Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / January 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

{OT} Barry delays terrorist trials!!!!!!!!!!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Scott  in  Florida - 21 Jan 2009 15:00 GMT
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/864401.html

The terrorists best friend....Barry!

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Jan 2009 15:07 GMT
> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/864401.html
>
> The terrorists best friend....Barry!
>
> Scott in Florida

Yeah, it's just that simple, you moron.
Scott  in  Florida - 21 Jan 2009 16:03 GMT
>> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/864401.html
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Yeah, it's just that simple, you moron.

You voted for the terrorists best friend Barry?

Signature


Scott in Florida

badgolferman - 21 Jan 2009 15:39 GMT
Scott in Florida wrote:

>http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/864401.html
>
>The terrorists best friend....Barry!

What possible reason could there be for him to issue an executive order
on his first day to effectively free murderers of American servicemen?
JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Jan 2009 15:40 GMT
> Scott in Florida wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> What possible reason could there be for him to issue an executive order
> on his first day to effectively free murderers of American servicemen?

Did I miss something in the article? Where did it say the order involved
freeing anyone? Please tell me which paragraph contained information backing
up what you just said.
Scott  in  Florida - 21 Jan 2009 16:04 GMT
>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>freeing anyone? Please tell me which paragraph contained information backing
>up what you just said.

Why the HELL did your loon Barry delay the trials?

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Jan 2009 16:11 GMT
>>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Scott in Florida

You must have the answer to that question, considering your vast background
in the field of
{.................................................}

Right?
badgolferman - 21 Jan 2009 16:42 GMT
>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>involved freeing anyone? Please tell me which paragraph contained
>information backing up what you just said.

Right here, you terrorist sympathizer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_sept11_trial_44

The motions, filed just hours after Obama's inauguration, will be heard
in the cases of five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks and of
Canadian Omar Khadr, who is accused of killing an American soldier with
a grenade in Afghanistan in 2002.

"It has the practical effect of stopping the process, probably
forever," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, Khadr's defense lawyer.

There are war crimes charges pending against 21 men being held at
Guantanamo, including the five charged with murder and other crimes in
the Sept. 11 case. Judges would be required to suspend the other cases
as well, though hearings may not be necessary.

Signature

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by
making other bastards die for their country." ~ George Smith Patton

JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Jan 2009 16:53 GMT
>>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_guantanamo_sept11_trial_44

Good article. It says nothing about freeing the murderers. Therefore, it
does not back up your statement. Now you're hoping that so much clutter will
land in this discussion that we will lost track of what you said. So, I'll
keep moving it up front where it won't get lost.

Divot-brain said "What possible reason could there be for him to issue an
executive order on his first day to effectively free murderers of American
servicemen?"
badgolferman - 21 Jan 2009 17:39 GMT
>>>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>issue an executive order on his first day to effectively free
>murderers of American servicemen?"

You are either mentally retarded or a bald-faced liar.

Signature

"His absence is good company." ~ Scottish saying

JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Jan 2009 17:40 GMT
>>>>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> You are either mentally retarded or a bald-faced liar.

There is no indication that he intends to free them. One day you'll learn to
shut down your hatred so it doesn't blind you to the meaning of what you
read.
Scott  in  Florida - 21 Jan 2009 16:03 GMT
>Scott in Florida wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>What possible reason could there be for him to issue an executive order
>on his first day to effectively free murderers of American servicemen?

These loons that voted for Barry should be asking that question....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Truckdude - 21 Jan 2009 16:38 GMT
> Scott in Florida wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> What possible reason could there be for him to issue an executive order
> on his first day to effectively free murderers of American servicemen?

Exaggerate much?

http://tinyurl.com/7hdunu

"Human rights activists and military defense lawyers had urged him to halt
the special tribunals that are formally known as military commissions and
urged him to move the prosecutions into the regular U.S. courts for trial
under long-established rules."

"They had complained that the tribunals allowed hearsay evidence and coerced
testimony and were subject of so much political interference that fairness
was impossible."
badgolferman - 21 Jan 2009 17:29 GMT
>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>coerced testimony and were subject of so much political interference
>that fairness was impossible."

Tell me why these murderers who are not soldiers of any country should
be tried by laws designed to protect American citizens?

Signature

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." ~ Groucho
Marx

Conscience - 21 Jan 2009 17:32 GMT
> Tell me why these murderers who are not soldiers of any country should
> be tried by laws designed to protect American citizens?

Because it would be the "sensitive" and "enlightened" thing to do.
JoeSpareBedroom - 21 Jan 2009 17:37 GMT
>>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Tell me why these murderers who are not soldiers of any country should
> be tried by laws designed to protect American citizens?

I've heard interviews with two government types from our best ally on earth
(Great Britain), and both of them feel that if we're supposed to be the
shining light for the rest of the world, we should act that way with regard
to these prisoners, even if doing so makes us cringe. Simply waving a flag
and trying to sell democracy all day long looks lame if we don't back it up
by being a role model.

They said this with nothing but admiration and reverence for this country.
No, I don't have a cite. I heard them on radio news while driving. One of
them might've been Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell.

You will not understand any of this.
Sharx35 - 21 Jan 2009 18:27 GMT
>>>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> You will not understand any of this.

f.cking LIEbrawls. If they had ONE brain cell working, it would be a good
day.
Truckdude - 21 Jan 2009 18:55 GMT
>>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Tell me why these murderers who are not soldiers of any country should
> be tried by laws designed to protect American citizens?

Would you be able to comprehend??

I realize that you prefer that the US resembles a third world dictatorship,
but those days are over now.  The Bush ....."administration"..... is
history.
dbu' - 21 Jan 2009 21:23 GMT
> >>>Scott in Florida wrote:
> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> but those days are over now.  The Bush ....."administration"..... is
> history.

We wait for the great dude to answer the question NOT dodge it like he
usually does.
Signature


"It's deja vu all over again"
Yogi Berra

Truckdude - 22 Jan 2009 19:35 GMT
>> >>>Scott in Florida wrote:
>> >>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> We wait for the great dude to answer the question NOT dodge it like he
> usually does.

Dooby, you have got to be kidding!  We have all seen threads go on and on
where you dodge and weave until people tire out and give up on you.

Anyway, we are judged on how we apply our laws.

President Obama wants the US to reclaim its moral standing in the world.
Face it, under GWB and Dick the US has lost nearly all of its moral
standing.
Jeff - 21 Jan 2009 22:47 GMT
On Jan 21, 10:39 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Scott in Florida wrote:
> >http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/864401.html
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> What possible reason could there be for him to issue an executive order
> on his first day to effectively free murderers of American servicemen?

Which of those people have been freed?
Jeff - 21 Jan 2009 22:47 GMT
> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/864401.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>  Scott in Florida

Actually, America's best friend. He wants to make sure we have the
proper legal standing and have proper trials.

Jeff
larry moe 'n curly - 22 Jan 2009 01:34 GMT
Scott in Florida wrote:

> http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/864401.html
>
> The terrorists best friend....Barry!

Wow.  A thread started by a crazy person.

How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
administration?
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 04:41 GMT
> Scott in Florida wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
> administration?

Hopefully none.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 04:47 GMT
>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Hopefully none.

Is your middle name Stalin?
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 04:53 GMT
>>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Is your middle name Stalin?

Nope.  I'm just sick to the point of nausea with those who worry over
Al Qaeda scum.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 14:17 GMT
>>>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Nope.  I'm just sick to the point of nausea with those who worry over Al
> Qaeda scum.

I don't worry over them. I worry about our principles being trashed by
people who don't understand them, and people like you who are just fine with
that.
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 15:14 GMT
>>>>> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
>>>>> administration?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> people who don't understand them, and people like you who are just fine with
> that.

Our treatment of these sub-humans who, IMO, don't deserve the treatment
we give animals in shelters, has been exemplary.  They're
non-combatants without a uniform, morals, or even capable of
understanding the principles you seem obsessed with.

How anyone can defend these animals when they'd slit your throat given
the chance, nuke millions of our citizens if given a bomb, and hide
behind women's skirts to attain their goals, is incredible to say the
least.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 15:24 GMT
>>>>>> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
>>>>>> administration?
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> chance, nuke millions of our citizens if given a bomb, and hide behind
> women's skirts to attain their goals, is incredible to say the least.

You never saw me defending anyone. This is perhaps the 1000th time you've
drawn an incorrect conclusion.
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 16:49 GMT
>>>>>>> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
>>>>>>> administration?
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> You never saw me defending anyone. This is perhaps the 1000th time you've
> drawn an incorrect conclusion.

Cite.  I'd like a list of just 500.  Do it now.

Question:  Would you like to see Gitmo inmates tried in the public,
U.S. court system as was the perp for the WTC bombings in '93?
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 17:02 GMT
>>>>>>>> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
>>>>>>>> administration?
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Question:  Would you like to see Gitmo inmates tried in the public, U.S.
> court system as was the perp for the WTC bombings in '93?

Yes, as long as they're immediately put on a military aircraft if found
innocent, and taken to a country where we can arrange for something to fall
on their heads from a drone. Drive them out into an open field, away from
civilians, carrying a bag of food with a radio transponder sewn into the
seam so it's easy to find them.

If they're guilty, tatto their crime onto their foreheads and send them
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Correctional_Facility

Not a good place for a terrorist to live.
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 17:19 GMT
>>>>>>>>> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
>>>>>>>>> administration?
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Not a good place for a terrorist to live.

So why go through all the expense of a drone?  The last I checked, one
single 5.56mm round was around 15 cents.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 17:21 GMT
>>>>> On 2009-01-22 06:17:14 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> So why go through all the expense of a drone?  The last I checked, one
> single 5.56mm round was around 15 cents.

We could also behead them and attach a note in the local language saying
"Traitor".
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 17:31 GMT
>>>>>>> I don't worry over them. I worry about our principles being trashed
>>>>>>> by
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> We could also behead them and attach a note in the local language saying
> "Traitor".

So that won't trash your principles?  Then what are we arguing about?
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 17:40 GMT
>>>>>>>> I don't worry over them. I worry about our principles being trashed
>>>>>>>> by
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> So that won't trash your principles?  Then what are we arguing about?

I don't care how they die. I just want the trials to be done according to
the laws of this country, not China or the former Soviet Union. If you think
about it, the trials could end up having value simply by being media
circuses.
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 17:47 GMT
> I don't care how they die. I just want the trials to be done according to
> the laws of this country, not China or the former Soviet Union. If you think
> about it, the trials could end up having value simply by being media
> circuses.

So, if an American robs a bank in France, you want him tried according
to American law?

That would be quite the circus.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 18:06 GMT
>> I don't care how they die. I just want the trials to be done according to
>> the laws of this country, not China or the former Soviet Union. If you
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> That would be quite the circus.

Spend the next week reading Supreme Court transcripts. Pick 20. Then, ask
that question the right way.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 18:22 GMT
>>> I don't care how they die. I just want the trials to be done according to
>>> the laws of this country, not China or the former Soviet Union. If you
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

Right.  Nice dodge.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 18:33 GMT
>>>> I don't care how they die. I just want the trials to be done according
>>>> to
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Right.  Nice dodge.

There are proper uses & methods for use of the straw man tactic. SC justices
and the lawyers who bring cases are very good at the tactic. Study it.
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 18:43 GMT
>>>>> I don't care how they die. I just want the trials to be done according
>>>>> to
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> There are proper uses & methods for use of the straw man tactic. SC justices
> and the lawyers who bring cases are very good at the tactic. Study it.

You study it.  And post again in this thread only if or when you decide
to answer the simple question.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 20:56 GMT
>>>> I don't care how they die. I just want the trials to be done according to
>>>> the laws of this country, not China or the former Soviet Union. If you
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Right.  Nice dodge.

But...this is a Toyota newsgroup...
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 21:25 GMT
>>>>>>>>> I don't worry over them. I worry about our principles being trashed
>>>>>>>>> by
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>about it, the trials could end up having value simply by being media
>circuses.

You can't possibly be serious, can you?

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 21:32 GMT
>>>>>>>>>> I don't worry over them. I worry about our principles being
>>>>>>>>>> trashed
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
> You can't possibly be serious, can you?

Perfectly serious. But you couldn't possibly imagine how the trials could be
useful to this country. You can't hang onto a coherent thought for more than
3 seconds.
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 22:59 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't worry over them. I worry about our principles being
>>>>>>>>>>> trashed
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
>useful to this country. You can't hang onto a coherent thought for more than
>3 seconds.

Name ONE reason the trials could be useful to this country.

NOW!

Signature


Scott in Florida

Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 19:10 GMT
>>>>>>>> I don't worry over them. I worry about our principles being trashed
>>>>>>>> by
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> So that won't trash your principles?  Then what are we arguing about?

You're talking to JSB. Argument for the sake of argument...
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 19:12 GMT
>>>>>>>>> I don't worry over them. I worry about our principles being
>>>>>>>>> trashed
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>
> You're talking to JSB. Argument for the sake of argument...

There are two sets of ideas in this part of the discussion. One involves
trials. The other involves methods of death.

OK?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 19:09 GMT
>>>>>>>>> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
>>>>>>>>> administration?
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> Not a good place for a terrorist to live.

They wouldn't go to a State facility. ADX Supermax or Levenworth are about
the only two choices.

Lompoc would be good, too. An unimposed Death Sentance...
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 19:13 GMT
>>>>> On 2009-01-22 06:17:14 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> Lompoc would be good, too. An unimposed Death Sentance...

Which prison did YOU go to?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 20:56 GMT
>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 06:17:14 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
>
> Which prison did YOU go to?

Medium and then moved to minimum. Club Fed. I committed a victimless crime.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 19:07 GMT
>> Our treatment of these sub-humans who, IMO, don't deserve the treatment we
>> give animals in shelters, has been exemplary.  They're non-combatants
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> You never saw me defending anyone. This is perhaps the 1000th time you've
> drawn an incorrect conclusion.

Given the small amount of information you usually present, the only
extrapolation that can be made is that you are for releasing/defending the
terrorists. You usually present the Liberal tack in your posts, and since
you usually speak in riddles without any concrete convictions, the only
conclusion the reader can reach is that you are in favor of defending
terrorists. If you want people to believe otherwise, take a more firm
stance, or suffer being labeled a Liberal and a Sympathizer.
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 20:17 GMT
>>>>>> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
>>>>>> administration?
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>behind women's skirts to attain their goals, is incredible to say the
>least.

The liberal mind set.

We now have an extreme liberal as president....

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 20:27 GMT
>>>>>>> How many trials of terrorists were there during the GW Bush
>>>>>>> administration?
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Scott in Florida

Sot...it's diaper time again. Call the big, burly nurse.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 19:03 GMT
>>>>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> people who don't understand them, and people like you who are just fine with
> that.

Ah, but they are war criminals. REAL war criminals, not the type of war
criminal the l00ney left thinks GWB and Dick Cheney are. These are actual
war criminals.

They are not US citizens. They have no rights.
They are enemies of the US. They have no rights.
And since they do not wear uniforms in the performance of their war acts,
they are not protected by the Geneva Convention. The GC says that in order
to be treated as POWs under the guielines of the GC, they have to be
uniformed soldiers. They are not.

They are classified as terrorists and spies, and have no protection under
any law. As a matter of fact, the usual method of dealing with terrorists
and spies is death by firing squad or hanging. They have not been
subjected to these punishments. They have been given Korans, prayer rugs
and fed three squares a day in accordance to their religion. (If I were in
charge, they'd have pork chops for supper and bacon for Sunday breakfast...)

Even Kennedy and Reid stopped running their yaps about the 'mistreatment'
after visiting Guantanamo in 2005. Only the l00ney liberals are still
crying about it.

Think of this: at Guantanamo they have relative freedom for war criminals.
They have recreation yard privileges, prayer privileges, etc. If
Guantanamo closes, you think they will be set free? Nuh-uh! They'll be
moved to a refgular Federal prison.

How many of them do you think will opt for General Population? Not many.
The 'hole' will look pretty good to them.

Either that, or the Super Max...

Get informed:

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092900928.html

Either that or Levenworth. That would be a *GOOD* pplace to send them!
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 19:06 GMT
When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be running
your mouth about the Geneva Convention?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 19:16 GMT
> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be running
> your mouth about the Geneva Convention?

Guess you didn't read my whole post, huh?

Of course I will. Our soldiers are uniformed soldiers and as such come
under the rights and protections of the GC. However, the enemy does not
recognize the GC, since they are basically barbarians and murderers.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 19:19 GMT
>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> under the rights and protections of the GC. However, the enemy does not
> recognize the GC, since they are basically barbarians and murderers.

The new form of war will expose us to nothing but fighters without uniforms.
Get used to it.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 20:54 GMT
>>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>>> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> The new form of war will expose us to nothing but fighters without uniforms.
> Get used to it.

Then I guess it's OK to maintain Gitmo to contain the terrorists and spies.
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 21:28 GMT
>>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>>> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>The new form of war will expose us to nothing but fighters without uniforms.
>Get used to it.

With a terrorist sympathizer as CIC....we will be exposed to a lot of
it....right here

Signature


Scott in Florida

Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 19:41 GMT
> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be running
> your mouth about the Geneva Convention?

Would that be the Geneva Convention that defines uniformed combatants?
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 19:43 GMT
>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be
>> running
>> your mouth about the Geneva Convention?
>
> Would that be the Geneva Convention that defines uniformed combatants?

Right. The outdated rules which defy the reality which our soldiers see
daily in the Middle East. The only uniform our enemy knows is bad breath and
those gay-a.s things on their heads.
Conscience - 22 Jan 2009 19:52 GMT
>>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>>> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> daily in the Middle East. The only uniform our enemy knows is bad breath and
> those gay-a.s things on their heads.

Outdate.  Glad you're onboard.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 19:56 GMT
>>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>>> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> daily in the Middle East. The only uniform our enemy knows is bad breath
> and those gay-a.s things on their heads.

Gosh Joe, it looks as if you are suggesting we actually need a place like
Gitmo.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 20:03 GMT
>>>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as
>>>> terrorists,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Gosh Joe, it looks as if you are suggesting we actually need a place like
> Gitmo.

No. I'm saying that you're a moron if you think a uniform is what makes a
soldier, and the lack of one makes a terrorist or a spy.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 20:51 GMT
> No. I'm saying that you're a moron if you think a uniform is what makes a
> soldier, and the lack of one makes a terrorist or a spy.

It's not me that thinks that, it's INTERNATIONAL LAW; you may have heard of
the Geneva Convention. Without a uniform, one is merely an enemy combatant.
He may or may not be a terrorist or a spy as well. You could google "geneva
convention" and read up on it, but something tells me you won't
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 20:56 GMT
>> No. I'm saying that you're a moron if you think a uniform is what makes a
>> soldier, and the lack of one makes a terrorist or a spy.
>
> It's not me that thinks that, it's INTERNATIONAL LAW;

And you agree with the concept.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 21:09 GMT
>>> No. I'm saying that you're a moron if you think a uniform is what makes
>>> a soldier, and the lack of one makes a terrorist or a spy.
>>
>> It's not me that thinks that, it's INTERNATIONAL LAW;
>
> And you agree with the concept.

Yes, which is why we need Gitmo. Or, why we HAVE Gitmo, take your pick.

We are capturing people on the battle field that are not covered under the
Genva Convention. Until the Convention can be amended, we must hold these
combatants somewhere. Or, we simply shoot them.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 21:16 GMT
>>>> No. I'm saying that you're a moron if you think a uniform is what makes
>>>> a soldier, and the lack of one makes a terrorist or a spy.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Genva Convention. Until the Convention can be amended, we must hold these
> combatants somewhere. Or, we simply shoot them.

Holding prisoners is one thing. Bizarre tribunals is another thing entirely.
You must be too young to remember what went on in the Soviet Union.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 21:19 GMT
> Holding prisoners is one thing. Bizarre tribunals is another thing
> entirely. You must be too young to remember what went on in the Soviet
> Union.

That's absurd or beside the point, take your pick.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 21:26 GMT
>> Holding prisoners is one thing. Bizarre tribunals is another thing
>> entirely. You must be too young to remember what went on in the Soviet
>> Union.
>
> That's absurd or beside the point, take your pick.

Because you said that, I'm sure you have no idea how the Soviet "justice"
system worked.

Tell me again why you don't read.
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 23:01 GMT
>> Holding prisoners is one thing. Bizarre tribunals is another thing
>> entirely. You must be too young to remember what went on in the Soviet
>> Union.
>
>That's absurd or beside the point, take your pick.

Both....it is Joey

Signature


Scott in Florida

Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 23:00 GMT
>>>> No. I'm saying that you're a moron if you think a uniform is what makes
>>>> a soldier, and the lack of one makes a terrorist or a spy.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Genva Convention. Until the Convention can be amended, we must hold these
>combatants somewhere. Or, we simply shoot them.

How about....torture then kill?

Signature


Scott in Florida

Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 20:54 GMT
>>>>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as
>>>>> terrorists,
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> No. I'm saying that you're a moron if you think a uniform is what makes a
> soldier, and the lack of one makes a terrorist or a spy.

Conventional rules of war. Wear a uniform or be considered a terrorist or
a spy.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 20:56 GMT
>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> Conventional rules of war. Wear a uniform or be considered a terrorist or
> a spy.

Not any more.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 21:10 GMT
>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Not any more.

By what legal definition?
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 21:16 GMT
>>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> By what legal definition?

Sheer numbers. How many people shooting at us in Iraq were wearing uniforms?
What percentage would you estimate?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 21:29 GMT
>>>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Sheer numbers. How many people shooting at us in Iraq were wearing uniforms?
> What percentage would you estimate?

Then they must be terrorists and spies.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 22:07 GMT
>>>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> Sheer numbers. How many people shooting at us in Iraq were wearing
> uniforms? What percentage would you estimate?

Those guys were defeated in a week. The rest are enemy combatants that go to
Gitmo if they are captured.

What's your point? Wait, it doesn't matter.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 22:15 GMT
>>>>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> What's your point? Wait, it doesn't matter.

Putting POWs in prison is normal. As far as I know, bizarre tribunals are
not.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 22:56 GMT
> Putting POWs in prison is normal. As far as I know, bizarre tribunals are
> not.

Saddam's army has been repatriated for many years. There are none of them
being held as a POW.

The guys held at Gitmo are not and never have been POWs. Many of them have
been repatriated -- there are 250 remaining at Gitmo out of about 700 that
have been processed there. Of those that have been sent home, about 75 have
been found on the battle field again.

Most of those held at Gitmo came from Afghanistan, not Iraq.

One guy at Gitmo was captured inside the USA. His crime was that he plotted
for an attack subsequent to 9/11. He arrived here on 9/10.

One guy that never went to Gitmo and was captured here is Jose Padilla. He
is the only person ensnared in the Bush anti-terrorism plan that even
remotely raises any level of alarm. He is a US citizen captured inside the
USA and held for far too long without a trial.

So, I've just highlighted 700 cases, one is worthy of concern because it
represents an abuse of government that must never go unchecked.

We have tribunals because we can't have public trials because a trial is
public and public is in the paper and in the paper prints what we know and
printing what we know tells the bad guys and telling the bad guys gives them
what they need to know to get past our defenses and bad guys getting past
our defenses lets them in to attack us and letting them in to attack us is
George Bush's fault for not stopping them. Except, George Bush stops them
with tribunals that we can't have because they are not public.

Islamic extremists never crashed a plane into the side of a Russian sky
scraper because they understand what winter in Siberia is like. Islamic
extremists did crash a plane into the side of an American sky scraper
because they know weak-kneed liberals would complain that we might treat
them to a Carribean Vacation, and get all tied into knots over proper
treatment.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 22:58 GMT
>> Putting POWs in prison is normal. As far as I know, bizarre tribunals are
>> not.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> The guys held at Gitmo are not and never have been POWs.

Yes, but you are supporting the idea that all fighters without uniforms be
treated differently than fighters with uniforms. What do you suggest we do
if we happen to capture, say, 2000 of them a week in some war?  Keep them in
prison forever after the war ends because they weren't wearing uniforms?
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 23:20 GMT
>>> Putting POWs in prison is normal. As far as I know, bizarre tribunals
>>> are not.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Yes, but you are supporting the idea that all fighters without uniforms be
> treated differently than fighters with uniforms.

Your're finally starting to get it.

What do you suggest we do
> if we happen to capture, say, 2000 of them a week in some war?  Keep them
> in prison forever after the war ends because they weren't wearing
> uniforms?

Yes. Or, the UN redrafts the Geneva Conventions.

During WWII, the enemy was not "the Germans" is was Germany, or Japan
depending on the theater. We knew that the government and its soldiers had
to be toppled in order to have a victory. We did not have to trounce the
average Joe-in-the-street walking behind a donkey cart because the GC says
the guys we are interested in have a uniform on. That's the ONLY reason to
have the Geneva Conventions is to define who the combatants are through the
wearing of uniforms. Indeed, the Geneva Conventions werer adopted precisely
to protect the civilian population from the excesses that soldiers had
bestowed upon civilian populations in earlier (earlier than the Geneva
Conventions) conflicts. Teams of diplomats sat down and discussed how to
separate civilian populations from fighting forces, the result was that
fighters were defined as wearing uniforms and civilians were defined as not
wearing them.

Now we get to 2001, and the combatants ARE the guys walking behind the
donkey carts. The GC specifically forbids hiding soldiers among the civilian
population, setting up rifle batteries in hosptials or schools or churches,
yet the enemy-of-today does all of these things. THEY elect to fight in
violation of the Geneva Conventions, not us. If they engaged in accordance
to the international law of engagement -- the Geneva Conventions -- then
they would be held as POWs in camps closer to where they are from in
conditions that are nearer to what they are accustomed to. If we round up
2000 POWs, then we hold 2000 POWs for as long as it takes. They made the
choice to not don a uniform, we therefore do not treat them as POWs. We
_could_ treat them as such, but they still end up in a detention camp
somewhere. Why not Gitmo?
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 23:29 GMT
>>>> Putting POWs in prison is normal. As far as I know, bizarre tribunals
>>>> are not.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Your're finally starting to get it.

In that case, you must think every prisoner we've captured in Iraq should be
tried via military tribunal. That's a lot of tribunals. What percentage of
prisoners in Iraq were in uniform when captured?  What's your estimate? The
photos I've seen during this war don't show many uniforms.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 23:52 GMT
>>>>> Putting POWs in prison is normal. As far as I know, bizarre tribunals
>>>>> are not.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> of prisoners in Iraq were in uniform when captured?  What's your estimate?
> The photos I've seen during this war don't show many uniforms.

The soldiers in Iraq (guys in uniform) have been repatriated long ago. Not a
single one of them went to Gitmo that I'm aware of because they are bonafied
POWs and were held inside of Iraq until the cessation of hostilities.
Saddam's guys worn uniforms, until they took them off and ran for the hills.
They did not shed their uniforms and take up positions against us.

What the Hell is your point?

The vast majority of Gitmo Guests come out of Afghanistan anyhow, why are
you harping on Iraqi prisoners. I hate to marginalize Iraqi insurgents, but
we didn't ship them to Gitmo. The guys in Gitmo are Taliban buddies.
JoeSpareBedroom - 23 Jan 2009 03:15 GMT
>>>>>> Putting POWs in prison is normal. As far as I know, bizarre tribunals
>>>>>> are not.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> What the Hell is your point?

I'm talking about prisoners we've taken

***AFTER THE UNIFORMED IRAQI TROOPS WERE REPATRIATED***

AFTER. GET IT?

We've been taking plenty of prisoners since then. In all the pictures I've
seen of our soldiers handling prisoners (not in prison), none have been in
uniform.

Why aren't we giving them the same label as the ones in Gitmo?
Conscience - 23 Jan 2009 04:50 GMT
>>> Yes, but you are supporting the idea that all fighters without uniforms
>>> be treated differently than fighters with uniforms.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> In that case, you must think every prisoner we've captured in Iraq should be
> tried via military tribunal.

Not at all.

I thinking that every Al Qaeda prisoner be tortured to extract ever
last scintilla of information available, followed by castration and
burial in porcine viscera.

Pershing had the right idea.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 23 Jan 2009 07:26 GMT
>>>> Yes, but you are supporting the idea that all fighters without uniforms
>>>> be treated differently than fighters with uniforms.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Pershing had the right idea.

Story from when I was at 'summer camp':

we had a bunch of Muslims there. I was assigned to the dining hall. Sunday
brunch was the best because we had a lot of good stuff on Sunday, and all
the coffee you could drink.

This one Sunday we were serving bacon and eggs. Now, the Muslims would eat
the eggs, but not the bacon, so we had cheese sandwiches. Since you can't
eat anything that has had any contact with pork, they weren't eating the
eggs, and would only eat the cheese sandwiches.

*I* got the job of handing out the cheese sandwiches. We set up a sheet
pan so from right to left we had bacon, eggs, sheet pan barrier and then
the sandwiches. So, when the Muslims would come down the line they would
come to me directly.

The guy dishing out the bacon and eggs ran out of eggs and went into the
back. I guess they didn't have any cooked up cause he was gone a LONG
time! So I have a line of guys waiting for food. This one guy got real
impatient and wanted his bacon since he already had his eggs. He was being
n9ice about it, so I reached around the sheet pan and gave him his 5
slices of bacon.

Starting with the third guy down was a group of Muslims. Man, you would
have thought I had murdered one of them the way they yelled!!! They were
all yelling at once, all I caught was Oh, Geeze and WHAT ARE YOU DOING!
The cop watching the line said, Hey, Big Guy! DON'T TOUCH THE BACON!!! Off
the line and clean your hands.

I left the line, went 3 steps into the back room, counted to 30 and came
back. No washing hands, no changing gloves.

I wonder how many of them are going to miss their 72 virgins because I
didn't change my gloves...   ;P
Scott  in  Florida - 23 Jan 2009 13:56 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:26:35 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
wrote:

>>>>> Yes, but you are supporting the idea that all fighters without uniforms
>>>>> be treated differently than fighters with uniforms.
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>I wonder how many of them are going to miss their 72 virgins because I
>didn't change my gloves...   ;P

You are truly an evil person....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Conscience - 23 Jan 2009 15:12 GMT
> I left the line, went 3 steps into the back room, counted to 30 and came
> back. No washing hands, no changing gloves.
>
> I wonder how many of them are going to miss their 72 virgins because I
> didn't change my gloves...   ;P

Not a single one will HAVE those virgins, no matter the contact with
bacon.  That promise is contained nowhere in the Quran.

Nice way to inspire idiots who strap bombs to themselves so as to kill
innocent people, including children, isn't it?
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 23:02 GMT
>>>>>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>Putting POWs in prison is normal. As far as I know, bizarre tribunals are
>not.

These are NOT POWs.....Nit Wit....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 21:28 GMT
>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Not any more.

Then suffer the consequences. No rights provided by any sanctioning body.
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 21:34 GMT
>>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Then suffer the consequences. No rights provided by any sanctioning body.

You're an expert about history. What percentage of our captured soldiers in
WWII were charged with anything in particular? In other words, what
percentage were simply imprisoned as POWs versus imprisoned ***AND***
brought before tribunals?
Hachiroku ハチロク - 23 Jan 2009 02:47 GMT
>>>>>>>> On 2009-01-22 11:06:31 -0800, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>>>>>>>> <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> percentage were simply imprisoned as POWs versus imprisoned ***AND***
> brought before tribunals?

Nope. Don't know that. Sorry...
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 21:30 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:54:01 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
wrote:

>>>>>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as
>>>>>> terrorists,
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Conventional rules of war. Wear a uniform or be considered a terrorist or
>a spy.

...and what can you do to terrorists and spy's?

Signature


Scott in Florida

JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 21:44 GMT
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:54:01 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> ...and what can you do to terrorists and spy's?

Spy's what?  Which possession of a spy are you talking about?
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 23:03 GMT
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:54:01 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>
>Spy's what?  Which possession of a spy are you talking about?

The Spy's arse.....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Hachiroku ハチロク - 23 Jan 2009 02:46 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:03:27 -0500, Scott in Florida wrote:

>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:54:01 -0500, Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@e86.GTS>
>>> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> The Spy's arse.....

Shoot it or hang it.

Or send it to Levenworth and put it in GP. Same effect...
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 20:53 GMT
> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be running
> your mouth about the Geneva Convention?

They cannot be classified as terrorists. They are wearing uniforms and
under the GC are soldiers and must be treated as POWs.

If they are not, their captors would be in violation of the rules of war
and the GC.

Somehow, I don't see them losing a lot of sleep over it.
Jeff Strickland - 22 Jan 2009 21:12 GMT
>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Somehow, I don't see them losing a lot of sleep over it.

As evidenced by them chopping off heads and dragging corpses down the street
and dumping them off the bridge into the river.

Like they say, perception is reality.
Hachiroku ハチロク - 22 Jan 2009 21:27 GMT
>>> When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>>> then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Like they say, perception is reality.

Yeah. We incarcerate them, give them Korans and prayer rugs and feed them
three squares a day.

Such horrible treatment!
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 21:27 GMT
>When an enemy captures our soldiers and "classifies" them as terrorists,
>then excutes them, what will you have to say about it? Will you be running
>your mouth about the Geneva Convention?

Nope....

Nuke em.....

Signature


Scott in Florida

Sharx35 - 22 Jan 2009 20:15 GMT
>>>>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> people who don't understand them, and people like you who are just fine
> with that.

You are incredibly NAIVE. Grow up. Get some REAL education. I'd have no
trouble putting you terrorist-loving LIEbrawls AND the Al Queda on an
iceberg and towing it out to sea.......
JoeSpareBedroom - 22 Jan 2009 20:18 GMT
>>>>>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> trouble putting you terrorist-loving LIEbrawls AND the Al Queda on an
> iceberg and towing it out to sea.......

You're such a pussy. Really. You are. No balls whatsoever.
Scott  in  Florida - 22 Jan 2009 13:38 GMT
>> Scott in Florida wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Hopefully none.

From what I hear.....

They don't take prisoners anymore....

The way it should be.

Signature


Scott in Florida

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2010 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.