Poll on Christmas Bomber

[Nobunaga]

Just when I think that you couldn't possibly be a bigger idiot...

... pussy

[Phatscotty]

... Incredible, this legalist approach to war. You guys (lawyers) are among the list of reasons we're going to lose at least a few thousand more citizens to these animals before it's through.

... The man is the member of an organization at war with the United States. He attempted to kill as many as he could by destroying an airplane, a good soldier (for his side).

... Slap on the chains and toss him in a deep, dark hole.

... And this guy (as a side note) rather dispels the myth of poverty as a cause for radicalization, eh.

...

hear hear!

I see what you criminalist approach guys are saying, I really do, about human rights. We should never just throw people in the slammer without being charged. I am against the detainees being held at guantanamo bay without being charged. I have always said "Charge them or let them go". Are any of you guys hoping at all that the bomber is found innocent, or beats the system??? just curious.

[Phatscotty]

WHOA WHOA WHOA

Lets back up a step, andlets ask the bigger question. whenever dealing with the united states government, every citizen of the world has the privilege of US citizenship?

[Neoteny]

... Incredible, this legalist approach to war. You guys (lawyers) are among the list of reasons we're going to lose at least a few thousand more citizens to these animals before it's through.

... The man is the member of an organization at war with the United States. He attempted to kill as many as he could by destroying an airplane, a good soldier (for his side).

... Slap on the chains and toss him in a deep, dark hole.

... And this guy (as a side note) rather dispels the myth of poverty as a cause for radicalization, eh.

...

He is allegedly a member of an organization at war with the US. I don't see why you guys (conservatives) suspend all sense of reality when it comes to the issue you guys feel entitled to some sense of authority over (homeland security). We are the USA. We are supposedly some sort of beacon of righteousness, yet we are all too eager to dismiss due process when we are perceived as a victim. Let the man have a trial for f*ck's sake. He's going to be proven guilty either way, just not slaughtered in some barbaric ritual.

For the record, the myth of poverty as a cause for radicalization has been previously dismissed. We atheists of course point out that religion is a pretty common factor in these events...

war on drugs and war on potheads is retarded to compare to massacring innocents......

It's not, because neither are wars in the traditional sense.

... Incredible, this legalist approach to war. You guys (lawyers) are among the list of reasons we're going to lose at least a few thousand more citizens to these animals before it's through.

... The man is the member of an organization at war with the United States. He attempted to kill as many as he could by destroying an airplane, a good soldier (for his side).

... Slap on the chains and toss him in a deep, dark hole.

... And this guy (as a side note) rather dispels the myth of poverty as a cause for radicalization, eh.

...

hear hear!

I see what you criminalist approach guys are saying, I really do, about human rights. We should never just throw people in the slammer without being charged. I am against the detainees being held at guantanamo bay without being charged. I have always said "Charge them or let them go". Are any of you guys hoping at all that the bomber is found innocent, or beats the system??? just curious.

Of course not. But we have a system for a reason.

[SultanOfSurreal]

syrum

lol

[Neoteny]

syrum

lol

I totally forgot to include a criticism of that. Good catch.

lrn2lookintelligent.

[Phatscotty]

syrum

lol

I totally forgot to include a criticism of that. Good catch.

lrn2lookintelligent.

Some people are just used to being against popular opinion.

[Phatscotty]

There is a war going on, okay? Either we are going to lay down, or we are going to stand up. Which is it?

[Neoteny]

Giving a terrorist a fair trial does not seem to me to be lying down. It seems to me that we would be taking the moral high road, while they are resorting to the low. It might not seem fair, since the retribution is not as harsh, but we have this system for a reason.

[colton24]

You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used aginst you in the Court of Law. You have the right to be represented by an attorney. If you can't afford one the court will assign you one...

TRUTH SYRUM

[Phatscotty]

Giving a terrorist a fair trial does not seem to me to be lying down. It seems to me that we would be taking the moral high road, while they are resorting to the low. It might not seem fair, since the retribution is not as harsh, but we have this system for a reason.

the rule breakers ALWAYS WIN if the opponent ALWAYS plays by the rules. I am sorry, but it really is a choice between roughing a guy up for information and potentially devastating-world changing terrorist activities that could be worse than 9-11. This is serious shit. WE should be acting as if the airplane did blow up, and imagine perhaps airplanes would just be getting back into the air from a world wide no fly zone????? Reality can suck man, ya know?

do not under-estimate the overall value of a good public-stoning

[sully800]

WE should be acting as if the airplane did blow up

So we shouldn't even TRY to question him.

[Phatscotty]

WE should be acting as if the airplane did blow up

So we shouldn't even TRY to question him.

he is supposed to be DEAD

[Woodruff]

... Incredible, this legalist approach to war. You guys (lawyers) are among the list of reasons we're going to lose at least a few thousand more citizens to these animals before it's through.

... The man is the member of an organization at war with the United States. He attempted to kill as many as he could by destroying an airplane, a good soldier (for his side).

... Slap on the chains and toss him in a deep, dark hole.

... And this guy (as a side note) rather dispels the myth of poverty as a cause for radicalization, eh.

...

hear hear!

I see what you criminalist approach guys are saying, I really do, about human rights. We should never just throw people in the slammer without being charged. I am against the detainees being held at guantanamo bay without being charged. I have always said "Charge them or let them go". Are any of you guys hoping at all that the bomber is found innocent, or beats the system??? just curious.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I stated quite clearly what I was hoping for by having a trial. Did you overlook it?

[Phatscotty]

... Incredible, this legalist approach to war. You guys (lawyers) are among the list of reasons we're going to lose at least a few thousand more citizens to these animals before it's through.

... The man is the member of an organization at war with the United States. He attempted to kill as many as he could by destroying an airplane, a good soldier (for his side).

... Slap on the chains and toss him in a deep, dark hole.

... And this guy (as a side note) rather dispels the myth of poverty as a cause for radicalization, eh.

...

hear hear!

I see what you criminalist approach guys are saying, I really do, about human rights. We should never just throw people in the slammer without being charged. I am against the detainees being held at guantanamo bay without being charged. I have always said "Charge them or let them go". Are any of you guys hoping at all that the bomber is found innocent, or beats the system??? just curious.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I stated quite clearly what I was hoping for by having a trial. Did you overlook it?

no, your point was too valid for me to pay any attention to.

[Woodruff]

Giving a terrorist a fair trial does not seem to me to be lying down. It seems to me that we would be taking the moral high road, while they are resorting to the low. It might not seem fair, since the retribution is not as harsh, but we have this system for a reason.

the rule breakers ALWAYS WIN if the opponent ALWAYS plays by the rules.

I'm afraid I disagree completely (again). If we DON'T "play by the rules", then we lose ALL credibility in trying to get other nations to play by the rules. We lose our credibility in expecting anyone else to play by the rules. This is precisely why our military forces should still ALWAYS abide by the Geneva Conventions...not because we expect that our enemies will (many times, we expect that they will not), but because by doing so ourselves, we ensure that our indiscretions can't be used against us.

WE should be acting as if the airplane did blow up

I actually agree with you on this, as far as his sentencing/punishment goes...but the difference is that if the airplane had blown up, we wouldn't have a perpetrator. Since we DO have one, we should be following our procedures.

do not under-estimate the overall value of a good public-stoning

I'm afraid the value of it in this case would be to justify to many in the world that the terrorists might just be right about us.

[Woodruff]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I stated quite clearly what I was hoping for by having a trial. Did you overlook it?

no, your point was too valid for me to pay any attention to.

Uh...I don't know how to take that. Perhaps you mis-stated something here?

[Neoteny]

Giving a terrorist a fair trial does not seem to me to be lying down. It seems to me that we would be taking the moral high road, while they are resorting to the low. It might not seem fair, since the retribution is not as harsh, but we have this system for a reason.

the rule breakers ALWAYS WIN if the opponent ALWAYS plays by the rules. I am sorry, but it really is a choice between roughing a guy up for information and potentially devastating-world changing terrorist activities that could be worse than 9-11. This is serious shit. WE should be acting as if the airplane did blow up, and imagine perhaps airplanes would just be getting back into the air from a world wide no fly zone????? Reality can suck man, ya know?

do not under-estimate the overall value of a good public-stoning

Yeah, reality can suck, and often does. But I'd rather die in that reality with clearly defined morals, indeed, by living by the standards to which I propose we all rise up, than live with the shame of being a hypocrite steeped in his own cowardice. A tragedy was averted, and we should celebrate this, but the potential for tragedy should not supersede the culmination of an entire history of ethical thought. You are suggesting that we lower ourselves to their level, and soil ourselves in the same shit they thrust upon themselves. How you can defend that is beyond me. You are giving some mystical power to the results of terrorism by showing such fear of it, and that is exactly the goal they are trying to achieve. Sacrifices must be made, sure, and lives will likely be lost, but if we can't stand for the ideals that we claim are superior, how are we going to convince terrorist that those ideas are indeed superior?

[Neoteny]

"A good stoning..." You really are no better than they are. f*ck off.

[Iliad]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I stated quite clearly what I was hoping for by having a trial. Did you overlook it?

no, your point was too valid for me to pay any attention to.

Uh...I don't know how to take that. Perhaps you mis-stated something here?

Or he just finally broke.

[Phatscotty]

Giving a terrorist a fair trial does not seem to me to be lying down. It seems to me that we would be taking the moral high road, while they are resorting to the low. It might not seem fair, since the retribution is not as harsh, but we have this system for a reason.

the rule breakers ALWAYS WIN if the opponent ALWAYS plays by the rules.

I'm afraid I disagree completely (again). If we DON'T "play by the rules", then we lose ALL credibility in trying to get other nations to play by the rules. We lose our credibility in expecting anyone else to play by the rules. This is precisely why our military forces should still ALWAYS abide by the Geneva Conventions...not because we expect that our enemies will (many times, we expect that they will not), but because by doing so ourselves, we ensure that our indiscretions can't be used against us.

WE should be acting as if the airplane did blow up

I actually agree with you on this, as far as his sentencing/punishment goes...but the difference is that if the airplane had blown up, we wouldn't have a perpetrator. Since we DO have one, we should be following our procedures.

do not under-estimate the overall value of a good public-stoning

I'm afraid the value of it in this case would be to justify to many in the world that the terrorists might just be right about us.

well, you are completely discounting the actions of the CIA, FBI, state, federal, and local police, they really don't play by the rules. CIA is a necessary evil my friend, and the don't give a shit about human rights, and every single country has an agency that equally does not give a shit about human rights. if your point is that we have to play by the rules out in the open, I will hear that. But I am coming more from an element of human nature. Humans still mostly believe an eye for an eye. I am also coming to the entire subject believing terrorism is war. I can see that is where we are miscommunicating. public stoning, please focus on theword "overall". have you ever seen the short movie "the lottery"? its a clip that my uber lib english professor bombed us with. if you see it you may be able to get the perspective.


Did Lincoln play by the rules firing on US citizens for protesting the draft?
Did Roosevelt follow the rules about 2 terms during WW2?
Did Churchill follow to rules when he retaliated for germany bombing British civilians, by bombing german civilians?

But we survived

Rule #1 Survive

[notyou2]

Try making a poll that isn't ridiculous to the extreme if you want to be taken serious phatty

[Woodruff]

Giving a terrorist a fair trial does not seem to me to be lying down. It seems to me that we would be taking the moral high road, while they are resorting to the low. It might not seem fair, since the retribution is not as harsh, but we have this system for a reason.

the rule breakers ALWAYS WIN if the opponent ALWAYS plays by the rules.

I'm afraid I disagree completely (again). If we DON'T "play by the rules", then we lose ALL credibility in trying to get other nations to play by the rules. We lose our credibility in expecting anyone else to play by the rules. This is precisely why our military forces should still ALWAYS abide by the Geneva Conventions...not because we expect that our enemies will (many times, we expect that they will not), but because by doing so ourselves, we ensure that our indiscretions can't be used against us.

WE should be acting as if the airplane did blow up

I actually agree with you on this, as far as his sentencing/punishment goes...but the difference is that if the airplane had blown up, we wouldn't have a perpetrator. Since we DO have one, we should be following our procedures.

do not under-estimate the overall value of a good public-stoning

I'm afraid the value of it in this case would be to justify to many in the world that the terrorists might just be right about us.

well, you are completely discounting the actions of the CIA, FBI, state, federal, and local police, they really don't play by the rules.

That is no excuse at all. Because some organizations in our nation are fucked up is not an excuse to give up and let all of them be fucked up.

CIA is a necessary evil my friend

The CIA has a very important mission. However, that is not an excuse for them to operate outside of the law.

and the don't give a shit about human rights, and every single country has an agency that equally does not give a shit about human rights.

What other countries do is irrelevant to what we should be doing.

if your point is that we have to play by the rules out in the open, I will hear that.

I suppose it's better than nothing, but no...I don't agree that's the way things must be done.

But I am coming more from an element of human nature. Humans still mostly believe an eye for an eye.

I'm not one that necessarily believes that a majority opinion is the correct or appropriate stance. Commonness is, more often than not, a reason to go AGAINST something.

I am also coming to the entire subject believing terrorism is war.

I don't disagree that it's a war, but it is an IDEOLOGICAL war more than it is a militaristic war. You don't win an idealogical war with weapons, you win an ideological war by SHOWING THAT YOUR IDEOLOGY is one that respects people and allows them to thrive (because that is, primarily, what people really want). Will it work on everyone who disagrees with your ideology? Of course not...but it IS the only chance.

[BigBallinStalin]

I admire Phatty's stamina.

[Neoteny]

I don't know that stamina can be counted when the overall total worth of his arguments isn't really that impressive. It's like crediting someone for plagiarizing. Sure, it looks like a lot, but the effort isn't really there.