|
Islamic extremists hate us for existing and not bowing down to Allah.Do the people of Switzerland exist? Yes they do.
Do the people of Switzerland bow down to Allah? No they don't.
Do Islamic extremists hate the people of Switzerland? I have no idea, but I do know they don't launch terrorist attacks against Switzerland.
So maybe, just maybe, it is something else other than your two suggestions which it the cause of Islamic animosity toward the USA?
You're a better man than me. I refuse to do homework for the willfully ignorant.
|
|
Islamic extremists hate us for existing and not bowing down to Allah.1)Do the people of Switzerland exist? Yes they do.
2)Do the people of Switzerland bow down to Allah? No they don't.
3)Do Islamic extremists hate the people of Switzerland?
I have no idea, but I do know they don't launch terrorist attacks against Switzerland.
So maybe, just maybe, it is something else other than your two suggestions which it the cause of Islamic animosity toward the USA?
How do you know that certain extremists, in the name of their beliefs do not and have not conducted such acts in Switzerland?
Strangely you could replace the name Switzerland with the name of another country, such as Australia, and you would be correct in all your statements except the last one.
You are making a false and erroneous argument here to try and prove your point.
I agree with houstonderek in that extremists hate us for not bowing down to their beliefs.
I just don't draw the line at reviling only one particular group or type of extremist. There are many other different stripes of extremists to also dislike.
No, I agree. There are several types of extremists. However, we are specifically discussing an extremist of a particular stripe right now, so bringing up eco-terrorists, PETA and Fred Phelps is really kind of off topic, really.
If you believe this operation indicates Obama's leadership as somehow distinct from previous presidents, you have been asleep for 50 years.
Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. If he is a citizen of Yemen, then he is no longer a citizen of the US. Blow his ass away, that's what he wants, right? It would be disappointing if Obama had not invoked the state secrets laws and had instead given sensitive info to a terrorist.He wants to be "blown away." Where did he say this?
Where is the evidence he is a terrorist? Without a trial how would anyone know?
The correct question is how can it be proven. Court does not decide the facts. The truth is already there before the trial even takes place in any case.
Example: If I kill your family, and people saw me do it then the truth is already established by the fact that I did it. Whether or not it can be proven that I did it is an entirely different matter than the actual truth, which is what the courts are for.In short people can know the truth without a trial. The trial just determines(supposedly) if they were correct in their assessment.
|
Umm...yeah, Jared buddy. You need to calm down and watch what you post.
The Washington Post article was an intriguing one (I stopped reading most of the newspapers a long time ago). The fact that Switzerland hasn't been used as a staging point for such activity long before any of this is nothing short of remarkable.
|
Not being snarky to you or anything, but.......I think the vast preponderence of the evidence points to the fact that, no, he really doesn't have to watch what he posts, actually.Umm...yeah, Jared buddy. You need to calm down and watch what you post.
I deleted it myself. I love my ability to post anything, but I don't want to abuse it unless its an argument I really want to win lol.
|
|
There is an option that nobody has discussed yet, and it does not involve assassination or invasion. The Yemeni government currently liscences a number of "private security firms" to operate within their territorial borders. Congress can grant one of those firms a letter of marque and reprisal to capture al-Awlaki and transport him to the United States. Once there the government can take him into custody and try him here in the U.S. The Supreme Court has already held that such service under duress is Constitutional. Since the companies are already liscenced to operate in Yeman there does not appear to be any territorial issues or violations of international law that my admittedly weak Google-fu can find.
|
|
Not being snarky to you or anything, but.......I think the vast preponderence of the evidence points to the fact that, no, he really doesn't have to watch what he posts, actually.Umm...yeah, Jared buddy. You need to calm down and watch what you post.
If he doesn't want to see the thread locked or have some other sanction placed upon him, then yeah, in point of fact, he actually does need to watch what he posts.
I'm a fan of free speech as much as the next poster here on these boards, but my near 40 years of life have taught me one very important thing: just because you can say a thing, doesn't mean that you should.
Sometimes freedom of speech means knowing when not to speak what's on your mind.
BTW that's me not being snarky either.
|
|
Not being snarky to you or anything, but.......I think the vast preponderence of the evidence points to the fact that, no, he really doesn't have to watch what he posts, actually.Umm...yeah, Jared buddy. You need to calm down and watch what you post.
If he doesn't want to see the thread locked or have some other sanction placed upon him, then yeah, in point of fact, he actually does need to watch what he posts.
I'm a fan of free speech as much as the next poster here on these boards, but my near 40 years of life have taught me one very important thing: just because you can say a thing, doesn't mean that you should.
Sometimes freedom of speech means knowing when not to speak what's on your mind.
BTW that's me not being snarky either.
Heath's point goes a lot deeper than you think. Not to be rude or anything, but you have no clue what this is about, so I'd recommend just accepting that and moving on to something else.
|
If you believe this operation indicates Obama's leadership as somehow distinct from previous presidents, you have been asleep for 50 years.
There are a lot of people who believe that Obama is somehow magical and different from any previous president. So much so that the McCain campaign made a joke out of it which I still laugh at. I figured by now folks would have caught on but apparently the perception is still out there.
|
|
If you believe this operation indicates Obama's leadership as somehow distinct from previous presidents, you have been asleep for 50 years.There are a lot of people who believe that Obama is somehow magical and different from any previous president. So much so that the McCain campaign made a joke out of it which I still laugh at. I figured by now folks would have caught on but apparently the perception is still out there.
I guess this has to do with the fact that since he's an educated black man, he wouldn't make any of the mistakes that our previous leaders have made.
I'm black and I didn't vote for the man (I voted for Ron Paul), yet you'd be surprised at how often it's assumed that my skin color equals Obama-drone.
I was more than willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt when it came to his political rhetoric. The first year should be a feeling out process and so fine, any mistakes he makes then are perfectly understandable. The second year in office should be better than the first but there still will be mistakes. The most important year of his term is therefore the third term. Because at that point, its put up or shut up time.
Bottom line, Obama is just a man. He 's not the "anointed one." He's a black man in a position of power that he wasn't even ready for. Would I do better? Hard to say, really. We'll never know and that may be for the best (my more militant tendencies would probably get the better of me and I would probably bring about MAD for sure, so probably not). But I do know one thing. Whether I like the man or not (and let's be clear here, I don't) he is my leader. I still respect the office and the authority that comes with it.
But damn if he doesn't make that easy.
|
|
If you believe this operation indicates Obama's leadership as somehow distinct from previous presidents, you have been asleep for 50 years.There are a lot of people who believe that Obama is somehow magical and different from any previous president. So much so that the McCain campaign made a joke out of it which I still laugh at. I figured by now folks would have caught on but apparently the perception is still out there.I guess this has to do with the fact that since he's an educated black man, he wouldn't make any of the mistakes that our previous leaders have made.
I'm black and I didn't vote for the man (I voted for Ron Paul), yet you'd be surprised at how often it's assumed that my skin color equals Obama-drone.
I was more than willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt when it came to his political rhetoric. The first year should be a feeling out process and so fine, any mistakes he makes then are perfectly understandable. The second year in office should be better than the first but there still will be mistakes. The most important year of his term is therefore the third term. Because at that point, its put up or shut up time.
Bottom line, Obama is just a man. He 's not the "anointed one." He's a black man in a position of power that he wasn't even ready for. Would I do better? Hard to say, really. We'll never know and that may be for the best (my more militant tendencies would probably get the better of me and I would probably bring about MAD for sure, so probably not). But I do know one thing. Whether I like the man or not (and let's be clear here, I don't) he is my leader. I still respect the office and the authority that comes with it.
But damn if he doesn't make that easy.
I don't respect "offices". Makes as much sense as respecting flying spaghetti monsters as far as I'm concerned. and I only respect people who have earned my respect. Obama hasn't. Bush didn't. I gave it to Clinton grudgingly (I don't really care for his political view, but dude did the right thing, dropped his ideology, took the wind out of the Republican's sails and listened to the people, something Obama seems too arrogant to do, frankly).
This is the problem with the American debate. We were founded on not respecting authority, but on questioning it and, if necessary, letting it know we won't take s++# from it. But now, we're supposed to respect an "office" that hasn't had someone worthy of respect occupying it in nearly ten years.
Also, a man has to prove a leader before I'll call him my leader. He isn't a leader, he's a shrill, arrogant, whiny, buck passing lying Chicago machine politician. you're right about one thing, though; he most definitely wasn't ready for the job he so coveted.
I'm sure if he just surrendered himself he wouldn't be executed on the spot. But he's kinda a dick, and him being dead or in custody is a GOOD thing.
See, what happens is this:
Scenario 1:
CIA guy:
"Al Awlaki? I'm with the CIA. You're under arrest for being a dick."Al Awlaki:
RATATATATATATATATATCIA guy:
RATATATATATATATATATAl Awlaki:
BOOM!CIA guy:
can I get an amber lamps?Scenario 2:
CIA guy:
thoop!Al Awlaki:
plop!CIA guy:
runrunrunrunrun!The second one, though it leads to some butthurt and "the moral courage of the noncombatant" type whining, is nonetheless at times an easier thing to pull off.
[emo Luke Skywalker] But I care. [/emo Luke Skywalker]
|
|
I don't respect "offices". Makes as much sense as respecting flying spaghetti monsters as far as I'm concerned. and I only respect people who have earned my respect. Obama hasn't. Bush didn't. I gave it to...
It would seem, then, that you and I have more in common than I would have been previously believed. The last person in office that I truly respected was Ronnie Raygun. Clinton gets grudging props for some things that he did, but he also did alot to bring down the prestige of the office.
But...
There are some things that I can't seem to agree with you on. You respect the position of President precisely because you don't respect the man holding it. You respect the position because in the end, if we don't then who else will? After all, the office is currently held by someone who doesn't respect what it is that he does.
It's not that this country was founded on the disrespect of authority. That's liberal militant talk there and I've lived in that type of household for a good portion of my life as a younger man, so I know it when I hear it. This country was founded with the idea that the government was answerable to the people. That the government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
And make no mistake, this government is afraid of its people. Just look at the freedoms that we have that have been inexplicably taken away from us for our own protection. How about the fact that the government is making us so dependent on them for everything that we need or want because either they think we're too stupid to know better or that we don't care enough to do anything about it.
I see all of this going on around me and it scares the living crap out of me, because I have a son who will have to deal with all of this long after I'm dead and gone from this life. I want better for him and right now, that's looking less and less likely to happen.
|
|
I don't respect "offices". Makes as much sense as respecting flying spaghetti monsters as far as I'm concerned. and I only respect people who have earned my respect. Obama hasn't. Bush didn't. I gave it to...It would seem, then, that you and I have more in common than I would have been previously believed. The last person in office that I truly respected was Ronnie Raygun. Clinton gets grudging props for some things that he did, but he also did alot to bring down the prestige of the office.
But...
There are some things that I can't seem to agree with you on. You respect the position of President precisely because you don't respect the man holding it. You respect the position because in the end, if we don't then who else will? After all, the office is currently held by someone who doesn't respect what it is that he does.
It's not that this country was founded on the disrespect of authority. That's liberal militant talk there and I've lived in that type of household for a good portion of my life as a younger man, so I know it when I hear it. This country was founded with the idea that the government was answerable to the people. That the government should be afraid of its people, not the other way around.
And make no mistake, this government is afraid of its people. Just look at the freedoms that we have that have been inexplicably taken away from us for our own protection. How about the fact that the government is making us so dependent on them for everything that we need or want because either they think we're too stupid to know better or that we don't care enough to do anything about it.
I see all of this going on around me and it scares the living crap out of me, because I have a son who will have to deal with all of this long after I'm dead and gone from this life. I want better for him and right now, that's looking less and less likely to happen.
I would love for Obama to have an epiphany and come to his senses, but his arrogance and apparent complete lack of understanding of what drives and concerned the average American prevents me from having much "hope" of any "change" in his performance.
Reagan was the last guy who really seemed to fit the office well, I'll grant you that, and, sure, Clinton was a bit lackadaisical in his personal habits, but I only care about performance. If Sarkozy were our president and he kept his pimp act going, I wouldn't care, as long as he got the job done. Just saying...
;)
|
|
Heath's point goes a lot deeper than you think. Not to be rude or anything, but you have no clue what this is about, so I'd recommend just accepting that and moving on to something else.Not being snarky to you or anything, but.......I think the vast preponderence of the evidence points to the fact that, no, he really doesn't have to watch what he posts, actually.Umm...yeah, Jared buddy. You need to calm down and watch what you post.
If he doesn't want to see the thread locked or have some other sanction placed upon him, then yeah, in point of fact, he actually does need to watch what he posts.
I'm a fan of free speech as much as the next poster here on these boards, but my near 40 years of life have taught me one very important thing: just because you can say a thing, doesn't mean that you should.
Sometimes freedom of speech means knowing when not to speak what's on your mind.
BTW that's me not being snarky either.
Sorry to be so cryptic before.
He's been popping off like that for months.
He gets his post deleted here and there.
I think he gets a week ban.
Here and there.
Then he's back, telling another guy he's got sand in his vagina; rinse and repeat.
Rinse and repeat.
Assuming that he doesn't care that he's created a reputation for himself as an utter and unapologetic ass, what possible reason would he have to stop?
That is what I meant.
Heathansson, it's cool man.
I've seen the wrath and acerbic wit of Jared before and quite frankly it's not really that impressive. It was, however, offensive and that was why I said what I did when I did. I didn't want him to get this thread locked.
I did not know that he'd been banned before (houston was right in that regard) but in the end its his choice and he has to live with results of them.
As far as you, houstonderek, and myself are concerned, there are no hard feelings. There was a misunderstanding and it has been cleared up. I'm fairly easy to get along with so trust me when I say it takes a lot to offend me, much less anger me.
A serious question for those who say this guy should be given the rights of a trial before being killed:
Should Lincoln have properly instructed his northern troops to avoid shooting the rebels and instead have sought to arrest them? If not, what is the difference between an American citizen at war with the US Government in the Civil war and an American citizen at war with the US as a terrorist member of a foreign militia? And if there is no difference, why, in a time of war, does it matter how a man is killed or when he is killed? Is it not legitimate, in war, to kill the enemy?
I think what happens on a battlefield is quite a different matter. That isn't what being discussed here; what's being discussed is the premeditated murder of a specific individual. Being "at war" does not give us free reign to do whatever we wish.
I think George Orwell said it much better than I can:
"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac."
|
|
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that guy was being serious when he posted that nonsense about rights for terrorists. See, I'm not an unapologetic ass all the time. I'm an apologetic ass sometimes, too.
And if the relatively common phrase "sand in the vagina" has you feeling butthurt, it may not be as hard to offend you as you think.
Dude.
Who cares?It's not my house.
Take a big dump on the coffee table.
Wipe your crack with the curtains.
Thoroughly enjoy yourself with all the amenities.
Feel free to whiz on the wall, Jared.
You're just so cute.
A serious question for those who say this guy should be given the rights of a trial before being killed:
Should Lincoln have properly instructed his northern troops to avoid shooting the rebels and instead have sought to arrest them? If not, what is the difference between an American citizen at war with the US Government in the Civil war and an American citizen at war with the US as a terrorist member of a foreign militia? And if there is no difference, why, in a time of war, does it matter how a man is killed or when he is killed? Is it not legitimate, in war, to kill the enemy?
It's one thing to kill someone on the battlefield, but quite another to commit premeditated murder of a specific individual. Being "at war" is not a license to do whatever we wish and call it good, because as anyone paying attention knows, wars are always against "sub-human monsters."
"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac."
--George Orwell
Nah, some of us just take offense that you even breath kid.
You weren't nearly this mouthy when you stood 6 foot from me and stammered when asked your name.
Woah! Cool it, man. The dude's being an ass (trust me, I'm an authority on the subject -- ask around), but that's dangerously close to a threat.
|
|
A serious question for those who say this guy should be given the rights of a trial before being killed:
Should Lincoln have properly instructed his northern troops to avoid shooting the rebels and instead have sought to arrest them? If not, what is the difference between an American citizen at war with the US Government in the Civil war and an American citizen at war with the US as a terrorist member of a foreign militia? And if there is no difference, why, in a time of war, does it matter how a man is killed or when he is killed? Is it not legitimate, in war, to kill the enemy?
It's one thing to kill someone on the battlefield, but quite another to commit premeditated murder of a specific individual. Being "at war" is not a license to do whatever we wish and call it good, because as anyone paying attention knows, wars are always against "sub-human monsters."
"Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac."--George Orwell
Asymmetrical war is asymmetrical war. No one is wearing uniforms on the other side. The "battlefield" in this case is wherever this guy is sitting at a computer sending missives to his pawns and minions.
And, before anyone starts quoting the Geneva Conventions, they are very specific about this type of war: if you aren't a conscripted or voluntary soldier of a nation-state, none of these rules apply. Gitmo is actually perfectly legal under the Geneva Conventions, as are military tribunals and a host of other behaviors that would be criminal against an actual soldier in an actual army.
Them's the breaks, kid.
I expect the dickish response.
You probably have reason. Either way, it wasn't cool on my part -- sorry.
|
|
Nah, some of us just take offense that you even breath kid.
You weren't nearly this mouthy when you stood 6 foot from me and stammered when asked your name.
Woah! Cool it, man. The dude's being an ass (trust me, I'm an authority on the subject -- ask around), but that's dangerously close to a threat.
You're not even in the same league of ass as Jarebear (I pray I'm not either, but opinions may vary), but Moorluck isn't making a threat, he's reminding JareBear of something that already happened in the past. That is, he isn't such a tough guy when someone he's insulted is in proximity.
|
Nah, some of us just take offense that you even breath kid.
You weren't nearly this mouthy when you stood 6 foot from me and stammered when asked your name.
Woah! Cool it, man. The dude's being an ass (trust me, I'm an authority on the subject -- ask around), but that's dangerously close to a threat.
No threat at all. Just a reminder that sometimes when he shoots his mouth off it may put him in a very awkward position later. It did before when he was to embarrassed to admit who he was, and I'm sure it will again.
Trust me, when I do make a threat it goes more like this.
|
|
Woah! Cool it, man. The dude's being an ass (trust me, I'm an authority on the subject -- ask around), but that's dangerously close to a threat.Nah, some of us just take offense that you even breath kid.
You weren't nearly this mouthy when you stood 6 foot from me and stammered when asked your name.
No, he's being literal we all ran into Jared at Paizocon and he's quiet and reasonably polite in person.
On the mountain biking forums people are more polite because they run into each other more often and you know a lot of people in person. If you are a douchebag online you eventually wind up bumping into people and get a cold reception at best.
Folks who go to cons should take a lesson from that, particularly the Paizo friendly cons.
|
|
Nah, some of us just take offense that you even breath kid.
You weren't nearly this mouthy when you stood 6 foot from me and stammered when asked your name.
Woah! Cool it, man. The dude's being an ass (trust me, I'm an authority on the subject -- ask around), but that's dangerously close to a threat.
No threat at all. Just a reminder that sometimes when he shoots his mouth off it may put him in a very awkward position later. It did before when he was to scared s!%&less to admit who he was, and I'm sure it will again.
Trust me, when I do make a threat it goes more like this.
** spoiler omitted **
Fixed it for you.
Nah, some of us just take offense that you even breath kid.
You weren't nearly this mouthy when you stood 6 foot from me and stammered when asked your name.
Woah! Cool it, man. The dude's being an ass (trust me, I'm an authority on the subject -- ask around), but that's dangerously close to a threat.
No threat at all. Just a reminder that sometimes when he shoots his mouth off it may put him in a very awkward position later. It did before when he was to embarrassed to admit who he was, and I'm sure it will again.
Trust me, when I do make a threat it goes more like this.
** spoiler omitted **
I am so close...