Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Merigold
Even a criminal has rights.

He doesn't have a right to mingle with others who have also declared war against the USA and he doesnt' have a right to correspond with others who still are on jihad against us. that's common sense.

It's a WAR afterall. Even if Obama doesnt' want to use the term. That's exactly what it is. (Kinda makes you wonder why he won't use the term and why he's so soft on anti-American terrorists.)

A war is when two countries are fighting against each other. What this is: an organization who has hate for the United States due to our support for Israel and involvement in the Middle East.

It's not a war...especially when the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia....and we didn't do a damn thing except waste time in Afghanistan and then invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
A war is when two countries are fighting against each other.

You are behind the times. Welcome to 2009. Radical Islam declared war against the USA. They declared it against our country. America is at war with radical Islam. That's just the way it is.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
A war is when two countries are fighting against each other.

You are behind the times. Welcome to 2009. Radical Islam declared war against the USA. They declared it against our country. America is at war with radical Islam. That's just the way it is.

No, sorry. lol.

They can declare whatever they want against us. It's not a war.


Unless you mean the War on Terror...which was and still is a huge scam. Putin even considered slaughtering Chechens part of the so called War on Terror.

So, Americans killing civilians in Pakistan. Is that a war? Sending troops to Afghanistan to waste time and let Bin Laden get away...is that a war?

The only war I saw was an unjust one when we bombed Iraq to hell and slaughtered over 500,000 Iraqis...in fact, the body count is a million now, isn't it?



[edit on 31-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

[edit on 31-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
No, sorry. lol.

Yes. Sorry. lol

The only war I saw was an unjust one when we bombed Iraq to hell

- Saddam went to war against Kuwait and lost.
- The ceasefire agreement, which he agreed to, had certain requirements.
- Breaking any of the ceasefire requirements would lead to FORCE against Iraq.
- Saddam continually broke the UN ceasefire resolutions.
- Saddam knew the consequences. Therefore,Iraw was Saddams fault.

Oh .. and Iraq is not 'bombed to hell'. It's being run better then when Saddam was in power stealing billions from the Oil for Food program and mass murdering Iraqis and Kurds.

and slaughtered over 500,000 Iraqis...in fact, the body count is a million now, isn't it?

WOW you certainly have your facts wrong.

Like i said. Welcome to 2009. The world is at war.

ON TOPIC -
The Shoe Bomber should NOT be allowed correspondence with jihadists.
The Shoe Bomber should NOT be allowed to comingle with jihadists.
It's absolutely insane to allow such a thing.

Wow.

Someone take this. This is just too much for me

Iraq is much better now? The "war" against Saddam was justified? What? Excuse me? Are you living under a rock and believe everything the government tells you? I guess so.

The world is at war yes...it's always been at war. There has always been mass slaughter since the beginning of our species

You need to take your hand out of the sand and realize the so called War on Terror is a scam that gives superpowers a reason to slaughter civilians. If anything, we caused war. You think dropping bombs on homes in Iraq bettered that country and bettered the world? One dead Iraqi = 10 dead American soldiers. This massacre of civilians and our soldiers was a disgrace.

And listen, these men (what you call "terrorists"..).are not boogeymen. They aren't comic book villains. They're Religious fanatics who want to blow sh*t up in the name of their Religion. You really think they're going to sit at the table in prison eating mashed potatoes plotting to take over the country?

Then you are living in a world of paranoia..

Also, You mention Saddam broke some agreements. Did you forget the bombs we dropped down on his country throughout the 90s?



[edit on 31-7-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Merigold
Even a criminal has rights.

He doesn't have a right to mingle with others who have also declared war against the USA and he doesnt' have a right to correspond with others who still are on jihad against us. that's common sense.

It's a WAR afterall. Even if Obama doesnt' want to use the term. That's exactly what it is. (Kinda makes you wonder why he won't use the term and why he's so soft on anti-American terrorists.)

I disagree on several levels, but first I want to remark that a lot of unfocused anti-Obama rhetoric is receiving stars here while the one person who seems to understand the original intent of our legal and penal systems has received naught but criticism.

Having said that, he does indeed have the right. He does not maintain the right to correspond privately, however, so if he's truly well-connected (doubt that) and chooses to correspond with organized terrorists (bad idea), he'll just be providing material for the intelligence agencies. Pragmatically speaking, there's no solid argument for sending people like this anywhere but prison. Terrorism is a crime.

But more interestingly, I dispute your assertion that there is a war on between 'Terrorism' and these United States. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. Terrorism is a tactic which has been and will be employed by states, stateless organizations, and criminals. Can you wage war on carpet bombing? Can you wage war on sanctions designed to starve a population until they capitulate? No. Both of these actions are clearly amoral, but they are actions, not groups of people. So who are you at war with, then? Al Q'aida? Who exactly is Al Q'aida? If you can't quite put your finger on it, I don't blame you. Neither can the CIA. So what then? You're at war with anti-U.S. extremists? All of them? Are they at war with you in any organized way? Well, it depends how you define organized, but a little practicality helps us to see that they certainly are not organized in the sense that a state or a group of states working together would be considered 'organized'.

It's a seductive idea, sure, but where is it getting us?

Well, it was used to get us into Iraq and Afghanistan, that much is clear. But who are we at war with there? Ourselves more than anyone; always trying to show that we are not at war with the general populace while at the same time trying not to be killed. Who are the bad guys? In Iraq, many of them are just pissed-off natives. We call them 'terrorists' and 'insurgents', and perhaps some of them are. Most of them, however, are probably quite a lot like the sort of people you'd run up against if you tried to invade and occupy the Deep South. Perhaps they fly flags that say in Arabic "Don't tread on me."


[edit on 31-7-2009 by JohnnyElohim]

Just a quick addenda: please avoid the temptation to rebut that your claim is not that we are at war with 'Terrorism' but instead with 'Radical Islam'. The argument opposes both notions in it's present form, as one can hardly be at war with an ideology.

I think we might be missing the boat on this one, by design.

What happens to a prisoner that is hated by many when he is allowed to commingle with other prisoners? He's shanked.

This is an easy way for the administration to get the other criminals to do their dirty work.

"this just in, the infamous 'shoe-bomber' was found hanged in his cell this morning"

problem solved. We're just being played.

The shoe bomber is a retard. He had shoe laces made out of prima cord or B-Line which explode at 20,000 ft. per second when struck VERY hard with a hammer. This idiot was trying to initiate detonation by lighting the cord with a lighter. DOH!!

Being a retard, I think they took pity on him

If prisioners dont like rapist, child molesters. Then let them put this terrorist with the prison public, I have faith that the prisoners will take care of this guy, like they do the child molesters.

I agree with KSPigpen, I didnt read what he wrote til after I wrote mine.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by isa75]

Originally posted by KSPigpen
What happens to a prisoner that is hated by many when he is allowed to commingle with other prisoners? He's shanked.

Yes, but he's not housed in a prison where he'd be comingling with people who hate him. He'll be with those who share his vision of Jihad.

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
one can hardly be at war with an ideology.

OF COURSE we can be at war with the people who support, and put into practice, an idiology that is out to destroy us. It happens all the time. It's happening now on many fronts and with many different idiologies. The ideology of radical Islamic Jihad against the USA, and those that adhere to it, are at war with us.

Originally posted by JohnnyElohim
so if he's truly well-connected (doubt that)

He was definately 'connected' before prison. He took orders.
As for your 'doubting it' ... that's your subjective opinion.

and chooses to correspond with organized terrorists (bad idea),

Blowing up a plane is a bad idea as well, but that didn't stop him from giving it a try.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.

Those that engage in terrorism are the enemy.

ON TOPIC .... Obama is going soft on The Shoe Bomber.
He's put into place people in the justice dept who have a history
of going soft on terrorists. Holder has a history of being soft
on non-radical Islamic terrorists as well.

That's not anti-Obama 'rhetoric'. It's just the ugly truth about Obama.

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Someone take this. This is just too much for me

The truth is too hard for you to deal with? Poor boy.

You mention Saddam broke some agreements.

I didn't 'mention' it. I stated facts. Those broken UN cease fire resolutions are why we had to go back into Iraq. Saddam called the fire down upon his head. He started Gulf War I. He lost. He broke the cease fire. The end. Deal with it.

Did you forget the bombs we dropped down on his country throughout the 90s?

No. But it looks like you forgot why we did.
And it also looks like the truth of why we did is 'too much for you'.
Poor lil' guy.

Originally posted by Miraj
You state Sadam's actions as wrong. But who the hell gave the US. the right to go, bomb, shoot, and invade anyone who they see's as the bully.

*sigh* Read and learn, young grasshopper.

AGAIN -

- Saddam started Gulf War I.
- Saddam lost Gulf War I.
- Saddam agreed to UN cease fire resolutions.
- Saddam continually broke those UN cease fire resolutions.
- Saddam knew that by breaking them he was subject to force coming in.

The UN and Saddam himself are 'who the hell' gave us the right to enforce the UN ceasefire resolutions. And we didn't just go 'invade anyone'. We enforced resolutions against Iraq that Saddam himself agreed to after he lost the war against Kuwait that he started.

OY ... the blame america first crowd ...

BACK TO BEING ON TOPIC

Obama is going soft on The Shoe Bomber.
He's put into place people in the justice dept who have a history
of going soft on terrorists. Holder has a history of being soft
on non-radical Islamic terrorists as well.

That's not anti-Obama 'rhetoric'.
It's just the ugly truth about Obama.

Attorney General Eric Holder is involved. Gee. No surprise there. Holder wants these terrorists who are waging war against America put into civilian prison

Holder of Clintons pardon-gate - got Marc Rich off.
Holder of 'help the FALN' fame.
Holder of getting Rosenberg and Evans, of the WEATHER UNDERGROUND off fame.
Holder of Telecom Global Crossing fame.
Holder with his extensive ties to Blago. (gotta' love that Chicago politics!)

Seriously guys?

Eric Holder does a LOT of cases, notice the title; "Attorney General." So you should lump in there a few more where he comes down like a ton of bricks. But more than that, a Lawyer has to take the side of people you don't like. What is important, is whether he is respecting the RULES.

Is this about Obama or Holder? Make up your mind.

The Weather Underground never hurt anyone -- they went after buildings. And their sentiments were aligned with 70% of the country who were sick and tired of Vietnam -- unless revisionist history got the better of everyone here, that thing went on long after our tolerance gave out and President's ran on campaigns promising withdrawal. Just misguided people who were trying to change America for the better but used the wrong tactics. But really, we might still be in Vietnam if the hippies hadn't started getting pissed off.

If you want to be angry about something -- go for the real issues.

Holder may have some issues,... but the "terrorism" threat is so overblown. We lose more people to traffic accidents, accidental police fire, and slipping in bath tubs.


The government has still not removed BushCo policies throttling our Constitution and the Lobbyists are still writing policy: now with the Dems rather than the Republicans. If you guys go after the weekly Obama rant instead of policy -- you are going to miss the target. Obama is doing some things wrong -- but not against the wishes of Congress -- he's merely the referee in this pork fest.

Monsanto is pushing laws to require farmers grow it's pesticide riddle franken foods.
The giant Health Insurance Corporations are scuttling real reform so that they don't lose any profits while you and I are losing the crappy healthcare we are barely hanging onto -- I can't wait until I can afford my next root canal and to visit the doctor because I'm a little short this month. Money is rationing me now.

But are we really going to keep going with this Birther conspiracy nonsense, or "soft on terror -- BE AFRAID?" The thing that increases terrorism is people not feeling like there is justice. NO matter how much you abhor the acts of the "bad guys" they don't wake up in the morning thinking they are bad guys and chuckling with insane glee. They feel as self-righteously motivated as any abortion clinic attacker. Actually, the clinic attacks are worse -- because these idiots already are getting listened to and respected, far beyond merit.

Can we just spawn off a section of ATS for all the Obama is an alien junk, so I can avoid it?

Deranged lunatics are not influenced by huge punishments -- so we need to let the courts handle terrorism cases as if they were for common criminals. The less attention paid, the better. We certainly did need to pass the Patriot Act I and II or any of the other Constitution destroying policies the last 8 years -- we did a much better job with the FBI in charge during the 1990's.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Miraj
You state Sadam's actions as wrong. But who the hell gave the US. the right to go, bomb, shoot, and invade anyone who they see's as the bully.

*sigh* Read and learn, young grasshopper.

AGAIN -

- Saddam started Gulf War I.
- Saddam lost Gulf War I.
- Saddam agreed to UN cease fire resolutions.
- Saddam continually broke those UN cease fire resolutions.
- Saddam knew that by breaking them he was subject to force coming in.

The UN and Saddam himself are 'who the hell' gave us the right to enforce the UN ceasefire resolutions. And we didn't just go 'invade anyone'. We enforced resolutions against Iraq that Saddam himself agreed to after he lost the war against Kuwait that he started.

OY ... the blame america first crowd ...

>> Saddam DID NOT start Gulf War I. Saddam invaded Kuwait -- based on James Baker saying to him "the US has no policy on that." It was a bunch of hype and lies in that war too. Here is a coincidence: the Kuwaiti royals were conveniently all out of the country when it was invaded, and this helped them squash a growing Democracy movement in the country.

>> Saddam lost Gulf War I. I really don't see how this ADDs to your first argument. If James Baker had told him not to invade Kuwait -- he likely wouldn't have done it. But beyond that, it doesn't make Saddam rank as world's worst bad guy and justify our starving the country or massacring 200,000 fleeing troops.

>> Saddam complied with the UN Cease Fire resolutions -- according to the UN inspector WE kicked out. The "breaking" of the resolutions, were trumped up. In one case, a missile that could go a few more miles than the limit was cited, or some radio controlled toy planes were listed as drones.

>> If your remember, Congress allowed Bush to go to war on the provision that he go to the UN and that he proved Weapons of Mass Destruction. He went to the UN and they said NO!. And then he found out what the CIA and the inspectors had told him repeatedly; there were no WMDs.



The invasion of Iraq was illegal. But the US has veto power in the UN and 6,000 nukes -- so nobody is going to get in the way of our Imperialism. Heck half these other nations do it. Throw some paint on the pig and call her prom queen.

The US is NOT the good guys, and our government doesn't tell us the truth nearly 99% of the time. So grow up and quit thinking these justifications are anything but window dressing for the un-read masses to be impressed by.



The REASON we invaded Iraq was to give Oil companies cheap resources, create a permanent base in the middle east that didn't involve Saudi Arabia, and spend lots of money so the Middle Class would be told we were too poor for Universal Health Care. And of course, during a threat/war, a jerk off like Bush can pass more laws taking away your liberty.

Is this the same guy who through his shoes at Bush