Dogs of War: that was pretty good
and i think it was Maxxlarge
i know it was you and your limericks!!!

Actually this one WASN'T me. The Beijing/Pollution one yesterday was, but bravo to Subby for both championing the cause and getting the meter right. :)


I came in to point out that this poem is out of meter. You should know better, MaxxLarge.

Sorry, out-of-meter poems are my pet peeve.

9
8
5
5
10

The syllables alone discount it.

/just sayin'.
 
2008-07-22 09:49:46 AM
gezortenplotz: Wow. All the socio-political iconoclasts are out in force today.

I love a parade. All of them dressed alike in their Che t-shirts, shouting their slogans and waving their banners.

Kind of brings a tear to my eye [should have worn the gas mask].


Don't say another Goddamn word. Up until now, I've been polite. If you say anything else - word one - I will kill myself. And when my tainted spirit finds its destination, I will topple the master of that dark place. From my black throne, I will lash together a machine made of blood and bone, and fueled by my hatred for you this fear engine will bore a hole between this world and that one. When it begins you will hear the sound of children screaming - as though from a great distance. A smoking orb of nothing will grow above your bed, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows. As I slip through the widening maw in my new form, you will catch only a glimpse of my radiance before you are incinerated. Then, as tears of bubbling pitch stream down my face, my dark work will begin. I will open one of my six mouths, and I will sing the song that ends the Earth.

/From Penny-Arcade, if you didn't know.
//Just seemed like a fun thing to post. Sharing is caring!
 
2008-07-22 09:52:27 AM
Dr_Gats:
While I don't agree with his statement about defending your home and not being a terrorist (as I believe the WAY you fight makes you a terrorist)


so do i. only i dont think that defending your home by attacking military targets is terrorism. thats my point that has been misunderstood by pretty much everyone.

i didnt think it was that complex.
 
2008-07-22 09:53:10 AM
joe90: trixter_nl: snipped...

i said the Europeans were idiots, not the native Americans.


In that case I take it back, to refresh since you cut this out and it directly bears on this

No-one called Native Americans terrorists and then executed them.. They just executed them because they were farking idiots, and it was a slightly different time period.

"executed them because they were farking idiots" is what I was basing my comments off, I had no idea that you would switch the "them" to a totally different group of people when you got to the word "they". I think my misunderstanding of what you meant is quite understandable.


The points is, if you had started aiming at soldiers i think were (then) within your right to do so, running into a school and blowing yourself up is different.. No matter, the corruption and all that shiate caused you to loose, and i think it sucks for you.


Ahh ok, so when you agreed 100 times with whiterabbit saying that defending your home from invading forces, you meant, but did not say that it depends on how you defend your home. Gotcha, so using IEDs near schools, or intentionally trying to cause civilian casualties by setting up shop in/near a hospital would make me a terrorist, but killing all the invaders would not. Hrm except that not all of the invaders are hostile, yet they are still there demanding their regime be in power.

Somewhere there has to be a line, and since whiterabbit has changed his story a couple times, and he was the original one that started this I do not think that a clear answer will be forth coming from him as to where the line is.

The reality of all of this and the point I was trying to make is that defending your home can make you a terrorist, since terrorism is more about the how not the why or where. And that merely stating that since they are defending their homes they are immune from being called a terrorist does not really hold much water.

It is the same concept that I said in the terrorist/freedom fighter thing where I suggested that you can be both, although I didnt cover it that well you can also be just one.

To be clear, terrorist covers how, defending your home (or freedom fighter) covers why, nothing says that you cant be both, or that you must be both.

Why I disagreed 100 times with the original comment that started this subthread, it was short sighted and I tried to get some lines drawn as to where one starts and the other stops, that didnt happen. So much for the socratic method (who even remembers socrates anymore anyway?)
 
2008-07-22 09:55:48 AM
mattknows: Only on Fark, (who am I kidding, not only here) would someone apply the hero tag in regard to captured terrorists getting treated well. The world truly is inside out and upside down.

Suck it, war criminals?
 
Displayed 50 of 296 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report