Massacre in Kenya [Archive] - Debate Policy

Gaffer

09-21-2013, 08:04 PM

Editor’s note: The pictures contained in this story may be disturbing to some. Story written by the Associated Press, curated by Jonathon M. Seidl.

UPDATE:

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Terrified shoppers huddled in back hallways and prayed they would not be found by the Islamic extremist gunmen lobbing grenades and firing assault rifles inside Nairobi’s top mall Saturday. When the coast was thought to be clear, crying mothers clutching small children and blood-splattered men sprinted out of the four-story mall.

At least 39 people were killed and more than 150 wounded in the assault, Kenya’s president announced on national TV, while disclosing that his close family members were among the dead.

Original story below.

–

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — Terrified shoppers huddled in back hallways and prayed they would not be found by the Islamic extremist gunmen lobbing grenades and firing assault rifles inside Nairobi’s top mall Saturday. When the coast was thought to be clear, crying mothers clutching small children and blood-splattered men sprinted out of the four-story mall.

At least 30 people were killed in the assault, with fears the toll could rise further, said Kenya Red Cross official Abbas Gullet.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/21/gunmen-lob-grenades-open-fire-with-ak-47s-at-upscale-kenyan-mall/

Started reading this and turned on FOX news to see what was being reported and all that was on was huckabee. Seems like FOX is all over everything during the week, but come the weekend they all go home.

It sounds like there is still a lot of fighting going on in the mall. 39 dead and still counting with 150 wounded.

Now to be cynical. Shouldn't our glorious leader be sending troops and weapons to his birth place? Maybe threaten some air strikes on somalia? All the islamists have been embolden and things are only going to get worse.

Uganda and Britain sent condolences and offers of aid. On the kerry front all is quiet.

I guess we'll find out all about it on Monday. wouldn't want news people to have to work on the weekend.

aboutime

09-21-2013, 08:29 PM

Anyone wondering what Senator Feinstein might be thinking about this? Considering it's supposed to be where OBAMA grew up, and some of his relatives are still there?

How Bout Kenya Senator? Guess your husband can't make an HONEST buck there???

Kathianne

09-21-2013, 10:56 PM

An update:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/world/africa/nairobi-mall-shooting.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Warned Muslims to flee, picked out others.

jafar00

09-22-2013, 12:57 AM

If they were out to kill "Kuffar" only, why didn't they shoot themselves in the head before anyone else?

Drummond

09-22-2013, 09:31 AM

If they were out to kill "Kuffar" only, why didn't they shoot themselves in the head before anyone else?

Easy, Jafar. Because they don't consider themselves to be any such thing .. quite the opposite, in fact.

From what I've seen, the world's media agree with them.

Ranged against that belief, thus far .. YOU, Jafar, and nobody else. What does that tell you ?

By the way, folks, the BBC was quick to pick this up. It was their leading news story last night. Also ... according to William Hague, the UK's Foreign Secretary, both Americans and Brits are caught up in this. So your media SHOULD be concentrating on this as much as ours has.

Larrymc

09-22-2013, 09:52 AM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/21/gunmen-lob-grenades-open-fire-with-ak-47s-at-upscale-kenyan-mall/

Started reading this and turned on FOX news to see what was being reported and all that was on was huckabee. Seems like FOX is all over everything during the week, but come the weekend they all go home.

It sounds like there is still a lot of fighting going on in the mall. 39 dead and still counting with 150 wounded.

Now to be cynical. Shouldn't our glorious leader be sending troops and weapons to his birth place? Maybe threaten some air strikes on somalia? All the islamists have been embolden and things are only going to get worse.

Uganda and Britain sent condolences and offers of aid. On the kerry front all is quiet.

I guess we'll find out all about it on Monday. wouldn't want news people to have to work on the weekend.I was reading this earlier, Unbelievable Islam has been hijacked again, and portrayed in a violent manner, as for Kerry what is he to say, aren't we now backing Al Qaeda, well that was last week, not sure were we stand this week.:confused:.......:laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-22-2013, 11:43 AM

I was reading this earlier, Unbelievable Islam has been hijacked again, and portrayed in a violent manner, as for Kerry what is he to say, aren't we now backing Al Qaeda, well that was last week, not sure were we stand this week.:confused:.......:laugh: As long as Obama is in charge U.S. stands with the muslims. As he is a " muslim in hiding" just as I've stated many times. He looks to find ways to give them weapons every chance he gets...That should also be a big tip off but many are too damn clueless to get it. -Tyr

jafar00

09-22-2013, 10:33 PM

Apparently they are tweeting as they go.

This is my tweet to them.

@HSM_Press (https://twitter.com/HSM_Press) Read this you dogs! Want to shoot kuffar? Shoot yourselves first! How dare you murder innocents, then claim to be Muslims!

CSM

09-23-2013, 06:48 AM

Apparently they are tweeting as they go.

This is my tweet to them.

Jafar, you only need about 3 billion more folks to do the same, though I doubt mass tweeting will stop them. It would certainly provide some substance to your stance on Islam though.

Drummond

09-23-2013, 03:28 PM

Apparently they are tweeting as they go.

This is my tweet to them.

Jafar, I tried accessing the link you posted ... of your 'tweet' ?

This is what my screen showed me, when I made that attempt to view its message ...

================================================== ==========

Account suspended

The profile you are trying to view has been suspended. To return to your home timeline, click here (https://twitter.com/).

================================================== ==================

.. H'mm. Unfortunately, this means that we only have your word for what was 'tweeted' (unless anyone else can vouch for what was there before the 'Account suspension' ?).

Am I to understand that Twitter suspended your account because you'd been too offensive in a tweet there ?

Anyway ... let's say that what you've reported is what you truly tweeted. If so, I congratulate you on your opposition to the scum perpetrating this terrorism - and I mean that sincerely !!

That said .. two comments.

One, of a 'Marcus' type, would be to speculate if these terrorists read your tweet, maybe they then concluded that it didn't come from 'a real Muslim'.(?)

Two - that your support of Hamas continues to baffle. If you genuinely feel as you say you do, then WHY aren't you as against Hamas, whenever they commit their own terrorist acts ? Hamas don't 'play' at terrorism, Jafar, their intentions are EVERY BIT AS MURDEROUS AS THOSE YOU PROFESS TO OPPOSE IN KENYA, TODAY !!

jafar00

09-23-2013, 03:43 PM

Jafar, you only need about 3 billion more folks to do the same, though I doubt mass tweeting will stop them. It would certainly provide some substance to your stance on Islam though.

I can assure you I was not the only one.

Jafar, I tried accessing the link you posted ... of your 'tweet' ?

This is what my screen showed me, when I made that attempt to view its message ...

================================================== ==========

Account suspended

The profile you are trying to view has been suspended. To return to your home timeline, click here (https://twitter.com/).

================================================== ==================

.. H'mm. Unfortunately, this means that we only have your word for what was 'tweeted' (unless anyone else can vouch for what was there before the 'Account suspension' ?).

Am I to understand that Twitter suspended your account because you'd been too offensive in a tweet there ?

Anyway ... let's say that what you've reported is what you truly tweeted. If so, I congratulate you on your opposition to the scum perpetrating this terrorism - and I mean that sincerely !!

That said .. two comments.

One, of a 'Marcus' type, would be to speculate if these terrorists read your tweet, maybe they then concluded that it didn't come from 'a real Muslim'.(?)

Two - that your support of Hamas continues to baffle. If you genuinely feel as you say you do, then WHY aren't you as against Hamas, whenever they commit their own terrorist acts ? Hamas don't 'play' at terrorism, Jafar, their intentions are EVERY BIT AS MURDEROUS AS THOSE YOU PROFESS TO OPPOSE IN KENYA, TODAY !!

They suspended the account of the terrorists, not me. derp! :p

aboutime

09-23-2013, 06:15 PM

ATTENTION 'jafar Shoppers'. What we are seeing is nothing more than one more attempt for jafar to try and prove he disapproves of Terrorists who are connected to, or related to Muslims, Islamists, or the Brotherhood of UN-peace that enjoys the murder of ALL Western, Lite Skinned People who have brains.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-23-2013, 06:32 PM

Apparently they are tweeting as they go.

This is my tweet to them.

@HSM_Press Read this you dogs! Want to shoot kuffar? Shoot yourselves first! How dare you murder innocents, then claim to be Muslims! Going to give you a big sincere bravo for that Jafar.. --------Bravo! :beer::clap::beer:---Tyr

Drummond

09-23-2013, 11:56 PM

They suspended the account of the terrorists, not me. derp! :p

Thank you for the clarification, Jafar, if not the needless insult (what is a 'derp', anyway ?). Hey, I thought you didn't go in for that sort of thing ?

No matter.

But you're STILL ducking that big hole in your credibility, aren't you, Jafar ? Namely, how you can spend so much as a millisecond of your time supporting Hamas, when they, too, practise their own terrorism !!

Why not send a comparable 'tweet' to Hamas HQ, Jafar, and show us all that you've done so ? H'mm .. ?

Come on, Jafar, DO IT. Show us all your contempt for these 'anti-Islamic dogs' ....

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-24-2013, 08:47 AM

Thank you for the clarification, Jafar, if not the needless insult (what is a 'derp', anyway ?). Hey, I thought you didn't go in for that sort of thing ?

No matter.

But you're STILL ducking that big hole in your credibility, aren't you, Jafar ? Namely, how you can spend so much as a millisecond of your time supporting Hamas, when they, too, practise their own terrorism !!

Why not send a comparable 'tweet' to Hamas HQ, Jafar, and show us all that you've done so ? H'mm .. ?

Come on, Jafar, DO IT. Show us all your contempt for these 'anti-Islamic dogs' .... Ten to one says Jafar will never do as you suggested concerning Hamas. To be true to opposition to terrorism he should but tis not likely that he will IMHO.-Tyr

Drummond

09-25-2013, 05:24 PM

In yesterday's 'Metro' newspaper (a 'freebie' paper Brits pick up at railway stations, the Tube network in London, or in my case, the local bus ...) -

http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/24/british-boy-4-tells-nairobi-shopping-mall-terrorist-youre-a-very-bad-man-4099859/

A four-year-old British boy survived the Kenyan shopping mall terror attack after standing up to a gunman and telling him: ‘You’re a very bad man.’

The boy was with his mother, who is in hospital recovering after being shot in the leg during the attack, and six-year-old sister when they were approached by one of the terrorists, the Sun reported.

As a gunman approached he shouted: ‘You’re a bad man, let us leave.’

The terrorist took pity on the family and after giving them Mars bars he let them escape with their mum, saying: ‘Please forgive me, we are not monsters.’

Their mother also scooped up two other kids, including a wounded 12-year-old boy whose mother had been murdered, and pushed them outside in a shopping trolley.

Photos of the boy in an ‘I Love NY’ T-shirt coming out of the mall with his sister and mother emerged during coverage of the siege.

His sister was also pictured standing over a dead body as armed cops laid siege to the centre.

The family, who live in Nairobi, had been on a routine shop in a supermarket.

The mother had briefly left her children with her trolley by the till and dashed off to get a bottle of wine when the killers burst in and started shooting.

She ran back through fleeing shoppers to reach her kids.

The boy’s uncle said: ‘They had a lucky escape. The terrorists said if any kids were alive in the supermarket they could leave. Amber made a decision to stand up and say, “Yes”.

‘Then [the boy] argued with them and called them bad men. He was very brave. The terrorists even gave the kids Mars bars.’

The mother revealed one said they only want to kill Kenyans and Americans.

She added: ‘He told me I had to change my religion to Islam and said, “Do you forgive us?”’

So, this murdering terrorist is 'not a monster', eh ? Yes, and I'm sure he spent his time during the siege 'proving' it ... handing out Mars bars is an excellent basis for exoneration for multiple murder, I'm sure ...

Also note the stated expectation of conversion to Islam .. via coercion, after witnessing murders ?? Do you still say they're not Islamic, Jafar ? Because THEY thought they were ---

And yes, this scum wanted to target Americans as victims. Lefties intent on fighting for terrorist 'human rights' might want to give that some thought (?).

aboutime

09-25-2013, 05:36 PM

Sir Drummond, and all who take such things seriously, rather than calling them "Crying Wolf" or "The Sky is Falling", made up fabrications of paranoia.

Just imagine "IF" the same kinds of terror attacks begin to happen HERE IN THE U.S.A.?

Most complain about their rights being violated by the NSA, CIA, FBI, ICE, or just normal Police departments because those agencies are constantly trying to locate, and stop such attacks from taking place.

But. Just let one such attack, as we have seen in Kenya happen here, and the likely whiners will be up in arms, and complaining those agencies I mentioned....weren't doing their jobs.

You can't have it both ways. And, God Forbid. YES....I SAID GOD FORBID...something that size takes place in one of our Local Mall's, in Anytown USA.

It's not impossible. But most of those who complain the most about losing their rights...for no good reason, other than to be heard, and to impress their Under, Un-educated friends who whine the very same way...may just need to learn the hard truth about Terror in our world today.
You know? The Terror the Obama administration WANTS US to believe...doesn't exist, or can't happen here????

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-25-2013, 05:45 PM

jafar00

09-25-2013, 11:09 PM

Drummond

09-26-2013, 12:16 AM

Yes, they are not Islamic.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

They're all delusional, Jafar. Every terrorist, everywhere in the world, no matter who they are, no matter how many there are, they ALL have somehow, amazingly coincidentally, drawn the same 'false inferences' from the Koran .... and you, the one person that you are, know better than all of them ....

Not so long ago, a long list of Koranic quotes was posted, showing how much of a war'like' inspiration some of its verses are. I reposted that list some days later, Jafar.

Tell you what. Since you're so much of a fan of Hamas, care to explain how it comes to be that THEY, too, believe - and act - as terrorists, that their terrorism, they are sure, serves their religion ?

How do you explain it ?

Since you support them, why not represent them here, and defend them ? Show us how, if other terrorists are ANTI Islamic by being the terrorists they are, how it is that Hamas, with THEIR terrorism, are PRO Islamic by contrast ... and thus deserve your support ?

Isn't it time you explained that ?

Perhaps their terrorism is a 'better class' of terrorism than anyone else's ?

Let's see if you can do so, Jafar. What makes THEIR terrorism acceptable in Islamic terms, and Hamas NOT worthy of being labelled 'dogs' ?

fj1200

09-26-2013, 05:31 AM

... terrorist 'human rights' ...

What they're entitled to and what they're deserving of are two different things so end of discussion on that point.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-26-2013, 09:24 AM

What they're entitled to and what they're deserving of are two different things so end of discussion on that point. ahhh, so now tell us what they deserve....

fj1200

09-26-2013, 09:28 AM

ahhh, so now tell us what they deserve....

1. What any human does, and 2. The death penalty.

Drummond

09-26-2013, 02:54 PM

What they 'deserve', FJ, according to you, is ...

1. What any human does, and 2. The death penalty.

Previously, you posted ...

What they're entitled to and what they're deserving of are two different things so end of discussion on that point.

??????????????????

Are you arguing purely for the sake of it ??

What I get from your disparate (or is that 'desperate' ?) posting is that you see terrorists as fully human, deserving of full human rights. Which is, to say the least, what Lefties insist upon arguing for, for them, and fighting to ensure they enjoy.

What we're getting from you, FJ, apart from all the egotism (.. prepare for some arrogant crossings-out practice ... are you ready ?? ..) is pure, simple, bog-standard Leftieism. You cannot justify your belief that terrorists are human and deserving (or not, according to who you're posting to !!) of human rights, but your Leftie agenda insists upon finding ways of arguing it.

I say: WHAT ABOUT THEIR VICTIMS - DON'T THEY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS ??

aboutime

09-26-2013, 03:46 PM

What they 'deserve', FJ, according to you, is ...

Previously, you posted ...

??????????????????

Are you arguing purely for the sake of it ??

What I get from your disparate (or is that 'desperate' ?) posting is that you see terrorists as fully human, deserving of full human rights. Which is, to say the least, what Lefties insist upon arguing for, for them, and fighting to ensure they enjoy.

What we're getting from you, FJ, apart from all the egotism (.. prepare for some arrogant crossings-out practice ... are you ready ?? ..) is pure, simple, bog-standard Leftieism. You cannot justify your belief that terrorists are human and deserving (or not, according to who you're posting to !!) of human rights, but your Leftie agenda insists upon finding ways of arguing it.

I say: WHAT ABOUT THEIR VICTIMS - DON'T THEY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS ??

Sir Drummond. For some reason. I keep imagining that fj is actually gabby, in reverse drag.

jafar00

09-26-2013, 03:56 PM

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

They're all delusional, Jafar. Every terrorist, everywhere in the world, no matter who they are, no matter how many there are, they ALL have somehow, amazingly coincidentally, drawn the same 'false inferences' from the Koran .... and you, the one person that you are, know better than all of them ....

Ask any Muslim who has done at least a little study about Islam and he would agree with me. You cannot produce a scrap of evidence that these "monsters" acted in accordance with Islam.

1. What any human does, and 2. The death penalty.

for 2) you would need Sharia :D

fj1200

09-26-2013, 04:37 PM

What they 'deserve', FJ, according to you, is ...

Previously, you posted ...

??????????????????

Not sure what you're confused about. Perhaps your imagination is forsaking you. They are entitled to human rights though they are not deserving of them and as they have seen to deny the natural rights, life in this case, of others they have given up their claim on same.

Are you arguing purely for the sake of it ??

What I get from your disparate (or is that 'desperate' ?) posting is that you see terrorists as fully human, deserving of full human rights. Which is, to say the least, what Lefties insist upon arguing for, for them, and fighting to ensure they enjoy.

What we're getting from you, FJ, apart from all the egotism (.. prepare for some arrogant crossings-out practice ... are you ready ?? ..) is pure, simple, bog-standard Leftieism. You cannot justify your belief that terrorists are human and deserving (or not, according to who you're posting to !!) of human rights, but your Leftie agenda insists upon finding ways of arguing it.

I say: WHAT ABOUT THEIR VICTIMS - DON'T THEY HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS ??

Nothing disparate (nor desperate) in my posts. I don't have to demonize those I'm discussing points with while attempting to make a rational and logical argument as you do. Of course you can't make a simple post without your "leftie" crutch. Oh yes, and that whole "ego" bit. :rolleyes: And no, I'm not arguing, I made a statement; if you have issue then we can discuss it rationally; if you have it in you that is.

And yes, their victims do have human rights as do we all.

fj1200

09-26-2013, 04:40 PM

for 2) you would need Sharia :D

Not if you have capital punishment which I would imagine Kenya does.

Drummond

09-26-2013, 05:16 PM

Sir Drummond. For some reason. I keep imagining that fj is actually gabby, in reverse drag.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Happily, I've yet to suffer such an affliction .... :laugh2:

Drummond

09-26-2013, 05:35 PM

Not sure what you're confused about. Perhaps your imagination is forsaking you. They are entitled to human rights though they are not deserving of them and as they have seen to deny the natural rights, life in this case, of others they have given up their claim on same.

Nothing disparate (nor desperate) in my posts. I don't have to demonize those I'm discussing points with while attempting to make a rational and logical argument as you do. Of course you can't make a simple post without your "leftie" crutch. Oh yes, and that whole "ego" bit. :rolleyes: And no, I'm not arguing, I made a statement; if you have issue then we can discuss it rationally; if you have it in you that is.

And yes, their victims do have human rights as do we all.

Here's the thing. By 'we all', you're effectively, and even 'logically', trying to group terrorist savages in with decent people. In so doing, you lose any moral high ground (if you ever had it in the first place).

Tell me this. Does an enemy combatant, in the field of battle, automatically have the 'human right' not to be shot and killed ? YES OR NO ?

If 'NO', then I pose this question.

The enemy combatant may be, most probably is, a human being. Yet, if 'no', said combatant, though human, can be killed as the enemy it is.

Now contrast that with a terrorist savage, captured and placed in Gitmo. There, you have enemy combatants, captured in the field of battle, whose lives have been saved by capture. YET, they're demonstrably not human. They don't think as human beings do. They lack the moral standards of humans. They're devoid of human empathy, and capable of killing as casually as others might light a match.

Enter cloud-cuckooland Lefties on to the scene (feel free to identify with same) who argue for the application of 'human rights' of NON humans, over and above the more human enemy combatants whose lives, by being enemies, were forfeit !

WHY should subhuman savages have MORE rights than THEM ?

Feel free, as the Leftie you are, to concoct an answer compatible with whatever Leftie agenda you hold most dear.

Drummond

09-26-2013, 05:43 PM

Ask any Muslim who has done at least a little study about Islam and he would agree with me. You cannot produce a scrap of evidence that these "monsters" acted in accordance with Islam.

TWO postings of a list of Koranic quotes defy your conclusion. Must it be posted a third time ?

And I see you're ducking the issue of your support for Hamas, who themselves say they're Islamic, and WHO ALSO COMMIT ACTS OF TERRORISM.

Isn't it time you stopped ducking that issue, Jafar, and explain how you reconcile your current stance with ANY support for Hamas, no matter how slight it may (but probably isn't) be !!

aboutime

09-26-2013, 06:01 PM

Here's the thing. By 'we all', you're effectively, and even 'logically', trying to group terrorist savages in with decent people. In so doing, you lose any moral high ground (if you ever had it in the first place).

Tell me this. Does an enemy combatant, in the field of battle, automatically have the 'human right' not to be shot and killed ? YES OR NO ?

If 'NO', then I pose this question.

The enemy combatant may be, most probably is, a human being. Yet, if 'no', said combatant, though human, can be killed as the enemy it is.

Now contrast that with a terrorist savage, captured and placed in Gitmo. There, you have enemy combatants, captured in the field of battle, whose lives have been saved by capture. YET, they're demonstrably not human. They don't think as human beings do. They lack the moral standards of humans. They're devoid of human empathy, and capable of killing as casually as others might light a match.

Enter cloud-cuckooland Lefties on to the scene (feel free to identify with same) who argue for the application of 'human rights' of NON humans, over and above the more human enemy combatants whose lives, by being enemies, were forfeit !

WHY should subhuman savages have MORE rights than THEM ?

Feel free, as the Leftie you are, to concoct an answer compatible with whatever Leftie agenda you hold most dear.

Sir Drummond. All that is necessary to know, when conversing in any way with fj. Is to simply observe, and remember the incessant tactic of constantly finding his need to DEFEND.
That is how most liberals, and RINO's respond, and find ways of creating excuses...hidden in their desperate, endlessly defensive plans that avoid any sense of being pushed into a corner...they can never escape from. Much like rats on a sinking ship.
They must concoct...as you said, any methods they have been trained to resort to, at all costs. Which saves them from being held accountable for their statements. None of which, are their own, genuine, original material.
Just watch how this thread progresses, and take note of exactly WHO needs to find excuses, or reasons to further defend something that has No Defense. Falsehoods never do.

jafar00

09-26-2013, 06:44 PM

TWO postings of a list of Koranic quotes defy your conclusion. Must it be posted a third time ?

And I see you're ducking the issue of your support for Hamas, who themselves say they're Islamic, and WHO ALSO COMMIT ACTS OF TERRORISM.

Isn't it time you stopped ducking that issue, Jafar, and explain how you reconcile your current stance with ANY support for Hamas, no matter how slight it may (but probably isn't) be !!

You posted a whole load of out of context verses misinterpreted to fit an agenda by a hate site with no knowledge of what they are talking about. You still have nothing to support this Kenya attack.

PS I care nowt about what you think about Hamas.

aboutime

09-26-2013, 07:19 PM

You posted a whole load of out of context verses misinterpreted to fit an agenda by a hate site with no knowledge of what they are talking about. You still have nothing to support this Kenya attack.

PS I care nowt about what you think about Hamas.

Sure thing jafar. Which explains why you HAD to respond. If you didn't care, or were honest. You would have had no reason to reply, respond, or come here to tell us YOU DON'T CARE.

So. How much DID you pay for that bridge across the East River in NYC?

Drummond

09-26-2013, 07:32 PM

You posted a whole load of out of context verses misinterpreted to fit an agenda by a hate site with no knowledge of what they are talking about. You still have nothing to support this Kenya attack.

PS I care nowt about what you think about Hamas.

When all else fails, just go into denial, eh ?

I repeat (and you'll go into denial about this, too ..) .. terrorist groups exist across the world, all interpreting Islam as a religion THEY represent, and which THEY see as one they are faithfully serving. They say as much. But, all of those groups, simultaneously managing the same interpretations independently of each other, do so COINCIDENTALLY, whereas you, alone, in defiance of all of them, know better ---

... yeahh ....

You care nowt about what I think about Hamas ? That's OK - you needn't do so.

However - here's a taste of the reality you continue to duck about them. Not MY words, but words from Hamas ....

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm

Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Quzan its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.

Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission.

Peace initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad.

There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.

The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the Hadith has it:

"The people of Syria are Allah's whip on this land; He takes

revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wishes among his

worshippers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from

vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and

sorrow." (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order

of traditionaries to Muhammed, and by Ahmed whose chain of

transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith,

for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

There y'go, Jafar. Not my words, but words offered directly from the Hamas Charter. All 'nice, peaceful stuff' .. ??

If you support Hamas, YOU SUPPORT ALL OF THIS. I am asking you to reconcile THIS stuff with the vision of a 'peaceful, non-Jihadist' Islam you claim is true of that religion.

Let's see you try. Let's see your basis for supporting Hamas, and also, simultaneously, your stated principles, reconciled with each other. OR WILL YOU RUN FROM CONFRONTING THIS EVIDENT TRUTH YET AGAIN ?

jafar00

09-26-2013, 11:42 PM

Drummond, I had no idea Hamas was responsible for the massacre in Kenya. Nice "translation" btw. Quzan? Really? What is that?

fj1200

09-27-2013, 04:47 AM

Leftie crutches, unsupported statements, red herrings, and related fallacies ignored. :slap:

Here's the thing. By 'we all', you're effectively, and even 'logically', trying to group terrorist savages in with decent people. In so doing, you lose any moral high ground (if you ever had it in the first place).

Tell me this. Does an enemy combatant, in the field of battle, automatically have the 'human right' not to be shot and killed ? YES OR NO ?

If 'NO', then I pose this question.

The enemy combatant may be, most probably is, a human being. Yet, if 'no', said combatant, though human, can be killed as the enemy it is.

Now contrast that with a terrorist savage, captured and placed in Gitmo. There, you have enemy combatants, captured in the field of battle, whose lives have been saved by capture. YET, they're demonstrably not human. They don't think as human beings do. They lack the moral standards of humans. They're devoid of human empathy, and capable of killing as casually as others might light a match.

Enter [those] cloud-cuckooland Lefties on to the scene (feel free to identify with same) who argue for the application of 'human rights' of NON humans, over and above the more human enemy combatants whose lives, by being enemies, were forfeit !

WHY should subhuman savages have MORE rights than THEM ?

Feel free, as the Leftie you are, to concoct an answer compatible with whatever Leftie agenda you hold most dear.

By "we all" I'm merely noting what is an unfortunate truth, that you share the same status as a "terrorist savage"; human. Nevertheless, an enemy combatant in the field of battle, as does a soldier, has "human rights" but doesn't have the right to not be shot; an unfortunate truth of war. Now, the last fallacy upon which your argument hangs: No lives were "forfeit," lives may not have been lost in battle but a survivors life was not forfeit. No one has more rights than anyone else.

Now, if you could point out where right-thinking individuals have argued that terrorists have more rights than others that would be helpful.

Drummond

09-27-2013, 09:52 AM

You just can't leave my text alone, can you ? Does it bother you THAT much ? :laugh:

Leftie crutches, unsupported statements, red herrings, and related fallacies ignored. :slap:

You, ignoring your own posts ?? I admire your taste ... :laugh::laugh:

By "we all" I'm merely noting what is an unfortunate truth, that you share the same status as a "terrorist savage"; human.

Er'm, no. What that is, FJ, is an unfortunate LIE. I am in no sense comparable to a terrorist savage, and - as you'll of course know - to claim that I am is considerably insulting.

Have I ever had the urge (much less done it !!) to fly jet aircraft into skyscrapers ? To detonate bombs on the London Underground ? To behead anyone ? To plant IED's at roadsides to kill anyone unfortunate enough to get near to one ? To fire missiles at innocent Israelis ? And much MORE along these same DISGUSTING, BLOODLUST-FUELLED lines ?? NO, I HAVE NOT, AND NO INDIVIDUAL WORTHY OF THE DESCRIPTION 'HUMAN' EVER HAS, EITHER.

So I'll thank you to keep such Leftie rot to yourself !!!

There is absolutely NO way that the terrorists you've considered are 'human', and if you're being honest, you'll now admit as much.

Nevertheless, an enemy combatant in the field of battle, as does a soldier, has "human rights" but doesn't have the right to not be shot;

Those that are human have human rights. Those that are not human (i.e terrorists) have Lefties falling over themselves to confer such 'rights' to them.

No one has more rights than anyone else.

It's at times like these that any pretention you might indulge that you're not a Leftie is shown to be ridiculous. For the reasons given, TERRORISTS CANNOT QUALIFY AS HUMAN. Indeed, they are lower forms of life than rodents, since no rodent I've ever heard of detonates bombs against innocents.

Now, if you could point out where right-thinking individuals have argued that terrorists have more rights than others that would be helpful.

RIGHT THINKING INDIVIDUALS ??? Care to explain that one ??!!???

Drummond

09-27-2013, 10:03 AM

Drummond, I had no idea Hamas was responsible for the massacre in Kenya.

Neither did I. Still, do you know for an absolute fact that they are in no way, shape or form, linked to any of it at least indirectly ?

[That's a serious question, by the way. To suppose that all terrorist groups are always entirely autonomous and never maintain links with others is simplistic and just wrong. Al Qaeda, for example, is known to have 'affiliates'.]

Nice "translation" btw.

Glad you approve, Jafar. :rolleyes:

Quzan? Really? What is that?

So let me get this straight. In answer to my pointing out the true nature of Hamas, and questioning how you can, much less DO, maintain support for them ... your only answer is to highlight a typo involving the misprinting of ONE, SINGLE, letter ?????

:lame2:

Your attempts to duck my overall point, and my questioning .. are similarly ....

:lame2::lame2::lame2:

.... but at least you appear to be enjoying your evasiveness .... :p

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-27-2013, 10:14 AM

Neither did I. Still, do you know for an absolute fact that they are in no way, shape or form, linked to any of it at least indirectly ?

[That's a serious question, by the way. To suppose that all terrorist groups are always entirely autonomous and never maintain links with others is simplistic and just wrong. Al Qaeda, for example, is known to have 'affiliates'.]

Glad you approve, Jafar. :rolleyes:

So let me get this straight. In answer to my pointing out the true nature of Hamas, and questioning how you can, much less DO, maintain support for them ... your only answer is to highlight a typo involving the misprinting of ONE, SINGLE, letter ?????
Quzan? Really? What is that?

:lame2:

Your attempts to duck my overall point, and my questioning .. are similarly ....

:lame2::lame2::lame2: OK, here is my interpretation for what it is worth to you guys..
Quzan? Really? What is that? Down here in the South we say, My Quzan , Billy Wayne, lived with my Aunt Edna until SHE RAN HIM OFF FOR DRINKING ALL HER MOONSHINE !! :laugh: BIG FAMILIES DOWN HERE , lots of Quzans. ;)---Tyr

Drummond

09-27-2013, 10:19 AM

OK, here is my interpretation for what it is worth to you guys.. Down here in the South we say, My Quzan , Billy Wayne, lived with my Aunt Edna until SHE RAN HIM OFF FOR DRINKING ALL HER MOONSHINE !! :laugh: BIG FAMILIES DOWN HERE , lots of Quzans. ;)---Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::laugh2::laugh2:

-- Good one, Tyr !

And it could explain much .... maybe Hamas are, when you get down to it, just alcohol-addled followers of paedophile legends ?

Any thoughts on that one, Jafar ?:dance:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-27-2013, 10:26 AM

:clap::clap::clap::clap::laugh2::laugh2:

-- Good one, Tyr !

And it could explain much .... maybe Hamas are, when you get down to it, just alcohol-addled followers of paedophile legends ?

Any thoughts on that one, Jafar ?:dance: Perhaps Jafar is a big fan of Hamas because of his Quzan, Jaclose being a member or something, family counts you know . ;) I mean maybe it's his favorite Quzan too. :laugh:--Tyr

red states rule

09-27-2013, 10:32 AM

It is clear Kenya needs to pass common sense gun laws now before more people are killed. Ban those damn assault weapons and the problem will be solved. After all that worked in Chicago didn't it?

Arbo

09-27-2013, 11:38 AM

fj1200

09-27-2013, 01:00 PM

You just can't leave my text alone, can you ? Does it bother you THAT much ? :laugh:

I do it as a service to the other posters so that they can note your mindless drivel and attempt to move on to more important matters. I know you get all butt hurt when portions of your posts are stricken so I thought I'd go with a different option. You like the color no? I chose it just for you.

You, ignoring your own posts ?? I admire your taste ... :laugh::laugh:

:confused: My posts are the only examples of rational thought between the two of us.

Er'm, no. What that is, FJ, is an unfortunate LIE. I am in no sense comparable to a terrorist savage, and - as you'll of course know - to claim that I am is considerably insulting.

Have I ever had the urge (much less done it !!) to fly jet aircraft into skyscrapers ? To detonate bombs on the London Underground ? To behead anyone ? To plant IED's at roadsides to kill anyone unfortunate enough to get near to one ? To fire missiles at innocent Israelis ? And much MORE along these same DISGUSTING, BLOODLUST-FUELLED lines ?? NO, I HAVE NOT, AND NO INDIVIDUAL WORTHY OF THE DESCRIPTION 'HUMAN' EVER HAS, EITHER.

So I'll thank you to keep such Leftie rot to yourself !!!

There is absolutely NO way that the terrorists you've considered are 'human', and if you're being honest, you'll now admit as much.

Nevertheless, true it is. Besides, I'm sure that they have as much disdain as you for them.

Those that are human have human rights. Those that are not human (i.e terrorists) have Lefties falling over themselves to confer such 'rights' to them.

It's at times like these that any pretention you might indulge that you're not a Leftie is shown to be ridiculous. For the reasons given, TERRORISTS CANNOT QUALIFY AS HUMAN. Indeed, they are lower forms of life than rodents, since no rodent I've ever heard of detonates bombs against innocents.

Blah, blah, blah. I already pointed out that all individuals are human so end of discussion on that point.

RIGHT THINKING INDIVIDUALS ??? Care to explain that one ??!!???

As in me and not you. So, will you be pointing out where right-thinking individuals have argued that terrorists have more rights than others ????!!!!????

fj1200

09-27-2013, 01:02 PM

... your only answer is to highlight a typo involving the misprinting of ONE, SINGLE, letter ?

A rather important letter wouldn't you say? Get the little things wrong then you lose credibility in the larger sense.

aboutime

09-27-2013, 01:04 PM

I do it as a service to the other posters so that they can note your mindless drivel and attempt to move on to more important matters. I know you get all butt hurt when portions of your posts are stricken so I thought I'd go with a different option. You like the color no? I chose it just for you.

:confused: My posts are the only examples of rational thought between the two of us.

Nevertheless, true it is. Besides, I'm sure that they have as much disdain as you for them.

Blah, blah, blah. I already pointed out that all individuals are human so end of discussion on that point.

As in me and not you. So, will you be pointing out where right-thinking individuals have argued that terrorists have more rights than others ????!!!!????

Actually fj. Most of us continue to read, what you call drivel...that you present here. You are teaching all of us to either...BE LIKE YOU, or lower our standards even further, and dream of being just like you. Useless...and only impressing YOURSELF.

Larrymc

09-27-2013, 01:43 PM

It is clear Kenya needs to pass common sense gun laws now before more people are killed. Ban those damn assault weapons and the problem will be solved. After all that worked in Chicago didn't it?It worked as well, as any law abiding gun owner with an ounce of common sense knew it would. gun owner not necessary just an ounce of common sense.

Larrymc

09-27-2013, 01:58 PM

Jafar, I don't know why you bother with these nuckleheads, but if you want to play the same game, simply point out they are just like the Army of God, Lambs of Christ, or any of the numerous christian based terrorist groups. Hell, considering the venom and hate they have shown for homosexuals you could lump them in with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists.

That they share the same religion with those people/groups, shows that their whole religion is horrible and full of terrorists, right? Isn't that the angle they use?

:laugh:When you find a group that represents the majority of Christians, you can try that argument again. while i have no doubt that there are Muslims that want to live in peace with Infidels in America, they are in the great minority, and im sorry but i believe of those, should an extremist group raise up, they would not stand with there fellow Americans.

Arbo

09-27-2013, 02:14 PM

When you find a group that represents the majority of Christians, you can try that argument again. while i have no doubt that there are Muslims that want to live in peace with Infidels in America, they are in the great minority, and im sorry but i believe of those, should an extremist group raise up, they would not stand with there fellow Americans.

LOL. I love the twisted logic and hypocrisy. At least those are two consistancies seen around here.

Larrymc

09-27-2013, 02:22 PM

LOL. I love the twisted logic and hypocrisy. At least those are two consistancies seen around here.LOL I held no hope that you could understand.

Arbo

09-27-2013, 02:24 PM

LOL I held no hope that you could understand.

Ah, so sad. Resorts to the first tactic of the left. That being, make a statement, get called laughed at for the stupidity of the statement, then default to the 'you are too dumb to understand.'

Doing the DNC proud young man. Very proud indeed. :salute:

Larrymc

09-27-2013, 02:45 PM

Ah, so sad. Resorts to the first tactic of the left. That being, make a statement, get called laughed at for the stupidity of the statement, then default to the 'you are too dumb to understand.'

Doing the DNC proud young man. Very proud indeed. :salute:Im trying, Sorry to expect truth and common sense to resonate with a Liberal mined would be true ignorance. though i am optimistic about you, sense you seem to be leaning right some times, when your not instigating.:laugh:

jafar00

09-27-2013, 03:09 PM

So. How much DID you pay for that bridge across the East River in NYC?

Que?

OK, here is my interpretation for what it is worth to you guys.. Down here in the South we say, My Quzan , Billy Wayne, lived with my Aunt Edna until SHE RAN HIM OFF FOR DRINKING ALL HER MOONSHINE !! :laugh: BIG FAMILIES DOWN HERE , lots of Quzans. ;)---Tyr

Thanks Tyr. Now I know what a Quzan is, he sounds like a nice fella :)

It is clear Kenya needs to pass common sense gun laws now before more people are killed. Ban those damn assault weapons and the problem will be solved. After all that worked in Chicago didn't it?

Kenya does have strict gun control. A license and yearly reapplication with training and tests to keep it. The terrorist group came from Somalia which also has gun control laws, but no effective govt to enforce it for some time.

Jafar, I don't know why you bother with these nuckleheads, but if you want to play the same game, simply point out they are just like the Army of God, Lambs of Christ, or any of the numerous christian based terrorist groups. Hell, considering the venom and hate they have shown for homosexuals you could lump them in with Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists.

That they share the same religion with those people/groups, shows that their whole religion is horrible and full of terrorists, right? Isn't that the angle they use?

:laugh:

Don't confuse them with facts Arbo. I'm having fun here :D

When you find a group that represents the majority of Christians, you can try that argument again. while i have no doubt that there are Muslims that want to live in peace with Infidels in America, they are in the great minority, and im sorry but i believe of those, should an extremist group raise up, they would not stand with there fellow Americans.

America sounds like a pretty bad place then based on what you said. The Muslims here in Aus who want to live in peace with the "infidels" are in the vast majority I can assure you. Sure we have gangs of 2nd and 3rd generation Lebanese running about in bikie gangs dealing drugs and shooting at each other, but they aren't considered Muslims anyway. :p

Arbo

09-27-2013, 03:34 PM

Im trying, Sorry to expect truth and common sense to resonate with a Liberal mined would be true ignorance.

I was talking about your liberal like tactics. So your diversion doesn't fly. :laugh:

Larrymc

09-27-2013, 03:57 PM

Que?

Thanks Tyr. Now I know what a Quzan is, he sounds like a nice fella :)

Kenya does have strict gun control. A license and yearly reapplication with training and tests to keep it. The terrorist group came from Somalia which also has gun control laws, but no effective govt to enforce it for some time.

Don't confuse them with facts Arbo. I'm having fun here :D

America sounds like a pretty bad place then based on what you said. The Muslims here in Aus who want to live in peace with the "infidels" are in the vast majority I can assure you. Sure we have gangs of 2nd and 3rd generation Lebanese running about in bikie gangs dealing drugs and shooting at each other, but they aren't considered Muslims anyway. :pSo are you satisfied that if a Muslim Extremest group rose up in Aus that the current Muslim population would fight them?

jafar00

09-27-2013, 09:19 PM

So are you satisfied that if a Muslim Extremest group rose up in Aus that the current Muslim population would fight them?

I would leave it to the police to deal with them. It's their job after all. Anarchy and vigilantism is not at all desirable.

aboutime

09-27-2013, 09:30 PM

I would leave it to the police to deal with them. It's their job after all. Anarchy and vigilantism is not at all desirable.

Larrymc. In other words. Jafar would just hide somewhere, and pretend nothing is happening.

There's another word for that. Sounds like a county in Florida named "Broward".

Arbo

09-27-2013, 09:36 PM

I would leave it to the police to deal with them. It's their job after all. Anarchy and vigilantism is not at all desirable.

Oh, have no doubt, those that talk a big game here would not resort to anarchy or vigilantism. If a true blue terrorist confronted them they'd shit themselves and try to run away. The internet tough guy stuff is a mere act.

Larrymc. In other words. Jafar would just hide somewhere, and pretend nothing is happening.

There's another word for that. Sounds like a county in Florida named "Broward".

Are you ever capable of being a man and saying what you mean? It's Coward. Just say it rather than play your 3rd grade games.

But on that note, it is pretty clear you would do exactly what you claim he would. What a joke. :laugh:

Drummond

09-29-2013, 02:05 PM

I do it as a service to the other posters so that they can note your mindless drivel and attempt to move on to more important matters. I know you get all butt hurt when portions of your posts are stricken so I thought I'd go with a different option. You like the color no? I chose it just for you.

Such egotism ! You've appointed yourself absolute judge of the value of my posts, now, to say nothing of how YOU decree others should view them ??

FJ, are your posts meant as a joke ? Are you sending yourself up ??

:confused: My posts are the only examples of rational thought between the two of us. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Blah, blah, blah. I already pointed out that all individuals are human so end of discussion on that point.

You know, I do think you're trying to be SERIOUS !

Prove to me that a terrorist is human. Come on !!

You can't do it. Can you ?

So, will you be pointing out where right-thinking individuals have argued that terrorists have more rights than others ????!!!!????

Bizarre ...

Of course not. You ask the impossible. No right-thinking individual would EVER argue such a thing !!!

Lefties, however, are by no stretch of the imagination 'right' thinking individuals !

.. and you aren't, are you, FJ ??

Drummond

09-29-2013, 02:11 PM

Actually fj. Most of us continue to read, what you call drivel...that you present here. You are teaching all of us to either...BE LIKE YOU, or lower our standards even further, and dream of being just like you. Useless...and only impressing YOURSELF.

I'm fast coming to the conclusion, Aboutime, that FJ is a joke poster. He sends himself up too perfectly to be anything else ...

Arbo

09-29-2013, 02:12 PM

Such egotism ! You've appointed yourself absolute judge of the value of my posts,

LOL. :laugh: Man, that's some FUNNY stuff!

fj1200

09-29-2013, 02:13 PM

Yada, yada, yada...

I see you avoid losing another debate by making your post about me and not about your failure of an argument. So, terrorists more rights than others? Who has made that claim?

And if you want me to show that terrorists are human I'll just use your definitions again. I'm also awaiting your answer on when the mentally handicapped are subhuman.

Drummond

09-29-2013, 02:34 PM

LOL. :laugh: Man, that's some FUNNY stuff!

Yes, wasn't it ... I'm beginning to appreciate FJ's sense of humour about himself ... :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

fj1200

09-29-2013, 02:35 PM

I'm fast coming to the conclusion, Aboutime, that FJ is a joke poster. He sends himself up too perfectly to be anything else ...

Well if 'at' is your benchmark for a rational, thinking poster... you are beyond all hope.

aboutime

09-29-2013, 02:41 PM

Well if 'at' is your benchmark for a rational, thinking poster... you are beyond all hope.

Thanks so much fj. I've come to expect such low-life kinds of responses from you. Keep it comin'. You do all of us a huge favor when you make such declarations intended to present your phony "Smarter than everyone else" theatrical, mentally challenged, reality characters.

Drummond

09-29-2013, 02:46 PM

I see you avoid losing another debate by making your post about me and not about your failure of an argument. So, terrorists more rights than others? Who has made that claim?

And if you want me to show that terrorists are human I'll just use your definitions again. I'm also awaiting your answer on when the mentally handicapped are subhuman.

Fascinating. So, you've now stooped to posting FAKE posts from 'me' .. ??

This one excepted, which is replying to your rubbish (though I don't quite know why ..) .. where, in any of my posts, have you ever seen 'Yada yada yada' from me ??

You get ever more bizarre. These ARE joke posts from you, aren't they, FJ ?

But here's an answer for you. Every time a Leftie fights for any right for any terrorist to live, and worse, to undergo a form of trial process which risks seeing the terrorist released, they argue the position that the terrorist has a greater right to life than their victims. Meaning .. that they, as so-called 'human beings', have greater worth than those they've murdered, or those they could go on to murder, if ever released.

What ELSE does this say, other than the human worth of those terrorists receives greater consideration than their INNOCENT VICTIMS ?

By the way, I am waiting for you to prove that terrorists are human. STILL waiting.

-- Copping out of that one, FJ ?

fj1200

09-29-2013, 02:51 PM

Fascinating. So, you've now stooped to posting FAKE posts from 'me' .. ??

This one excepted, which is replying to your rubbish (though I don't quite know why ..) .. where, in any of my posts, have you ever seen 'Yada yada yada' from me ??

You get ever more bizarre. These ARE joke posts from you, aren't they, FJ ?

But here's an answer for you. Every time a Leftie fights for any right for any terrorist to live, and worse, to undergo a form of trial process which risks seeing the terrorist released, they argue the position that the terrorist has a greater right to life than their victims. Meaning .. that they, as so-called 'human beings', have greater worth than those they've murdered, or those they could go on to murder, if ever released.

What ELSE does this say, other than the human worth of those terrorists receives greater consideration than their INNOCENT VICTIMS ?

By the way, I am waiting for you to prove that terrorists are human. STILL waiting.

-- Copping out of that one, FJ ?

What was fake? I was just summarizing but if you think the remaining posters are not smart enough to know what happened well that's on you. Besides, I've proven it multiple times I see no reason to do it again. You'll just deny, deny, deny anyway.

But your argument is incorrect. A right to trial is not a greater right than others have. Another try perchance?

aboutime

09-29-2013, 02:53 PM

Fascinating. So, you've now stooped to posting FAKE posts from 'me' .. ??

This one excepted, which is replying to your rubbish (though I don't quite know why ..) .. where, in any of my posts, have you ever seen 'Yada yada yada' from me ??

You get ever more bizarre. These ARE joke posts from you, aren't they, FJ ?

But here's an answer for you. Every time a Leftie fights for any right for any terrorist to live, and worse, to undergo a form of trial process which risks seeing the terrorist released, they argue the position that the terrorist has a greater right to life than their victims. Meaning .. that they, as so-called 'human beings', have greater worth than those they've murdered, or those they could go on to murder, if ever released.

What ELSE does this say, other than the human worth of those terrorists receives greater consideration than their INNOCENT VICTIMS ?

By the way, I am waiting for you to prove that terrorists are human. STILL waiting.

-- Copping out of that one, FJ ?

Sir Drummond. Isn't it amazing how disfunctional, miserable, frustrated, angry, and filled with hate some can be, like fj when it's their last source of mental stability...slipping away, and there's nothing more they can do to save it?????
We owe a debt of gratitude to people like fj for being so willfully forthcoming to expose their challenges so freely.

Drummond

09-29-2013, 03:29 PM

Sir Drummond. Isn't it amazing how disfunctional, miserable, frustrated, angry, and filled with hate some can be, like fj when it's their last source of mental stability...slipping away, and there's nothing more they can do to save it?????
We owe a debt of gratitude to people like fj for being so willfully forthcoming to expose their challenges so freely.

Yes, well put, Aboutime.

Though I think it just possible that 'FJ' has always been intended to be, from start to finish, simply a comedy turn.

At least, he is making ME laugh .. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh2::laugh2::laugh:

Drummond

09-29-2013, 03:44 PM

A right to trial is not a greater right than others have. Another try perchance?

Think again.

When a terrorist slaughters, he, she, or it does nothing to put the victim(s) on trial. The savagery just happens.

When a Leftie fails to recognise the terrorist's proven subhumanity by perversely considering that the terrorist has the HUMAN RIGHT to a trial, then the terrorist is given a 'right' not deserved .. and in the process, ignores the lack of human rights which the terrorist said Leftie chooses to favour, has shown its victims.

I call this elevating a terrorist above its victim's rights.

One does not watch a tiger pounce on a helpless human being, tear that human being apart, then consider that the tiger has the 'human right' to a trial (.. though I'm sure we'd all recognise that the victim had a right to LIVE ??). Equally, why give the terrorist, which in savagely attacking ITS prey, shows no greater capacity for humanity than the tiger, recognition of any 'human rights' AT ALL ?

Each are as savage as the other, each equally as lacking in remorse or empathy. Tiger and terrorist both are, in human terms, indistinguishable .. except for perhaps the single element of premeditation which the terrorist's intelligence allows it.

No, FJ. The only way you can win this one (and you will NOT win by derision, crossings-out or false postings !!!) is to prove that a terrorist is a human being.

How many times must I ask you to attempt to provide that proof, before even YOU admit that you cannot ?

Arbo

09-29-2013, 03:54 PM

I see you avoid losing another debate by making your post about me and not about your failure of an argument.

Isn't that about 99% of their posts? They say something stupid, get hammered, then try to shift to personal. Hell one of them doesn't even bother with content to start things off, he just goes straight to personal. The best part is they think they are so damn smart that nobody notices. :laugh:

Arbo

09-29-2013, 03:57 PM

Thanks so much fj. I've come to expect such low-life kinds of responses from you.

........ 5614

fj1200

09-30-2013, 05:06 AM

Think again.

When a terrorist slaughters, he, she, or it does nothing to put the victim(s) on trial. The savagery just happens.

When a Leftie fails to recognise the terrorist's proven subhumanity by perversely considering that the terrorist has the HUMAN RIGHT to a trial, then the terrorist is given a 'right' not deserved .. and in the process, ignores the lack of human rights which the terrorist said Leftie chooses to favour, has shown its victims.

I call this elevating a terrorist above its victim's rights.

One does not watch a tiger pounce on a helpless human being, tear that human being apart, then consider that the tiger has the 'human right' to a trial (.. though I'm sure we'd all recognise that the victim had a right to LIVE ??). Equally, why give the terrorist, which in savagely attacking ITS prey, shows no greater capacity for humanity than the tiger, recognition of any 'human rights' AT ALL ?

Each are as savage as the other, each equally as lacking in remorse or empathy. Tiger and terrorist both are, in human terms, indistinguishable .. except for perhaps the single element of premeditation which the terrorist's intelligence allows it.

No, FJ. The only way you can win this one (and you will NOT win by derision, crossings-out or false postings !!!) is to prove that a terrorist is a human being.

How many times must I ask you to attempt to provide that proof, before even YOU admit that you cannot ?

I've proved it over and over by your own definitions, in any case you simply can't prove the opposite. Besides it would be incumbent upon the individual seeking to deny the undeniable, that would be you, rather than the other way around just as it is incumbent upon the State to prove its case prior to denying its citizens of life, liberty, property.

But back to your first point, you are still incorrect; Restating a wrong argument does not somehow make it correct the second time around. You can call it what you like but a terrorist, or criminal, does not have a higher level of rights even when though they denied the rights of others which of course is why they would be on "trial" in the first place.

A terrorist a tiger? It's at least better than your "banana position" of our last go. :slap: And no, I win simply by having the better argument and not having to propagandize and demonize those I'm discussing an issue with... nor fall back on crutches. ;)

fj1200

09-30-2013, 05:14 AM

Yes, well put, Aboutime.

Though I think it just possible that 'FJ' has always been intended to be, from start to finish, simply a comedy turn.

At least, he is making ME laugh .. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gGtU--HgFD8/UelHXAUR8DI/AAAAAAAAueo/CQ8KZ-6ezfM/s400/171-0618073723-obama-insane-straight-jacket1.jpg

Well if 'at' is your benchmark for a rational, thinking poster... you are beyond all hope.

;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

09-30-2013, 07:51 AM

So are you satisfied that if a Muslim Extremest group rose up in Aus that the current Muslim population would fight them? Not in a pig's eye would that happen. They wouldn't be opposed. -Tyr

Drummond

09-30-2013, 02:37 PM

I've proved it over and over by your own definitions, in any case you simply can't prove the opposite. Besides it would be incumbent upon the individual seeking to deny the undeniable, that would be you, rather than the other way around just as it is incumbent upon the State to prove its case prior to denying its citizens of life, liberty, property.

This, FJ, is just one big cop out. Clearly you're determined to slink away from any meeting of my challenge. I asked you to prove that a terrorist is human. And this is your reply.

And you are 'denying the undeniable'. What's undeniable is that a terrorist, in order to BE such, cannot have human qualities that would, if present, deny the capacity to act as one. You know it. I know it. Any rational thinker must know it.

But you'll deny the obvious truth all the same.

But back to your first point, you are still incorrect; Restating a wrong argument does not somehow make it correct the second time around. You can call it what you like but a terrorist, or criminal, does not have a higher level of rights even when though they denied the rights of others which of course is why they would be on "trial" in the first place.

I agree that no terrorist should either have, or ever be considered to have 'earned', such a level of rights. Nonetheless, Lefties don't care. They'll single-mindedly pursue their quest for the 'human rights' of these butchers not caring, oblivious even, as to what impact this has on victims of terrorism, past, present, future. That's the point. To a Leftie, terrorist so-called 'human rights' supersede ANY AND ALL of that.

A terrorist a tiger? It's at least better than your "banana position" of our last go.

Impressed, eh ?

And no, I win simply by having the better argument and not having to propagandize and demonize those I'm discussing an issue with... nor fall back on crutches. ;)

You win just because you say so ??

You cannot point to anything I say and prove it untrue. So how on earth can you still claim to have the BETTER argument, when you cannot come up with any countering argument possessing any substance ?? Just saying you have 'the better argument' and leaving it at that proves and achieves nothing at all.

Arbo

09-30-2013, 02:44 PM

This, FJ, is just one big cop out. Clearly you're determined to slink away from any meeting of my challenge. I asked you to prove that a terrorist is human. And this is your reply.

It is really irrelevant. If the 'terrorist' is an American citizen, they have a right to a trial. Just as a 'mass murderer' or 'pedophile' or anyone else. We may not like it, but it's how the system is set up.

aboutime

09-30-2013, 02:48 PM

This, FJ, is just one big cop out. Clearly you're determined to slink away from any meeting of my challenge. I asked you to prove that a terrorist is human. And this is your reply.

And you are 'denying the undeniable'. What's undeniable is that a terrorist, in order to BE such, cannot have human qualities that would, if present, deny the capacity to act as one. You know it. I know it. Any rational thinker must know it.

But you'll deny the obvious truth all the same.

I agree that no terrorist should either have, or ever be considered to have 'earned', such a level of rights. Nonetheless, Lefties don't care. They'll single-mindedly pursue their quest for the 'human rights' of these butchers not caring, oblivious even, as to what impact this has on victims of terrorism, past, present, future. That's the point. To a Leftie, terrorist so-called 'human rights' supersede ANY AND ALL of that.

Impressed, eh ?

You win just because you say so ??

You cannot point to anything I say and prove it untrue. So how on earth can you still claim to have the BETTER argument, when you cannot come up with any countering argument possessing any substance ?? Just saying you have 'the better argument' and leaving it at that proves and achieves nothing at all.

Sir Drummond. What we are seeing is nothing but further evidence of how fj, and even Logroller feel overly confident when using their traditional semantics, rhetoric, and liberally sanctioned Word Games.
Much like the great Imposter...Obama, who has created his own version of Word Science designed to endlessly Impress, and Belittle anyone he...or fj, and Logroller feel confident...are less educated, and unable to grasp their usage of the language to IMPRESS themselves.
It's all a huge, self-centered, arrogant tactic they use where they are convinced....How wonderfully more educated, and experienced they are above everyone else.
And, we must all grant them those feelings as Perfectly Proven Ignorance...Unchained.

Drummond

09-30-2013, 04:47 PM

It is really irrelevant. If the 'terrorist' is an American citizen, they have a right to a trial. Just as a 'mass murderer' or 'pedophile' or anyone else. We may not like it, but it's how the system is set up.

So why can't they be denied - stripped of - US citizenship ?

Surely, as enemies of the US, they are traitors to it, and 'earn' none of the benefits of citizenship ... indeed, to allow any of them to keep that citizenship is no less than an insult to the country providing it ?

A citizen is surely, definitively, a citizen of a human society ? What sense is there in maintaining the status of 'citizen' for an individual evidently NOT human ??

Arbo

09-30-2013, 04:58 PM

So why can't they be denied - stripped of - US citizenship ?

Because our laws do not allow us to arbitrarily strip someone of their citizenship.

Imagine that the fed's had such power... at this point in time, with the current administration, they would be looking to strip the citizenship of fundamentalist christians, former military, any gun owners, as they have all been deemed a 'threat' by DHS. I'd rather neither 'side' have such power, and certainly it would go against the Constitution.

We simply need to speed up the legal system and remove the endless appeals, get such monsters in, convicted and put to death quickly.

Of course, if they are not citizens of this country, screw them, we should just kill them in the field.

Larrymc

09-30-2013, 05:28 PM

It is really irrelevant. If the 'terrorist' is an American citizen, they have a right to a trial. Just as a 'mass murderer' or 'pedophile' or anyone else. We may not like it, but it's how the system is set up.Your right about our Liberalized system, I have wondered why we have those that fight to give them the same benefit as common criminal, IMO they are a whole new monster, and don't fall in any normal guide lines of Criminal or Military proses, and as such we should establish a whole new way of handling them.

aboutime

09-30-2013, 07:09 PM

Your right about our Liberalized system, I have wondered why we have those that fight to give them the same benefit as common criminal, IMO they are a whole new monster, and don't fall in any normal guide lines of Criminal or Military proses, and as such we should establish a whole new way of handling them.

Larrymc. What Arbo has suggested is exactly what Obama, Holder, and the Democrats have been demanding for those held in Gitmo.

Just like Clinton treated OBL and company after the first WTC bombing in 1993.
Treat our enemies like they have the same rights as citizens????
Tie up the court system, and demand our soldiers become witnesses while bringing all the evidence demanded by the Defense...back from the Battle site???
Really?

Drummond

10-01-2013, 03:13 AM

Larrymc. What Arbo has suggested is exactly what Obama, Holder, and the Democrats have been demanding for those held in Gitmo.

Just like Clinton treated OBL and company after the first WTC bombing in 1993.
Treat our enemies like they have the same rights as citizens????
Tie up the court system, and demand our soldiers become witnesses while bringing all the evidence demanded by the Defense...back from the Battle site???
Really?

Well said !

At first reading, Arbo's post seemed halfway reasonable to me. But when you think about it, it adds up to the 'let's put them all on trial, and forget any security implications to doing that'.

And of course, how could you guarantee that at least a proportion of them wouldn't be found innocent, or go free on some technicality or other ? An enemy is an enemy, NOT deserving of equal privileges.

Your last sentence really sums it up, too. Better thought out than my own answer would've been.

logroller

10-01-2013, 04:46 AM

Larrymc. What Arbo has suggested is exactly what Obama, Holder, and the Democrats have been demanding for those held in Gitmo.

Just like Clinton treated OBL and company after the first WTC bombing in 1993.
Treat our enemies like they have the same rights as citizens????
Tie up the court system, and demand our soldiers become witnesses while bringing all the evidence demanded by the Defense...back from the Battle site???
Really?
Why are they in gitmo in the first place? Seems we could try them in the field, no? Or just kill em. You know, like how Obama handled the Osama 'capture'.
Perhaps they have intelligence (unlike a banana), but why not gather it in the field?

Drummond

10-01-2013, 06:58 AM

Why are they in gitmo in the first place? Seems we could try them in the field, no? Or just kill em. You know, like how Obama handled the Osama 'capture'.
Perhaps they have intelligence (unlike a banana), but why not gather it in the field?

Do you not think that intelligence gathering in the field might prove to be significantly more difficult ? Those captured would have the greatly increased hope of possible rescue that they lack in secure locations like Gitmo. A factor in successful interrogation has to be to break the morale of the one being interrogated - far harder to do if they're on their home turf ? Besides, don't you think that your forces have better things to do than spend all day holed up interrogating prisoners ?

Another thought: you'd have to transfer trained interrogators TO the field. What would happen if - since their new location might make it a whole lot easier to do !! - one or more were captured by the enemy ?? Why put those interrogators (surely valuable personnel ?) needlessly in harm's way, or, open to interrogation after capture BY the enemy ?

No. Gitmo is thousands of miles away from territory familiar to its inmates, and interrogations are carried out under totally secure conditions. Gitmo is invaluable, it seems to me, just as it is. I say, keep it as it is .. indeed, why not have more of them in comparably secure locations ?

You understand, incidentally, that I'm not arguing to save the lives of terrorists. If America has a use for their existence, fine. If not, then exterminate the vermin.

Arbo

10-01-2013, 08:19 AM

Larrymc. What Arbo has suggested is exactly what Obama, Holder, and the Democrats have been demanding for those held in Gitmo.

No, that is not anything close to what I said. You have to be both immensely ignorant and dumb as a brick to come to such a conclusion. But thanks for continuing to 'ignore' me. Jackass.

"Of course, if they are not citizens of this country, screw them, we should just kill them in the field." Yeah, that sounds like 'lock them up and give them a trial. You are an embarrassment to humanity.

Arbo

10-01-2013, 08:20 AM

At first reading, Arbo's post seemed halfway reasonable to me. But when you think about it, it adds up to the 'let's put them all on trial, and forget any security implications to doing that'.

Good lord you are a sheep. I said nothing of the kind.

aboutime

10-01-2013, 12:46 PM

Why are they in gitmo in the first place? Seems we could try them in the field, no? Or just kill em. You know, like how Obama handled the Osama 'capture'.
Perhaps they have intelligence (unlike a banana), but why not gather it in the field?

Logroller. If the captured members of the enemy are instantly killed. They are unable to provide the much needed Intelligence that could be gathered to PREVENT other members of the enemy forces to succeed in killing Americans....possibly, here at home.

Would you prefer taking all of the prisoners in Gitmo to YOUR CITY, or TOWN. And giving them expensive, extended trials where a possibility of an acquittal might put those Terrorists back on YOUR STREETS.. near your home? Where..who knows? They might even murder you, or your family.
Is that what you really want...while feeling sorry for the Gitmo Loved Ones you seem to defend?

Kathianne

10-01-2013, 12:54 PM

Why are they in gitmo in the first place? Seems we could try them in the field, no? Or just kill em. You know, like how Obama handled the Osama 'capture'.
Perhaps they have intelligence (unlike a banana), but why not gather it in the field?

Maybe?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436610/Pathetic-Award-winning-journalist-Seymour-Hersh-slams-American-press-challenging-US-governments-LIES-Bin-Laden-raid.html

Not ONE word of official account of raid that killed Bin Laden is true, claims award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist says that raid which killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011 is ‘one big lie’
He says the US media is too 'afraid' to pick on Obama
Hersh, 76, says the solution is to shut down news networks like NBC and ABC

He also suggested the firing of 90 per cent of mainstream editors

By Marie-louise Olson (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=&authornamef=Marie-louise+Olson)
PUBLISHED: 11:54 EST, 28 September 2013 | UPDATED: 11:59 EST, 28 September 2013

logroller

10-01-2013, 01:27 PM

Maybe?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436610/Pathetic-Award-winning-journalist-Seymour-Hersh-slams-American-press-challenging-US-governments-LIES-Bin-Laden-raid.html

So OBL wasnt really killed....conspiracy theory maybe.

Kathianne

10-01-2013, 01:32 PM

So OBL wasnt really killed....conspiracy theory maybe.

Maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

Seymour (Sy) Myron Hersh (born April 8, 1937) is an American Pulitzer Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize)-winning investigative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_journalism) journalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist) and author based in Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.) He is a regular contributor to The New Yorker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker) magazine on military and security matters. He has also won two National Magazine Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Magazine_Awards) and is a "five-time Polk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Polk_Awards) winner and recipient of the 2004 George Orwell Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell_Award)."[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#cite_note-5)
He first gained worldwide recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre) and its cover-up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover-up) during the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War), for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize_for_International_Reporting). His 2004 reports on the US military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military)'s mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison) gained much attention.

Drummond

10-01-2013, 03:24 PM

Good lord you are a sheep. I said nothing of the kind.

I said it ADDS UP TO THAT.

Please pay attention.

Drummond

10-01-2013, 03:30 PM

So OBL wasnt really killed....conspiracy theory maybe.

There's surely one glaring problem with indulging a theory like this one.

By what power would bin Laden be permanently prevented from issuing one of his videos, where he appears himself in them ?

Let's suppose that the answer to this is that he was captured, not killed. A similar objection would arise. Even with bin Laden somehow, guaranteeably, taken permanently out of circulation, why don't supporters of his, maybe senior figures in Al Qaeda's hierarchy, insist he's still alive ?

Arbo

10-01-2013, 03:33 PM

I said it ADDS UP TO THAT.

Please pay attention.

No, saying that citizens of this nation have rights, and they can not be stripped away at the whim of the government doesn't add up to that. Nor does saying that those that are not citizens should just be shot where they are found.

aboutime

10-01-2013, 03:34 PM

So OBL wasnt really killed....conspiracy theory maybe.

Why not? A conspiracy theory?

May the very first person feel free to display a photo of OBL...after his death?

If the conspiracy theory junkies who insisted GWB was the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. The same GWB every hypocrite, liberal, democrat, liar said was too STUPID to do such a thing.

Would they please step forward and PROVE...without any doubt. That OBL is actually dead?

After Obama bent over backwards to pat himself on the back, taking personal responsibility for giving the SEAL TEAM permission to TAKE HIM OUT.

Does anyone think it's strange? Considering all the bragging Obama has done. Why NOBODY has ever seen an OBIT photo of OBL????

Let's not forget. There are still many sick Americans who are still convinced. The Moon landing in 1969,......took place in a Hollywood Sound Stage too!

Drummond

10-01-2013, 03:43 PM

Oh, and by the way, Seymour Hersh gave his interview to THE GUARDIAN newspaper, a British LEFT WING publication. As such, it won't be the natural 'friend' of the US.

It was the very same 'Guardian' paper which - during the election campaign where Bush was seeking re-election - encouraged its Left-leaning readership to contact residents in Clark County, then a 'swing State' (we'd call them 'marginal constituencies'), the point being to persuade the electorate to vote for Bush's opponent !

Don't just take my word for it .....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/19/uselections2004.usa1

In a bid to give the rest of the world a say in the US election, the Guardian is urging non-Americans to write to voters in Clark County, Ohio, one of the most marginal areas in a key swing state. To receive the name and address of a Clark County voter, visit www.guardian.co.uk/clarkcounty (http://www.guardian.co.uk/clarkcounty). By last night, more than 14,000 people had requested the name of a voterFriends,

You have the chance to do the world a favour. Today, your country is reviled across continents as never before.

Because of your president, and some who have preceded him, you are seen as the greatest bully on earth.

You seek to dominate all others by demanding access to all markets on your terms, so that local industries and small farmers go to the wall.

You have supported brutal dictators, like Augusto Pinochet, General Suharto and Saddam Hussein, who, over the years, have murdered and tortured with your administration's approval.

Now you have led an invasion in a country which was not a threat to you. You have broken international law. You have destroyed what vestige of authority the United Nations had left. The British prime minister Tony Blair and your president are seen as liars and war criminals.

Your government has shown its disregard for human rights in Guantanamo Bay. Your soldiers tortured prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

All this has been done in your name, much of it by George W and his cronies.

But many of us know that this does not represent the real America. There is another tradition.

It is in the struggle of the early trades unions, the International Workers of the World, who fought injustice and exploitation. Those who were sacrificed in the Ludlow Massacre. Heroes like Joe Hill and Mother Jones.

It is in the struggle of Americans, black and white, for civil rights for black people led by many brave men and women like Martin Luther King.

It was in the great struggle for independence from Britain - how ironic, now, that the country that led the way against imperialism is now being governed by those who seek to subjugate others - it is in your music, your poetry and those who fought against slavery.

You have a chance to be true to that other America. For all our sakes, kick out the wretched Bush, spokesman for greed and oppression. Show the world you're not taken in by his phoney, folksy grin.

Do the world a favour.

Yes. THIS is the interfering rag which Hersh gave his interview to. Fair play ? A commitment to transparency ? Truth ? YOU judge if the Guardian properly qualifies !

Drummond

10-01-2013, 03:49 PM

No, saying that citizens of this nation have rights, and they can not be stripped away at the whim of the government doesn't add up to that. Nor does saying that those that are not citizens should just be shot where they are found.

The right to receive the privileges of citizenship, whilst acting as the enemy of the very State granting them ?

If there's any justice in that, I'm afraid I'm unable to perceive it.

Arbo

10-01-2013, 04:05 PM

The right to receive the privileges of citizenship, whilst acting as the enemy of the very State granting them ?

If there's any justice in that, I'm afraid I'm unable to perceive it.

If you are a citizen of this nation, you have certain rights. Doesn't matter what you do. If you do wrong or bad, there is a system in place to deal with it... in the end you may lose your rights, some of your rights, or your life, depending on the outcome. This is how the system was set up, it is how it works.

Are you suggesting that 'government' should have the power to come out and say 'well, they are a citizen but what they did was REAL bad, so we are going to take away their citizenship based on our belief they are guilty, and thus remove all their rights'? If so, is this a power you want to give to 'government' in general? Considering the past history of abuses by governments around the world?

Drummond

10-01-2013, 10:03 PM

If you are a citizen of this nation, you have certain rights. Doesn't matter what you do. If you do wrong or bad, there is a system in place to deal with it... in the end you may lose your rights, some of your rights, or your life, depending on the outcome. This is how the system was set up, it is how it works.

Are you suggesting that 'government' should have the power to come out and say 'well, they are a citizen but what they did was REAL bad, so we are going to take away their citizenship based on our belief they are guilty, and thus remove all their rights'? If so, is this a power you want to give to 'government' in general? Considering the past history of abuses by governments around the world?

Doesn't this basically miss the point ?

An individual acting as an enemy of the State is BETRAYING that citizenship. The act is one (or more than one ?) of outright TREASON.

What could more justify, argue towards, the stripping of that very citizenship ?

Putting it even more starkly: what kind of nonsense is it for a Nation State to look after its enemies ?? To give and grant them 'rights', when the betrayer, THE TRAITOR, would only seek harm against those conferring those 'rights' ?

Arbo

10-01-2013, 10:10 PM

Doesn't this basically miss the point ?

No. If we just ignore the law when we want to, we would not be a nation of laws, and we ARE a nation of laws.

So can you answer my question? Do you support government having the power to simply strip the citizenship and thus rights, away from any citizen that government see's as a threat to the nation?

Drummond

10-01-2013, 10:29 PM

No. If we just ignore the law when we want to, we would not be a nation of laws, and we ARE a nation of laws.

So can you answer my question? Do you support government having the power to simply strip the citizenship and thus rights, away from any citizen that government see's as a threat to the nation?

This still isn't quite the point.

The point is this: INTENTION isn't the ultimate arbiter .. if it were, we'd be getting into the realms of 'thought police'.

No, what matters is what an individual does, or is known to be about to do. A terrorist happening to have American citizenship through 'accident' of birth location, or the nationality of his or her parents, shouldn't - surely ! - receive any lessening of culpability which foreign enemies incur, because citizenship plays a part. Where this is even miniscually likely, then surely the offending citizenship should be removed.

For there to be any likelihood of this not happening, then an insult is implicit. The insult being that the significance and worth of the citizenship is demoted to a form of 'get out of jail free' device, where the traitorous individual, through means of the citizenship he or she chooses to abuse, has a greater right of immunity to summary justice which the traitor has otherwise richly earned.

Arguing otherwise surely, logically, means that terrorist groups hostile to the US and the West would be best served by converting as many AMERICANS to their disgusting agendas as they possibly can, because, by so doing, they can exploit citizenship rules to their own advantage.

Arbo

10-01-2013, 10:34 PM

Drummond

10-01-2013, 11:24 PM

You can push your country to do whatever you want. I don't care, as I am not a citizen of your country.

But over here in the USA, a citizen has rights and it doesn't matter what the crime is, there is a legal framework in place, and it will be used. Period. And it does not mean they 'get away' with anything, nor does it mean they are held in any way 'less accountable', it means we operate by the rule of law.

What it means is that an enemy from a foreign land will be regarded differently, and almost inevitably treated differently, from a terrorist who's an American citizen. Tell me I'm wrong if you can.

I'm curious. If an American terrorist is encountered abroad, what 'special treatment' would the traitorous American be given over other enemies ?

What furore would Lefties in your part of the world whip up, were news to filter through that an American 'citizen' had been killed by troops acting against terrorist enemies ? Because, as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, you can guarantee that the Left would go 'ape' over that one ! Any excuse ... !!

Kathianne

10-01-2013, 11:29 PM

Doesn't this basically miss the point ?

An individual acting as an enemy of the State is BETRAYING that citizenship. The act is one (or more than one ?) of outright TREASON.

What could more justify, argue towards, the stripping of that very citizenship ?

Putting it even more starkly: what kind of nonsense is it for a Nation State to look after its enemies ?? To give and grant them 'rights', when the betrayer, THE TRAITOR, would only seek harm against those conferring those 'rights' ?

Due to some upsets with your country a couple hundred + years ago, 'treason' was quite important in being defined by the Founders:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art3.asp

From Article 3:

Section 3 - Treason defined. Proof of. Punishment of.

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.

Drummond

10-02-2013, 05:37 PM

Due to some upsets with your country a couple hundred + years ago, 'treason' was quite important in being defined by the Founders:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art3.asp

From Article 3:

-- H'm.

I mean no disrespect to your Founders - generally speaking, quite the opposite, in fact.

It worries me, though, that a form of straitjacketing is in evidence. The world has moved on since their time, and I think it inconceivable that your Founders could have imagined some of the perils which today's world manages to throw up.

If it were possible - and I'm getting the message that it isn't - for America to move with the times so that there was enough latitude to evolve thinking and legislative need to fully meet and counter modern scenarios, this is surely the way America should go. If it really cannot budge enough to manage that process of evolution, I think it must follow that your responses to future threats will become increasingly inadequate.

In this instance -- terrorists clearly have an advantage to gain by recruiting Americans to their groups.

Arbo

10-02-2013, 05:50 PM

The world has moved on since their time, and I think it inconceivable that your Founders could have imagined some of the perils which today's world manages to throw up.

The genius of the founders was they knew they couldn't foresee everything, so they build a system with a process to change the system. However our elected officials don't use it, they avoid it. But in terms of terrorism, I think they quite well know what perils we could face, they were witness to atrocities in their time, and do not forget even Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran in an attempt to figure out Islam and what was behind the violence that lead to the Barbary War...

In this instance -- terrorists clearly have an advantage to gain by recruiting Americans to their groups.

What 'advantage' does a terrorist that is a citizen have over a terrorist that is not?

Drummond

10-02-2013, 06:34 PM

The genius of the founders was they knew they couldn't foresee everything, so they build a system with a process to change the system. However our elected officials don't use it, they avoid it. But in terms of terrorism, I think they quite well know what perils we could face, they were witness to atrocities in their time, and do not forget even Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran in an attempt to figure out Islam and what was behind the violence that lead to the Barbary War...

What 'advantage' does a terrorist that is a citizen have over a terrorist that is not?

Taking all of this into account, I find myself going back to my original thinking. If, indeed, present-day perils WERE forseen to a sufficient extent, then it makes no sense for a means not to be easily applied for a home-grown terrorist (one carrying US citizenship) to be summarily stripped of that, and not to instead enjoy any advantages which that citizenship would confer.

AN ENEMY IS AN ENEMY. A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR. Messing about with any of that simple truth invites pointless self-harm - of the sort that the Left, no doubt citing some sort of 'lofty standard', would love to argue for so as to make a terrorist's life even easier.

Answering your final point, one point is surely undeniable ? Say enforcement agencies (whoever they may be) take action against a US citizen which fails to take that citizenship into account, there'd be bleeding-heart types arguing for the sanctity OF that citizenship status, and requiring better treatment of the 'citizen'. Never mind that the 'citizen' is as much of an enemy as any terrorist from anywhere else. That wouldn't matter.

Here's an example of where US citizenship, and JUST that, made a difference ... in my view, scandalously so ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States#War_on_Terrorism

In November 2001, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was captured by Afghan Northern Alliance forces in Konduz, Afghanistan, amongst hundreds of surrendering Taliban fighters and was transferred into U.S. custody. The U.S. government alleged that Hamdi was there fighting for the Taliban, while Hamdi, through his father, has claimed that he was merely there as a relief worker and was mistakenly captured. Hamdi was transferred into CIA custody and transferred to the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, but when it was discovered that he was a U.S. citizen, he was transferred to naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia and then he was transferred brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The Bush Administration identified him as an unlawful combatant and denied him access to an attorney or the court system, despite his Fifth Amendment right to due process. In 2002 Hamdi's father filed a habeas corpus petition, the Judge ruled in Hamdi's favor and required he be allowed a public defender; however, on appeal the decision was reversed. In 2004, in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the U.S. Supreme court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition and ruled detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

I'd be willing to guess that the judge involved (as so many are ?) was a bleeding heart Leftie type. Agreed ?

Kathianne

10-02-2013, 06:40 PM

Taking all of this into account, I find myself going back to my original thinking. If, indeed, present-day perils WERE forseen to a sufficient extent, then it makes no sense for a means not to be easily applied for a home-grown terrorist (one carrying US citizenship) to be summarily stripped of that, and not to instead enjoy any advantages which that citizenship would confer. AN ENEMY IS AN ENEMY. A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR. Messing about with any of that simple truth invites pointless self-harm - of the sort that the Left, no doubt citing some sort of 'lofty standard', would love to argue for so as to make a terrorist's life even easier. Not agreeing with the government doesn't make one a traitor. That word has always been thrown about too much, in this country though almost impossible to prove in court. Have to go with the working definition in place, not what it means in other places.

Arbo

10-02-2013, 06:43 PM

Taking all of this into account,

So you don't want to answer the question? I thought it was simple, what 'advantage' does a citizen that is a terrorist have that a non citizen terrorist doesn't have?

Drummond

10-02-2013, 06:51 PM

So you don't want to answer the question? I thought it was simple, what 'advantage' does a citizen that is a terrorist have that a non citizen terrorist doesn't have?

Read my post in its entirety, rather than just cherrypicking what you prefer to read. You will find, if you pay enough attention, that I cite a case of that advantage materialising.

Drummond

10-02-2013, 06:54 PM

Not agreeing with the government doesn't make one a traitor. That word has always been thrown about too much, in this country though almost impossible to prove in court. Have to go with the working definition in place, not what it means in other places.

I've been talking about terrorists who become enemies of the US, whilst still keeping US citizenship.

A terrorist does rather more than just 'disagree with a Government'.

Arbo

10-02-2013, 07:01 PM

Read my post in its entirety, rather than just cherrypicking what you prefer to read. You will find, if you pay enough attention, that I cite a case of that advantage materialising.

I read it in it's entirety, but that was before you went back and added to it.

I see no 'advantage' that a terrorist that is a citizen has based on what you added to your post.

Kathianne

10-02-2013, 07:05 PM

I've been talking about terrorists who become enemies of the US, whilst still keeping US citizenship. A terrorist does rather more than just 'disagree with a Government'. This is right up there with, 'impeach the president!' There's a system, if anyone wants to push for an amendment to change Art. 3, Sec 3 let me know. Impeachment is far easier, since all it takes is for the House to write a bill of charges. Now getting them there, not to mention the problems in a Senate trial...

Drummond

10-02-2013, 07:11 PM

I read it in it's entirety, but that was before you went back and added to it.

I see no 'advantage' that a terrorist that is a citizen has based on what you added to your post.

Fair enough, then. I note that you read my piece before I added to it.

Even so, you've now seen the addition. Here's a partial quote from it - which shows, clearly, that advantage was judged to exist and be applicable. Observe ..

In 2004, in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the U.S. Supreme court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition and ruled detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

See that ? A US citizen who's also a terrorist, captured as a terrorist and detained as a terrorist would be .. BECAUSE of his US citizenship, can claim preferential 'rights' to combat terms of detention that would otherwise apply.

Arbo

10-02-2013, 07:33 PM

See that ? A US citizen who's also a terrorist, captured as a terrorist and detained as a terrorist would be .. BECAUSE of his US citizenship, can claim preferential 'rights' to combat terms of detention that would otherwise apply.

They can waste whatever time they want, if they are clearly a terrorist that committed an act of terrorism, none of that matters, lawyer or not, eventually they will go to trial and be found guilty.

logroller

10-02-2013, 08:45 PM

fj1200

10-03-2013, 09:11 AM

This, FJ, is just one big cop out. Clearly you're determined to slink away from any meeting of my challenge. I asked you to prove that a terrorist is human. And this is your reply.

And you are 'denying the undeniable'. What's undeniable is that a terrorist, in order to BE such, cannot have human qualities that would, if present, deny the capacity to act as one. You know it. I know it. Any rational thinker must know it.

But you'll deny the obvious truth all the same.

Cop out? No, truth. Claiming that copping out while at the same time not owning up to your own inability to prove your point is amusing indeed. Nevertheless you just stepped in it by attempting to redefine what you seek to prove. "Human qualities" is a highly subject measure that is completely different than whether a human being is definably a human being.

Now, please continue on with your deflection of stating that I can't meet your challenge when I have repeatedly. So meet my challenge you've been ducking for quite some time; at what level of mental retardation is an individual subhuman?

I agree that no terrorist should either have, or ever be considered to have 'earned', such a level of rights. Nonetheless, Lefties don't care. They'll single-mindedly pursue their quest for the 'human rights' of these butchers not caring, oblivious even, as to what impact this has on victims of terrorism, past, present, future. That's the point. To a Leftie, terrorist so-called 'human rights' supersede ANY AND ALL of that.

Blah, blah, blah, lefties. :rolleyes:

Impressed, eh ?

Impressed that you recognize the deficiencies of your banana position? Yes.

You win just because you say so ??

You cannot point to anything I say and prove it untrue. So how on earth can you still claim to have the BETTER argument, when you cannot come up with any countering argument possessing any substance ?? Just saying you have 'the better argument' and leaving it at that proves and achieves nothing at all.

Not because I say so but because I have the better argument... oops, did it again. Besides I already know my argument is better because instead of challenging my position you make the same argument over and over and you make it about me and my "leftieness." :slap:

Besides, the heart of your argument is untrue, every human being is in fact a human being even those that you are upset about sharing DNA with. :shrug: And then your logic falls from there; case in point your "leftie" diatribe above.

fj1200

10-03-2013, 09:12 AM

fj1200

10-03-2013, 09:24 AM

So why can't they be denied - stripped of - US citizenship ?

Surely, as enemies of the US, they are traitors to it, and 'earn' none of the benefits of citizenship ... indeed, to allow any of them to keep that citizenship is no less than an insult to the country providing it ?

I know Arbo mentioned the rule of law issue but it's another error of your logic. Citizens don't 'earn' benefits of citizenship, they are granted them by nature of being citizens in the first place. But that you seek an arbitrary 'stripping' of the benefits of citizenship without any sort of due process is not surprising to me.

Your last sentence really sums it up, too. Better thought out than my own answer would've been.

Except that his last sentence is a complete red herring.

Just like Clinton treated OBL and company after the first WTC bombing in 1993.
Treat our enemies like they have the same rights as citizens????
Tie up the court system, and demand our soldiers become witnesses while bringing all the evidence demanded by the Defense...back from the Battle site???
Really?

Almost no one, anyone?, is suggesting that every enemy combatant be granted the same rights as citizens and that they be tried in the court system of the US.

fj1200

10-03-2013, 09:36 AM

What it means is that an enemy from a foreign land will be regarded differently, and almost inevitably treated differently, from a terrorist who's an American citizen. Tell me I'm wrong if you can.

I'm curious. If an American terrorist is encountered abroad, what 'special treatment' would the traitorous American be given over other enemies ?

If an American is on the field of battle they will be targeted as any other soldier that has taken up arms against the US; see American citizens fighting with the Germans in WWII (SCOTUS decision IIRC). If they are captured then they are treated as citizens; See John Walker Lindh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh). And then there's the Awlaki case. You may not like how citizens are treated but we have a Constitution and laws not mere whims of big-government "conservatives."

What furore would Lefties in your part of the world whip up, were news to filter through that an American 'citizen' had been killed by troops acting against terrorist enemies ? Because, as sure as the Sun will rise tomorrow, you can guarantee that the Left would go 'ape' over that one ! Any excuse ... !!

:facepalm99:

fj1200

10-03-2013, 09:50 AM

It worries me, though, that a form of straitjacketing is in evidence. The world has moved on since their time, and I think it inconceivable that your Founders could have imagined some of the perils which today's world manages to throw up.

... for America to move with the times so that there was enough latitude to evolve thinking and legislative need to fully meet and counter modern scenarios, this is surely the way America should go. If it really cannot budge enough to manage that process of evolution...

Do you know what we call those here across the pond who show such loose constructionist "evolved" thinking about the Constitution? Democrats. You know... lefties. :slap:

AN ENEMY IS AN ENEMY. A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR. Messing about with any of that simple truth invites pointless self-harm - of the sort that the Left, no doubt citing some sort of 'lofty standard', would love to argue for so as to make a terrorist's life even easier.

...

Here's an example of where US citizenship, and JUST that, made a difference ... in my view, scandalously so ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States#War_on_Terrorism

I'd be willing to guess that the judge involved (as so many are ?) was a bleeding heart Leftie type. Agreed ?

:rolleyes:

Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Government#Executive_branch) does not have the power to hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without basic due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process) protections enforceable through judicial review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Drummond

10-03-2013, 12:55 PM

Cop out? No, truth. Claiming that copping out while at the same time not owning up to your own inability to prove your point is amusing indeed. Nevertheless you just stepped in it by attempting to redefine what you seek to prove. "Human qualities" is a highly subject measure that is completely different than whether a human being is definably a human being.

Bizarre. I've not changed any definition. A human being cannot be such without possessing human qualities. The clue's in the name !!!!

Terrorists are not human, as they possess no humanity. If they did, they'd have 'human qualities' such as empathy, mercy, etc. But if a terrorist had those qualities, it would cease to function as one. Terrorists which can function do so through failing to have those qualities.

... so. Are you yet ready to meet my challenge, or will you STILL persist in ducking it ?

Silly question, really .. you'll never stop ducking it. Just as you haven't yet .....

Blah, blah, blah, lefties. :rolleyes:

I prefer, 'YUK .. LEFTIES' !

Impressed that you recognize the deficiencies of your banana position? Yes.

Care to explain that ? Or .. is this something else for you to duck ?

Not because I say so but because I have the better argument ...

.. 'because you say so !!' EXACTLY -

oops, did it again.

... Yep, you did ....

Besides I already know my argument is better because instead of challenging my position you make the same argument over and over and you make it about me and my "leftieness." :slap:

I'm not in the habit of abandoning good arguments. Nor the truth.

Besides, the heart of your argument is untrue, every human being is in fact a human being even those that you are upset about sharing DNA with. :shrug: And then your logic falls from there; case in point your "leftie" diatribe above.

Skin cells taken from a human being have human DNA, but that does not make those skin cells A HUMAN BEING. Ditto a kidney, or a liver, or strands of hair, or fingernails, all of which will also have human DNA.

Humans are more than the fact of their DNA. Far more than that defines what they are. So, your argument that a terrorist must be human because it has human DNA is nonsense.

It's rather like my admittedly splendid 'banana' argument. Mash up a banana, and the mash will have the same makeup as a complete banana. Nonetheless, IT WON'T BE ONE.

Drummond

10-03-2013, 01:03 PM

If an American is on the field of battle they will be targeted as any other soldier that has taken up arms against the US; see American citizens fighting with the Germans in WWII (SCOTUS decision IIRC). If they are captured then they are treated as citizens; See John Walker Lindh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh). And then there's the Awlaki case. You may not like how citizens are treated but we have a Constitution and laws not mere whims of big-government "conservatives."

Quite. You make my case for me.

So, why shouldn't terrorists aim to PREFER to recruit Americans ? At minimum, there's propaganda value in it for them. Then again, that preferential treatment might just lead to their eventual release. To kill again. To be the TRAITORS they are.

fj1200

10-03-2013, 01:09 PM

Oh great, another of your uber-quoting clusterF*s. :rolleyes:

Bizarre. I've not changed any definition. A human being cannot be such without possessing human qualities. The clue's in the name !!!!

Terrorists are not human, as they possess no humanity. If they did, they'd have 'human qualities' such as empathy, mercy, etc. But if a terrorist had those qualities, it would cease to function as one. Terrorists which can function do so through failing to have those qualities.

... so. Are you yet ready to meet my challenge, or will you STILL persist in ducking it ?

Silly question, really .. you'll never stop ducking it. Just as you haven't yet .....

I haven't ducked anything. I see you've ducked this so well that you left it out of your post.

So meet my challenge you've been ducking for quite some time; at what level of mental retardation is an individual subhuman?
How bizarre that you complain about ducking then leave complete arguments out.

I prefer, 'YUK .. LEFTIES' !

You are related to lefties so closely; you both demand government action when miffed. :dunno:

Care to explain that ? Or .. is this something else for you to duck ?

What needs explaining? Are you that daft that you don't understand that your banana argument was so utterly stupid that to exceed it by an even marginal amount is not exactly impressive?

.. 'because you say so !!' EXACTLY -

And because my argument pwns you.

... Yep, you did ....

Who me???? :rolleyes:

I'm not in the habit of abandoning good arguments. Nor the truth.

If you find a good argument let me know because unfortunately you'll ride a bad argument to its death.

Skin cells taken from a human being have human DNA, but that does not make those skin cells A HUMAN BEING. Ditto a kidney, or a liver, or strands of hair, or fingernails, all of which will also have human DNA.

Humans are more than the fact of their DNA. Far more than that defines what they are. So, your argument that a terrorist must be human because it has human DNA is nonsense.

It's rather like my admittedly splendid 'banana' argument. Mash up a banana, and the mash will have the same makeup as a complete banana. Nonetheless, IT WON'T BE ONE.

What an amazing bit of logic. :rolleyes: Let me know when some skin cells, or a banana for that matter, start to terrorize you. I'm sure you'll demand a new government program to protect you from marauding tropical fruit and toenail clippings. You could put an eye out with one of those.

fj1200

10-03-2013, 01:12 PM

Quite. You make my case for me.

So, why shouldn't terrorists aim to PREFER to recruit Americans ? At minimum, there's propaganda value in it for them. Then again, that preferential treatment might just lead to their eventual release. To kill again. To be the TRAITORS they are.

:shrug: I'm sure they will try to recruit anyone dumb enough to join their little party. I prefer a rule of law over your version of big-government "conservatism" where rules are dispatched at the slightest whim. Why you want to grant government that sort of power is just mind boggling. And as you say they are traitors they will be dealt with as such; the punishment is rather severe.

logroller

10-03-2013, 01:25 PM

:shrug: I'm sure they will try to recruit anyone dumb enough to join their little party. I prefer a rule of law over your version of big-government "conservatism" where rules are dispatched at the slightest whim. Why you want to grant government that sort of power is just mind boggling. And as you say they are traitors they will be dealt with as such; the punishment is rather severe.
Drummond believes the founding fathers of the USA were lefties; the constitution a product of their bog standards-- he's a staunch British conservative, so I suppose such beliefs are befitting of his ideology.

Drummond

10-03-2013, 01:33 PM

Drummond believes the founding fathers of the USA were lefties; the constitution a product of their bog standards-- he's a staunch British conservative, so I suppose such beliefs are befitting of his ideology.

A most interesting claim, Logroller.

I invite you to show me the post, and/or quote my wording, where I made such a claim about the Foundling Fathers.

You will appreciate the importance of your doing so ? After all, you, as a Mod, shouldn't be open to any assertion of blatant misrepresentation of a forum member - yes ?

So prove your contention, Logroller, by showing me where I assert what YOU assert is my 'belief'.

aboutime

10-03-2013, 04:28 PM

A most interesting claim, Logroller.

I invite you to show me the post, and/or quote my wording, where I made such a claim about the Foundling Fathers.

You will appreciate the importance of your doing so ? After all, you, as a Mod, shouldn't be open to any assertion of blatant misrepresentation of a forum member - yes ?

So prove your contention, Logroller, by showing me where I assert what YOU assert is my 'belief'.

Sir Drummond. Pay no attention to Log or fj. As usual. Whenever they feel cornered. They must use the typical, liberal tactics that most always begin with the accusations, and name calling.
When they do that consistently....as they both do.
That proves they are threatened with the truth, and must use blame game, rhetoric to attempt to conceal their own IGNORANCE.
Too bad for them. It didn't work again.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-03-2013, 06:10 PM

Drummond believes the founding fathers of the USA were lefties; the constitution a product of their bog standards-- he's a staunch British conservative, so I suppose such beliefs are befitting of his ideology. While that may represent your beliefs on the guy it is far, far from having any truth in it. I dare say I know the man far better than any member here and he has no such belief IMHO . Now if presented as a dig I can get it(don't agree but understand) but presented as a true reflection on his intelligence and character it's absolutely wrong. I see he has replied to your accusation himself so I await your answer to his reply amigo. I have every confidence in his integrity and character myself. --Tyr

Drummond

10-03-2013, 08:09 PM

While that may represent your beliefs on the guy it is far, far from having any truth in it. I dare say I know the man far better than any member here and he has no such belief IMHO . Now if presented as a dig I can get it(don't agree but understand) but presented as a true reflection on his intelligence and character it's absolutely wrong. I see he has replied to your accusation himself so I await your answer to his reply amigo. I have every confidence in his integrity and character myself. --Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

Much appreciated, Tyr, and thanks to you too, Aboutime.

For me, it's not so much the misrepresentation of me that's an issue here -- more that we have a Mod on this forum doing this. I don't see that as acceptable !

So, Logroller, my challenge is repeated. BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

OR, APOLOGISE !!

fj1200

10-03-2013, 08:54 PM

:laugh:

Did I miss the tell-tale mod coloration? ;)

fj1200

10-03-2013, 09:03 PM

Drummond believes the founding fathers of the USA were lefties; the constitution a product of their bog standards-- he's a staunch British conservative, so I suppose such beliefs are befitting of his ideology.

And they displayed such gall in declaring that all men are created equal and are endowed with such inalienable rights as life and liberty... Leftie lingo right there and they top it off by defining treason and insisting on due process in denying one their life, liberty, or property. Just shameful, we need to evolve with our living and breathing Constitution into France and Britain; they got it goin' on with their socialism yo.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-03-2013, 09:20 PM

:clap::clap::clap:

Much appreciated, Tyr, and thanks to you too, Aboutime.

For me, it's not so much the misrepresentation of me that's an issue here -- more that we have a Mod on this forum doing this. I don't see that as acceptable !

So, Logroller, my challenge is repeated. BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

OR, APOLOGISE !! I am waiting for Logroller to do this myself.

So, Logroller, my challenge is repeated. BACK UP YOUR ASSERTION WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. I see that he did not post in red so it was indeed his personal opinion which he does indeed have every right to post. I do however , absolutely disagree with it in that particular case . --Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-03-2013, 09:24 PM

And they displayed such gall in declaring that all men are created equal and are endowed with such inalienable rights as life and liberty... Leftie lingo right there and they top it off by defining treason and insisting on due process in denying one their life, liberty, or property. Just shameful, we need to evolve with our living and breathing Constitution into France and Britain; they got it goin' on with their socialism yo. Talking like Obama now are ya? --Tyr

Just shameful, we need to evolve with our living and breathing Constitution into France and Britain; they got it goin' on with their socialism yo. I see Obama wanting to be a one man Constitution changer. Never mind that he has no such authority!! --Tyr

fj1200

10-03-2013, 09:28 PM

Talking like Obama now are ya? --Tyr

Nope, talking like another great leftie (though he denies it). ;)

I see Obama wanting to be a one man Constitution changer. Never mind that he has no such authority!! --Tyr

A post so good you quoted it twice. :thumb:

logroller

10-04-2013, 04:01 AM

A most interesting claim, Logroller.
Piqué a boo to you.

I invite you to show me the post, and/or quote my wording, where I made such a claim about the Foundling Fathers.
Ill decline for I don't believe one need say something to believe it. In fact, I think that's how one convinces others to believe, not their own self.

You will appreciate the importance of your doing so ? After all, you, as a Mod, shouldn't be open to any assertion of blatant misrepresentation of a forum member - yes ?

If you have an issue with my actions as a mod take it to admin-- I KNOW that's in the rules. Misrepresentation, besides modifying quotes, is not. So clearly you're mentioning of my staff position is misplaced or irrelevant and if you think you can bully me by doing so you are sorely mistake that I would appreciate such. As it is, and I believe it to be so, that you just don't like being pegged as a Tory :boohoo:

So prove your contention, Logroller, by showing me where I assert what YOU assert is my 'belief'.
I didn't say you made such an assertion-- I said it was your belief-- I challenge you to show where I said you said it. besides, you don't get to dictate what amounts to proof any more than I can dictate to you.
what i said was it is a belief you hold in regards to your demonstrative ideology-- A contingent implication that explains your posts and positions. I know what you are and I don't feel the need to prove it to you. Besides, you'll just dodge it anyways running off into some illogical strawman diatribe rife with bog lefty this or that.ive tried being reasonable wih you, and for my efforts I've been assailed with pejorative 'misrepresentations'. But seeing as youre interested in what sort of things evidence your belief the list would be expansive so for sake of breviy, here:

An individual acting as an enemy of the State is BETRAYING that citizenship. The act is one (or more than one ?) of outright TREASON.
No. They're betraying their country. Here in the US we have legally defined traitor and citizen, the punishment for being a traitor is death, not losing citizenship. likewise is citizenship defined and it is legally conferred; with almost no exception, it is not something which is revocable. (relinquish-able, but not revocable) there's a law on that too. What you have done is contrive an argument which is contemptuous towards organic and statutory law of the United States. But as I said, you're a staunch British conservative so it makes sense your beliefs would have contempt for US law.

What could more justify, argue towards, the stripping of that very citizenship ?
a law that stipulates such-- Just as citizenship is defined by law.

Putting it even more starkly: what kind of nonsense is it for a Nation State to look after its enemies ?? To give and grant them 'rights', when the betrayer, THE TRAITOR, would only seek harm against those conferring those 'rights' ?
You clearly don't understand, due to an ideological rejection of the founding principle of the USA that, nation state or not a government doesn't grant or confer rights. Such is part of the organic law of the United States of America that rights are inalienable and not only is the government to respect this but indeed the primary institutional purpose of govt is to secure these rights. While it may be convenient to assuage concern over government violating these rights by labeling someone a terrorist, traitor, betrayer etc, it does little to secure the rights and consent of those governed. What does secure rights and the consent of the governed is a public accusation and trial, due process as it were, and not socking someone away indefinitely under the guise of trust us, we're the government and we know what's best.

While that may represent your beliefs on the guy it is far, far from having any truth in it.
oh I didn't realize you were our great benefactor of all truth.

I dare say I know the man far better than any member here and he has no such belief IMHO .
I dare to disagree. He demonstrates his contempt for the organic laws penned by our founding fathers without abandon. Perhaps you turn a blind eye because of shared bias passion.

Now if presented as a dig I can get it(don't agree but understand) but presented as a true reflection on his intelligence and character it's absolutely wrong. I see he has replied to your accusation himself so I await your answer to his reply amigo. I have every confidence in his integrity and character myself. --Tyr
I didn't imply or say anything about his intelligence, character or integrity-- thats a 'misrepresentation' of what I said. What i said implied that he had an ideological belief system that falls to the right of the founding fathers on the nature of rights and the legitimate government function of protecting those rights. If he's to the right that makes the founding fathers lefties from his perspective-- And he has made no secret about his beliefs about those to the left and their lesser standards.

I'm no Shakespeare but I can read through a script and figure out the narrative. Drummond's is government gives 'rights' so govt can take them away at their sole discretion absent oversight or public scrutiny. Pretty sure this was a point of contention previously that the liberals had with the staunch right that led to our independence and you of all people I believe are keenly aware of the founding fathers' position on limiting government's surreptitious nature. The now proverbial admonition of governments not being changed for light and transient causes acknowledged the traditionalistic aspect of conservatism; but indefinite detention without trial was not considered light to our forefathers and history is full of examples that dispel any notion of transience.

So when I see such an argument as well thought out as drummond's presented I take notice of the abject practices it serves to defend; and find its defensible only to an ideology that our founding fathers met with opposition. When I and others have objected to Drummond's arguments they are responded to with vitriolic assertions of the other engaging in bog lefty terrorist sympathy-- yet n'er a peep from you. I simply transposed the presenter of the bog lefty argument with the originalists of these foundational principles on rights and government's observance of them-- and here you boastfully deny such is his belief-- sorry bro, if the shoe fits.... Is that a dig? I don't know, maybe, the truth hurts sometimes.

Drummond

10-04-2013, 06:04 AM

I didn't imply or say anything about his intelligence, character or integrity-- thats a 'misrepresentation' of what I said.
That bothers you, does it, Logroller ?

-- OK. Interesting.

In reply to my challenge, I see you ducked it, with ...

Ill decline for I don't believe one need say something to believe it.

Rather more to the point, you made an accusation based upon, apparently, your BELIEF regarding what you claim I myself believe. You cannot justify your assertion with any evidence that you're correct - you've been challenged to, but you've failed that challenge.

Nonetheless, you made your assertion, certainly initially, as though it were fact. WHICH IT IS NOT - at absolute best, it's a 'belief' you CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE.

If you have an issue with my actions as a mod take it to admin-- I KNOW that's in the rules. Misrepresentation, besides modifying quotes, is not. So clearly you're mentioning of my staff position is misplaced or irrelevant and if you think you can bully me by doing so you are sorely mistake that I would appreciate such. As it is, and I believe it to be so, that you just don't like being pegged as a Tory :boohoo:

Doesn't this argument miss the point ?

A relative newcomer to this forum may read your assertion and just assume that what you say must be true, (a) because why would you claim what you do except from certain knowledge (WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE) and (b) because, being a Mod, you're surely meant to treat members of this forum reputably and responsibly ??

Such a newcomer would expect any Mod on a publicly-posted forum such as this to uphold a standard of integrity, since this itself represents the value of this forum in the mind of any viewer of it. BUT .. are you doing any such thing, by stating - as though it were fact - something you have, in the final analysis, NO GOOD REASON TO CLAIM ??

Perhaps, Logroller, you don't think the reputation of a forum such as this actually matters. I say - PERHAPS. After all, it would explain why you want to make assumptions about others' beliefs, and then, with you being a Mod here, you run with that, NOT KNOWING THAT WHAT YOU PUBLICLY STATE IS TRUE.

I don't believe that Jim backed your being a Mod here, thinking that you'd go on to act in a manner that reflects adversely on this forum's reputation.

Am I not right about that ?

So I will ask you, once more, for your apology.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-04-2013, 06:52 AM

oh I didn't realize you were our great benefactor of all truth. Nor I you. However show me where I stated ALL truth. Even more amazing that you fault him while you state as fact what you believe to be his beliefs!-Tyr

I dare to disagree. He demonstrates his contempt for the organic laws penned by our founding fathers without abandon. Perhaps you turn a blind eye because of shared bias passion.
No, he actually gives his interpretation of conservatism and rightly and soundly condemns terrorism. What you and fj take umbrage to is his hard stand against it, preferring a much softer approach. Your interpretation of the accumulation of his posts here bear no greater insight and wisdom than do mine Hoss. My advantage in regards to this is I've had many private conversations with D and can safely vouch for his character with better understanding than either of you two. I dare say he does not need me to defend him but since you saw fit to include me in your rendition of his errors in opposing terrorism I feel it only right to point out your over generalizations of the sum of his accumulated posts on the subject. That I share his spirit in wanting a harder line taken against the terrorists surely leads me to agree with his comments and understand his reasoning on the matter. -Tyr

I didn't imply or say anything about his intelligence, character or integrity-- thats a 'misrepresentation' of what I said. What i said implied that he had an ideological belief system that falls to the right of the founding fathers on the nature of rights and the legitimate government function of protecting those rights. If he's to the right that makes the founding fathers lefties from his perspective-- And he has made no secret about his beliefs about those to the left and their lesser standards. -- Yes, you actually did take a stab at his character IMHO. -Tyr

I'm no Shakespeare but I can read through a script and figure out the narrative. Drummond's is government gives 'rights' so govt can take them away at their sole discretion absent oversight or public scrutiny. Pretty sure this was a point of contention previously that the liberals had with the staunch right that led to our independence and you of all people I believe are keenly aware of the founding fathers' position on limiting government's surreptitious nature. The now proverbial admonition of governments not being changed for light and transient causes acknowledged the traditionalistic aspect of conservatism; but indefinite detention without trial was not considered light to our forefathers and history is full of examples that dispel any notion of transience. AHHH, so his firm and hard stand against the terrorists riles you . Well, isn't that your problem and not his? ;)--Tyr

So when I see such an argument as well thought out as drummond's presented I take notice of the abject practices it serves to defend; and find its defensible only to an ideology that our founding fathers met with opposition. When I and others have objected to Drummond's arguments they are responded to with vitriolic assertions of the other engaging in bog lefty terrorist sympathy-- yet n'er a peep from you. I simply transposed the presenter of the bog lefty argument with the originalists of these foundational principles on rights and government's observance of them-- and here you boastfully deny such is his belief-- sorry bro, if the shoe fits.... Is that a dig? I don't know, maybe, the truth hurts sometimes. Sure thing, the truth hurts often but that is a two way street amigo. All this stems from Drummond's very hardline stand against the current Obama policies that make it ever softer on terrorists and terrorism and you and fj take such offense to. I agree with him on it wholeheartedly so why should I take a peep about it except to support it? Obama drone strikes certain terrorists while he promotes and coddles others. Such behavior points to one thing to me. That he only wants certain terrorist groups to survive and advance which also points to his being on one side of the great schism in Islam. We should be asking why is he on any side of that great divide since it's his sworn duty to be on our side! Yet many would rather attack people that express a dedicated and sincere wish for all terrorist scum to be treated as they should be. -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-04-2013, 07:32 AM

That bothers you, does it, Logroller ?

-- OK. Interesting.

In reply to my challenge, I see you ducked it, with ...

Rather more to the point, you made an accusation based upon, apparently, your BELIEF regarding what you claim I myself believe. You cannot justify your assertion with any evidence that you're correct - you've been challenged to, but you've failed that challenge.

Nonetheless, you made your assertion, certainly initially, as though it were fact. WHICH IT IS NOT - at absolute best, it's a 'belief' you CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE.

Doesn't this argument miss the point ?

A relative newcomer to this forum may read your assertion and just assume that what you say must be true, (a) because why would you claim what you do except from certain knowledge (WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE) and (b) because, being a Mod, you're surely meant to treat members of this forum reputably and responsibly ??

Such a newcomer would expect any Mod on a publicly-posted forum such as this to uphold a standard of integrity, since this itself represents the value of this forum in the mind of any viewer of it. BUT .. are you doing any such thing, by stating - as though it were fact - something you have, in the final analysis, NO GOOD REASON TO CLAIM ??

Perhaps, Logroller, you don't think the reputation of a forum such as this actually matters. I say - PERHAPS. After all, it would explain why you want to make assumptions about others' beliefs, and then, with you being a Mod here, you run with that, NOT KNOWING THAT WHAT YOU PUBLICLY STATE IS TRUE.

I don't believe that Jim backed your being a Mod here, thinking that you'd go on to act in a manner that reflects adversely on this forum's reputation.

Am I not right about that ?

So I will ask you, once more, for your apology. This listed below was the dodge in my opinion. It represents quite a large pass in that when asked to present hard evidence one just gets to say, well it's your overall demeanor and manner of speaking.. Which is a very subjective interpretation always.. Your very hardline stand on terrorists and terrorism is what this is largely about. The tossing in of matters on American Constitutional rights and laws is just diversionary tactics included to get support because we as Americans will naturally side with our Constitution. So erroneously painting you as an anti-Constitutionalist is par for the course for your opposition. Because you support government taking a larger and tougher stand against terrorism the opposition wants to paint you as a big government stooge! As if we individual citizens can and should be going overseas to fight it or else we should all just ignore it! Both of which are silly. Our government was formed so that we could pursue our lives without being subject to defending individually the constant attacks on our freedoms/rights by enemies both foreign and domestic.

Ill decline for I don't believe one need say something to believe it. --Yet one still must prove it or else its just personal musings? Right Log?-Tyr

logroller

10-04-2013, 08:16 AM

Hey all ye tories, feel free to continue this in the cage.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43375-The-redcoats-are-coming&p=668488#post668488

Arbo

10-04-2013, 08:17 AM

Drummond believes the founding fathers of the USA were lefties; the constitution a product of their bog standards-- he's a staunch British conservative, so I suppose such beliefs are befitting of his ideology.

Perhaps he's just mad that when the british took some americans prisoner and abused and tortured them, we responded in kind, at times one upping them. Of course, in general we treated british prisoners well, as George Washington wanted to set a new tone and not be like europeans were. But on occasion we had no choice but to sink to their level to force their hand and get them to actually treat our people as humans.

logroller

10-04-2013, 08:38 AM

Perhaps he's just mad that when the british took some americans prisoner and abused and tortured them, we responded in kind, at times one upping them. Of course, in general we treated british prisoners well, as George Washington wanted to set a new tone and not be like europeans were. But on occasion we had no choice but to sink to their level to force their hand and get them to actually treat our people as humans.
For the most part the British treatment of captives was par for the day. What I'm talking about is citizens being mistreated by their own givernment. Its iff topic but i didnt breach the subject. The attempts to undermine this under the guise of taking a hard line against terrorism is a red herring. Its their entire MO and when they get called out for what it is, they say its besides the point and mass together like a Africanized bees.

Arbo

10-04-2013, 08:51 AM

For the most part the British treatment of captives was par for the day. What I'm talking about is citizens being mistreated by their own givernment. Its iff topic but i didnt breach the subject. The attempts to undermine this under the guise of taking a hard line against terrorism is a red herring. Its their entire MO and when they get called out for what it is, they say its besides the point and mass together like a Africanized bees.

Oh, I know, I never got a real answer to my question asking if he supported government having the power to simply strip citizenship because government see's someone as 'bad'. Nor any real example of any 'advantage' one has because they have those rights. But it certainly seems that some WOULD like the government to have total dictatorial power to strip citizens of their rights. IMHO, this thinking is no different than that of terrorists.

fj1200

10-04-2013, 10:25 AM

No, he actually gives his interpretation of conservatism and rightly and soundly condemns terrorism. What you and fj take umbrage to is his hard stand against it, preferring a much softer approach. Your interpretation of the accumulation of his posts here bear no greater insight and wisdom than do mine Hoss. My advantage in regards to this is I've had many private conversations with D and can safely vouch for his character with better understanding than either of you two.

All this stems from Drummond's very hardline stand against the current Obama policies that make it ever softer on terrorists and terrorism and you and fj take such offense to. I agree with him on it wholeheartedly so why should I take a peep about it except to support it? Obama drone strikes certain terrorists while he promotes and coddles others.

Oh please. He barely even knows what my stance is because once he faces a hint of opposition to his views he goes straight to the "leftie card" and personal jabs and doesn't let go until he just weasels away. As far as his interpretation of "conservatism" it's pretty clear what he is for and that seems to be an unfortunate expansion of state powers over the individual. I can't even imagine that you agree with him on many points because your views are in direct conflict; not giving certain leaders, wink wink nudge nudge, powers that are ripe for abuse.

And FWIW I would have no idea what sort of insight you might get from a private conversation between two people of the same mind that we wouldn't get from scads of posts where he actually faces some opposition to his views.

jimnyc

10-04-2013, 11:41 AM

Drummond

10-04-2013, 03:18 PM

Arbo

10-04-2013, 03:20 PM

Highly presumptive, maybe a little imaginative, but rot all the same. An invented argument.

Do you have a link to factual information that disproves the historical facts that back up what I said?

Drummond

10-04-2013, 03:27 PM

For future reference

Moderators are free game as far as debating with, should they engage you. But please don't bring them into debates, as moderators, or their decisions, as a part of the debate. In fact, them being a moderator shouldn't even be a part of the discussion. It's in the rules here for a reason and that reason is from plenty of experience. If you guys have an issue with a moderators actions, please shoot me a PM asap and I will handle accordingly, but we're not going to have open court or venting about stuff around the board. Nothing new to see with that statement either, a rule I've been enforcing for well over 10 years now.

Carry on.

I note what you say here, Jim.

So, OK. Even leaving the Mod status completely out of it, this little shooting match began with:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?43182-Massacre-in-Kenya&p=668374#post668374

.. with the text (and unsupported accusation) from Logroller, saying:

Drummond believes the founding fathers of the USA were lefties; the constitution a product of their bog standards--

Logroller's been challenged to justify this statement by producing any evidence that I think any such thing. The challenge, not at all surprisingly, was ducked.

And it's really that simple.

I have a right to represent my beliefs, viewpoints, for what they ARE, and to face down anyone choosing to say that they are OTHER than what they ARE.

This I have done, I consider to satisfactory completion, with the example of Logroller's inventiveness we've been discussing.

Hopefully I will not have to do this all again at some future time.

Drummond

10-04-2013, 03:35 PM

Do you have a link to factual information that disproves the historical facts that back up what I said?

Not the point. You began your text by saying:

Perhaps he's just mad that ....

You invented that suggestion. In fact, nothing of what you've described entered my mind at all, until you decided to suggest that it 'motivated' me.

But at least you've gone one better than Logroller did, and drew back from asserting - as though it was FACT - that this 'motivation' was definitely the case.

Congratulations.

Drummond

10-04-2013, 03:38 PM

This listed below was the dodge in my opinion. It represents quite a large pass in that when asked to present hard evidence one just gets to say, well it's your overall demeanor and manner of speaking.. Which is a very subjective interpretation always.. Your very hardline stand on terrorists and terrorism is what this is largely about. The tossing in of matters on American Constitutional rights and laws is just diversionary tactics included to get support because we as Americans will naturally side with our Constitution. So erroneously painting you as an anti-Constitutionalist is par for the course for your opposition. Because you support government taking a larger and tougher stand against terrorism the opposition wants to paint you as a big government stooge! As if we individual citizens can and should be going overseas to fight it or else we should all just ignore it! Both of which are silly. Our government was formed so that we could pursue our lives without being subject to defending individually the constant attacks on our freedoms/rights by enemies both foreign and domestic.

--Yet one still must prove it or else its just personal musings? Right Log?-Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Arbo

10-04-2013, 03:42 PM

Drummond

10-04-2013, 03:52 PM

Your own posting proves out the 'challenge'. And BTW, LR already pointed that out. You suggest that being a citizen of this nation somehow provides a terrorist with some sort of 'advantage', when it fact it does not. Terrorists are either killed or captured and jailed. Period. Doesn't matter if they are citizens or not. Along that line in earlier discussion, you suggested that a government should have the power to strip away citizenship from citizens it deems as 'bad' so that these citizens do not have whatever (imaginary) advantage you were talking about. To suggest giving the government such power is very authoritarian, which is very right of what the Founding Fathers believed in and very right of the government they formed via the Constitution. Thus 'left' compared to your beliefs.

As for 'inventing' a suggestion. :laugh: Interesting phrasing.

I thought I'd already provided a link showing otherwise ??

Perhaps you weren't paying attention before. No matter, here we go again. I shall REpost this link ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_United_States#War_on_Terrorism

In November 2001, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, was captured by Afghan Northern Alliance forces in Konduz, Afghanistan, amongst hundreds of surrendering Taliban fighters and was transferred into U.S. custody. The U.S. government alleged that Hamdi was there fighting for the Taliban, while Hamdi, through his father, has claimed that he was merely there as a relief worker and was mistakenly captured. Hamdi was transferred into CIA custody and transferred to the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, but when it was discovered that he was a U.S. citizen, he was transferred to naval brig in Norfolk, Virginia and then he was transferred brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The Bush Administration identified him as an unlawful combatant and denied him access to an attorney or the court system, despite his Fifth Amendment right to due process. In 2002 Hamdi's father filed a habeas corpus petition, the Judge ruled in Hamdi's favor and required he be allowed a public defender; however, on appeal the decision was reversed. In 2004, in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the U.S. Supreme court reversed the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition and ruled detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge.

Are you claiming that this applies to detainees regardless of their origin or nationality, OR, is it true that a US citizen can claim preferential judicial consideration ??

Arbo

10-04-2013, 03:58 PM

I thought I'd already provided a link showing otherwise ??

As I said before, WHO CARES if they can question their detainment, if the evidence shows they are a terrorist, they will remain detained. That is not an 'advantage' in any manner.

It is noted you did not refute anything else in that post.

Drummond

10-04-2013, 04:11 PM

As I said before, WHO CARES if they can question their detainment, if the evidence shows they are a terrorist, they will remain detained. That is not an 'advantage' in any manner.

It is noted you did not refute anything else in that post.

I picked the bit of your post that I thought was worth replying to .. and that was a regurgitation of 'old' material, that you maybe didn't pay enough attention to before ?

But as for the rest of it, well, AGAIN, I find myself drawing on a previous argument (in substance, anyway).

A so-called 'citizen' retains citizenship as something which describes his or her status. Now .. I ask, how on earth can an ENEMY of the country continuing to maintain that citizenship status, possibly be earning its continuation ?

If I wanted to apply for US citizenship, I'd have to jump over all sorts of hurdles to prove I had 'earned', or could have the 'right', to any such thing .. AND VERY RIGHTLY SO, since citizenship shouldn't be retained by anyone not proving that they have a right to it.

But you want to take - if I get this correctly - the stance that even an ENEMY of the US shouldn't be considered to be in default of any right to keep that citizenship ???

My argument has been, and continues to be, that this is a complete nonsense. More, an offensive nonsense.

Is my argument now understood ? I find it a pointless exercise to keep going over old ground .....

Arbo

10-04-2013, 04:19 PM

Drummond

10-04-2013, 04:30 PM

I have understood your argument from the first time you posted it. It was knocked down by the reality that we are a nation of laws, our citizens have certain rights and the government thus can not just strip citizenship from them.

This is how it works, and no matter how much you do not like it.

... and it being known that those managing to hang on to their citizenship are ENEMIES of the State permitting this ... this doesn't matter ?

I have shown you that US citizens can claim preferential judicial treatment compared to other detained enemies. I see no sense, nor justice, in that being possible !

Arbo

10-04-2013, 04:54 PM

... and it being known that those managing to hang on to their citizenship are ENEMIES of the State permitting this ... this doesn't matter ?

Who cares? A criminal is a criminal, a terrorist is a terrorist, they will all be killed or brought to justice.

I have shown you that US citizens can claim preferential judicial treatment compared to other detained enemies. I see no sense, nor justice, in that being possible !

The article you posted shows they can have a lawyer and question their detainment, as I previously said, so what. If the government has evidence of them being a terrorist in any fashion, they will still be detained.

fj1200

10-04-2013, 07:27 PM

... and it being known that those managing to hang on to their citizenship are ENEMIES of the State permitting this ... this doesn't matter ?

I have shown you that US citizens can claim preferential judicial treatment compared to other detained enemies. I see no sense, nor justice, in that being possible !

It's an irrelevant point. We have a Constitution, treason has been defined, domestic terrorists are tried and prosecuted; a distinction with little difference unless you can point to a large number of domestic terrorists that have been released to cause further mayhem. And even if so the legislative branch has the role of offering legislative fixes.

Drummond

10-04-2013, 07:46 PM

Who cares? A criminal is a criminal, a terrorist is a terrorist, they will all be killed or brought to justice.

You're sure of that ?

Gitmo detainees stay where they are. They are interrogated as and when deemed necessary or appropriate. They are treated like the enemies they are.

But you can't reasonably claim that terrorists keeping US citizenship will get the same treatment. That they will be under the same controls. That interrogators will have the same latitude for interrogation of 'US citizens'.

Your own statement doesn't mention, or consider, the interrogation aspect of detention. Why is that ? Because you know that there would be critical differences ?

The article you posted shows they can have a lawyer and question their detainment, as I previously said, so what.

See above.

If the government has evidence of them being a terrorist in any fashion, they will still be detained.

.. but not treated the same. Besides, what we're talking about is the application of judicial process. What if the 'US citizen' gets a bleeding heart judge ?

Drummond

10-04-2013, 07:48 PM

It's an irrelevant point. We have a Constitution, treason has been defined, domestic terrorists are tried and prosecuted; a distinction with little difference unless you can point to a large number of domestic terrorists that have been released to cause further mayhem. And even if so the legislative branch has the role of offering legislative fixes.

Preferential treatment is IRRELEVANT ?

Is this one of those times when your Leftie thinking gets the better of you ?

fj1200

10-04-2013, 08:36 PM

Preferential treatment is IRRELEVANT ?

Constitutionally speaking yes and unless you can point to an epidemic of domestic terror being unleashed due to "preferential" treatment... practically speaking yes.

Is this one of those times when your Leftie thinking gets the better of you ?

:laugh: I'm a leftie like you torture puppies. ;)

aboutime

10-04-2013, 08:42 PM

Constitutionally speaking yes and unless you can point to an epidemic of domestic terror being unleashed due to "preferential" treatment... practically speaking yes.

:laugh: I'm a leftie like you torture puppies. ;)

fj. If Obama gives preferential treatment...WAIVERS against OBAMACARE. Why wouldn't he give preferential treatment to our enemies....like the Muslim Brotherhood members who deny, along with many here, and Obama that such people exist??

Like.....5642. And, there is no need for any links to pacify those who hate so much. They'd deny their own Mother...if she called them Liars.

Larrymc

10-04-2013, 08:47 PM

Constitutionally speaking yes and unless you can point to an epidemic of domestic terror being unleashed due to "preferential" treatment... practically speaking yes.

:laugh: I'm a leftie like you torture puppies. ;):lol: Alright you guys, this has been interesting, but talk of torturing PUPPIES is getting a little serious:laugh:

fj1200

10-04-2013, 08:49 PM

:lol: Alright you guys, this has been interesting, but talk of torturing PUPPIES is getting a little serious:laugh:

;)

aboutime

10-04-2013, 08:50 PM

:lol: Alright you guys, this has been interesting, but talk of torturing PUPPIES is getting a little serious:laugh:

Agreed Larrymc. A terrible metaphor to use. Leave the puppies out of it.:laugh:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-04-2013, 08:57 PM

Oh please. He barely even knows what my stance is because once he faces a hint of opposition to his views he goes straight to the "leftie card" and personal jabs and doesn't let go until he just weasels away. As far as his interpretation of "conservatism" it's pretty clear what he is for and that seems to be an unfortunate expansion of state powers over the individual. I can't even imagine that you agree with him on many points because your views are in direct conflict; not giving certain leaders, wink wink nudge nudge, powers that are ripe for abuse.

And FWIW I would have no idea what sort of insight you might get from a private conversation between two people of the same mind that we wouldn't get from scads of posts where he actually faces some opposition to his views. As if people do not talk more bluntly and often with deeper and better explained convictions in private conversations. Should you ever really get on my short list/(good list) I'd straighten you out in a few pms too. :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

Drummond

10-04-2013, 08:58 PM

:lol: Alright you guys, this has been interesting, but talk of torturing PUPPIES is getting a little serious:laugh:

... yes, well. The 'puppy torturing' jibe is a depth that FJ has sunk to in other threads.

No doubt, in future moments of desperation in any other 'debates', we'll see it again ....

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-04-2013, 09:00 PM

Preferential treatment is IRRELEVANT ?

Is this one of those times when your Leftie thinking gets the better of you ? Leftie, Bog , LIBERAL -- are taboo words amigo. Try using moderate or progressives or even majestic divine one. The filthy beasts like those words much better. :laugh2: :beer: :laugh2:--Tyr

fj1200

10-04-2013, 09:06 PM

As if people do not talk more bluntly and often with deeper and better explained convictions in private conversations. Should you ever really get on my short list/(good list) I'd straighten you out in a few pms too. :laugh::laugh::laugh:--Tyr

:fingerscrossed:

... yes, well. The 'puppy torturing' jibe is a depth that FJ has sunk to in other threads.

No doubt, in future moments of desperation in any other 'debates', we'll see it again ....

Still don't understand do you? Not surprising.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

10-04-2013, 09:16 PM

:fingerscrossed: . Great post... ;)

fj1200

10-04-2013, 09:17 PM

Great post... ;)

Thank you, it was awesome.

Arbo

10-05-2013, 06:34 AM

You're sure of that ?

Not just yes, but YES.

You seem to want to invent this strange 'advantage' that doesn't exist, all the while ignoring what a government does with the sort of powers you want them to have (i.e., abuse them).

Drummond

10-05-2013, 06:45 AM

Leftie, Bog , LIBERAL -- are taboo words amigo. Try using moderate or progressives or even majestic divine one. The filthy beasts like those words much better. :laugh2: :beer: :laugh2:--Tyr

I'll give it some thought ! :laugh:

How about ... 'Der Fuehrer' .. ?? Does that strike the right note ? :laugh:

Perhaps if I threw in a qualifier to modify the offending word ? For example .. 'Leftie GIT' ...
... H'MM. Giving it more thought. Though .. I may have to extend my vocabulary .... :laugh2:

Watch this space, folks !

fj1200

10-05-2013, 06:52 AM

How about ... 'Der Fuehrer' .. ?? Does that strike the right note ? :laugh:

It does fit with your untermensch stance. :dunno:

Drummond

10-05-2013, 06:57 AM

Not just yes, but YES.

You seem to want to invent this strange 'advantage' that doesn't exist, all the while ignoring what a government does with the sort of powers you want them to have (i.e., abuse them).

Are you quite sure you don't mean .. YES ?!? Just thought I'd ask ...

More seriously, though, I think you're confirming that there's no real, actual, point in debating with you. I mean ... I've posted a link TWICE now, each time showing you an example of where clear advantage was supplied to a 'suspect' possessing American citizenship. Yet, despite that, you just blithely go on to talk about an advantage 'that doesn't exist'.

... I mean ... REALLY ... what's the point ?? You've been SHOWN you're wrong, REPEATEDLY even, and you just disregard it all ! At the risk of using 'taboo' terminology, don't we see here an example of 'bog standard Leftie' thinking in action .. where the only reality recognised and argued in favour of is a preferred one, and where if reality doesn't serve, fiction WILL ???

This is ridiculous - enough, already !!!

P.S - er'm, if this really is nothing more than an attention span problem of yours, I offer you my sympathy. 'Get well soon', my son ...

Drummond

10-05-2013, 07:04 AM

It does fit with your untermensch stance. :dunno:

Hardly. 'Untermensch' was a fiction originating from Hitler, applied to people completely undeserving of any such categorisation.

However, real life subhumans (i.e terrorists, lacking the humanity to prove they're anything else), well, we see what they get up to, don't we, on a daily basis ....

Drummond

10-05-2013, 07:09 AM

Still don't understand do you? Not surprising.

I don't understand puppy torturing ? Well done ... you've found something we can agree on. Indeed, I cannot understand that.

I leave such jibes for you to offer ...

Arbo

10-05-2013, 07:44 AM

I've posted a link TWICE now, each time showing you an example of where clear advantage

Perhaps the issues is your understanding of what an 'advantage' is? As stated far too many times already: If a citizen commits an act of terrorism, they will be held accountable. They will not simply 'get away with it' because they are a citizen. What part of that do you not understand?

You've been SHOWN you're wrong, REPEATEDLY even, and you just disregard it all !

You have argued that government should have the ability to strip a citizen of their citizenship. I have shown you time and time again why they can NOT do that (ie, the Constitution), yet you keep on keeping on about it. Sorry, your desires go against our Constitution, deal with it.

fj1200

10-05-2013, 02:12 PM

... I mean ... REALLY ... what's the point ?? You've been SHOWN you're wrong, REPEATEDLY even, and you just disregard it all !

But what have you actually shown but a SCOTUS decision that pointed to your "leftie" gibe also being wrong.

... unless you can point to an epidemic of domestic terror being unleashed due to "preferential" treatment...

fj1200

10-05-2013, 02:17 PM

Hardly. 'Untermensch' was a fiction originating from Hitler, applied to people completely undeserving of any such categorisation.

However, real life subhumans (i.e terrorists, lacking the humanity to prove they're anything else), well, we see what they get up to, don't we, on a daily basis ....

Actually untermensch is a German word that defines exactly your position. That you also resort to subjective definitions and propaganda in espousing that opinion is not exactly happenstance.

I don't understand puppy torturing ? Well done ... you've found something we can agree on. Indeed, I cannot understand that.

I leave such jibes for you to offer ...

I'm not sure to what extent you understand puppy torturing but you clearly are unaware of an analogy.

Drummond

10-06-2013, 12:30 PM

Perhaps the issues is your understanding of what an 'advantage' is?

Are you for real, Arbo ? Give me a break !!

As stated far too many times already: If a citizen commits an act of terrorism, they will be held accountable. They will not simply 'get away with it' because they are a citizen. What part of that do you not understand?

What I understand is that they will be treated DIFFERENTLY. They're far more likely (or is that 'guaranteed') to get their time in court. If fortunate, the judge (no doubt on some technicality or other, or maybe an especially Lib judge will try the case ?) will set the American FREE.

Perhaps you think that would be a great outcome for its future victims ?

You have argued that government should have the ability to strip a citizen of their citizenship. I have shown you time and time again why they can NOT do that (ie, the Constitution), yet you keep on keeping on about it. Sorry, your desires go against our Constitution, deal with it.

I don't know if your statement really is accurate or not - being an Englishman, I can't claim expertise when it comes to your Constitution. All I can say is what must be obvious .. terrorist groups out there would have to be crazy to not think there was an advantage (that word again ..) to recruiting Americans.

Deal with it.

Drummond

10-06-2013, 12:37 PM

Actually untermensch is a German word that defines exactly your position. That you also resort to subjective definitions and propaganda in espousing that opinion is not exactly happenstance.

How kind of you to 'assist' in helping me 'understand' the word 'untermensch', FJ. Rather presumptive of you to imagine that I needed that help .. or to put it another way, how typically 'you' ..

'Untermensch' ... or, 'Under Human'. Taken to mean, 'beneath the state of human', which is what Hitler meant by it (and as a German speaker himself, from a country using German as its native language, surely he'd know ??).

Yes. I do understand, thank you - NICHT schwer. Verstehen sie dass ???

I'm not sure to what extent you understand puppy torturing but you clearly are unaware of an analogy.

-- Spare me.

Arbo

10-06-2013, 02:59 PM

Are you for real, Arbo ? Give me a break !!

Considering you keep using the same example of an 'advantage' that is not an advantage, nope, not joking at all.

What I understand is that they will be treated DIFFERENTLY.

In the end, no, a citizen that is a terrorist get's the same punishment than a non-citizen that is a terrorist.

They're far more likely (or is that 'guaranteed') to get their time in court. If fortunate, the judge (no doubt on some technicality or other, or maybe an especially Lib judge will try the case ?) will set the American FREE.

Their 'time in court' is a right, oh for shame we use our justice system. :rolleyes: The rest is pure fantasy.

aboutime

10-06-2013, 04:12 PM

Considering you keep using the same example of an 'advantage' that is not an advantage, nope, not joking at all.

In the end, no, a citizen that is a terrorist get's the same punishment than a non-citizen that is a terrorist.

Their 'time in court' is a right, oh for shame we use our justice system. :rolleyes: The rest is pure fantasy.

Sir Drummond. As of today. SUNDAY, 6 October 2013.
I am now convinced, beyond all doubt.
fj, logroller, and arbo are all...either related, or sharing the same vacuum they call a brain.

aboutime

10-06-2013, 08:57 PM

Sir Drummond. As of today. SUNDAY, 6 October 2013.
I am now convinced, beyond all doubt.
fj, logroller, and arbo are all...either related, or sharing the same vacuum they call a brain.

:salute:And, as our Soldiers, and Marines on the ground in Afghanistan try to stay alive.

They get tired of hearing their enemy yelling those familiar words...just before they blow themselves up, or attempt to kill Americans. The Words "ALLAH ACKBAR", have been translated into American street language everyone understands like this....."ALLAH SNACKBAR!"
Supposedly, those words are a prediction of what the WILD DOGS will have to eat AFTER the enemy SPREADS their body parts around.
ALLAH SNACKBAR. A fitting tribute like.....5647 this.:poke:

Arbo

10-07-2013, 08:49 AM

Sir Drummond. As of today. SUNDAY, 6 October 2013.
I am now convinced, beyond all doubt.
fj, logroller, and arbo are all...either related, or sharing the same vacuum they call a brain.

It's funny, I get publicly criticized for pointing out the above stupidity, the above stuff being what the users were told to quit doing. And most often such things are moved to the 'cage' to clear the threads. There has been talk of thread bans for such things as well. Funny, no public criticism for the above OT crap, it wasn't moved to the 'cage' AND the user posted again, so was not thread banned. No doubt I will get criticism for this post though. No consistency.

fj1200

10-07-2013, 08:50 AM

How kind of you to 'assist' in helping me 'understand' the word 'untermensch', FJ. Rather presumptive of you to imagine that I needed that help .. or to put it another way, how typically 'you' ..

'Untermensch' ... or, 'Under Human'. Taken to mean, 'beneath the state of human', which is what Hitler meant by it (and as a German speaker himself, from a country using German as its native language, surely he'd know ??).

Yes. I do understand, thank you - NICHT schwer. Verstehen sie dass ???

Of course, I'm just making sure that you're fully aware of your ideological forebears.

-- Spare me.

Agreed, your self-righteous indignation is comical.

fj1200

10-07-2013, 08:59 AM

... the above stuff being ...

Meh, it's the above stuff that points to the vacuousness of their position. For one who has publicly stated his oath to the Constitution while also agreeing with the argument that citizenship should be stripped just because terrorist; or even the mere accusation of one. Sometimes you just need to let the special kid be the special kid. ;)

jimnyc

10-07-2013, 02:27 PM

Sir Drummond. As of today. SUNDAY, 6 October 2013.
I am now convinced, beyond all doubt.
fj, logroller, and arbo are all...either related, or sharing the same vacuum they call a brain.

aboutime - can you please stop making personal comments/attacks in your replies. Normally I would let the smaller things go like this, and save the "moderation" for when the fists are really flying, but obviously that's not good enough for everyone. Some are going to be upset whether we do or do not moderate.

It's funny, I get publicly criticized for pointing out the above stupidity, the above stuff being what the users were told to quit doing. And most often such things are moved to the 'cage' to clear the threads. There has been talk of thread bans for such things as well. Funny, no public criticism for the above OT crap, it wasn't moved to the 'cage' AND the user posted again, so was not thread banned. No doubt I will get criticism for this post though. No consistency.

Sure, and EVERY other member that you refer to as the "cabal" tells me the same when I moved posts or asked them to cease their activities. Save your crap, I hear it from everyone. You obviously have no idea what is moderated, what isn't and the why's - so please save your micro-managing and worry about yourself. Rather than report posts all week long, why not just place a certain member on ignore and be done with it?

Either way, you don't get to get pissy and make your lame complaints public like this instead of doing what is expected as per the rules. And if you don't get something moderated as you would like, just keep on moving along, it's not an invitation for you to start airing your little kindergarten gripes.

EVERYONE - please, for the love of God, let me enjoy the board too. Sure, report things that are truly bad for the board, but don't report others for lame little things just trying to get them in trouble. And if you have someone on ignore, which you should ALL do, then please don't continue to mention the person on ignore as a way of poking at them with a stick.