View Full Version : I wonder what will come of this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575892,00.html
And, for balance:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/20/national/main5722507.shtml
Baderous
11-22-2009, 11:43 PM
Another stupid kamikaze that, with luck will kill himself without harming people.
There arent many words to describe how dumb, idiot.....these guys are.
clocker
11-23-2009, 09:55 PM
You wonder about what...the perpetrator or the internal investigation about the events?
Alien5
11-23-2009, 10:43 PM
fox news lol.
i thought this area wass for SERIOUS discussion and debate.
You wonder about what...the perpetrator or the internal investigation about the events?
Both, and also, if the event is determined (as it appears that it must) to be a terrorist act, whether it would be tried in a military court, given recent events vis a vis the Gitmo/NYC scenario.
We may be on the verge of a fantastical rationalization.
fox news lol.
i thought this area wass for SERIOUS discussion and debate.
God love you, Allen, but that was a supremely stupid post; if you cared to look elsewhere (that is to say, somewhere other than Foxnews) you'd find the same story - ffs, I even gave you an alternate link; CBS, if you can be bothered to look.
If you're going to muck about in here, elevate your game, or go back to the shallow end of the pool.
MaxOverlord
11-24-2009, 02:39 AM
fox news lol.
i thought this area wass for SERIOUS discussion and debate.
I think your crude attempt to cut off an/any avenue of debate because it doesn't pass your personal sniff test is a very serious problem for you...if it is a debate you are after.
clocker
11-24-2009, 03:51 AM
Both, and also, if the event is determined (as it appears that it must) to be a terrorist act, whether it would be tried in a military court, given recent events vis a vis the Gitmo/NYC scenario.
What difference would it make?
clocker
11-24-2009, 01:02 PM
No, I'm not.
devilsadvocate
11-24-2009, 10:51 PM
I think the desire to proclaim it as an act of terrorism is politically driven. A charge of treason seems more appropriate.
Oh Yes - quite true.
Are we allowed to think or speak of it as an Islamic event at all (at all).
clocker
11-27-2009, 04:45 PM
Are we allowed to think or speak of it as an Islamic event at all (at all).
Sure.
Assuming you're willing to think or speak of the Dr. Tiller murder as a "Christian event".
Goose/gander type of thing, you know.
A reasonable request.
Any more qualifying quibbles?
Alien5
11-27-2009, 08:41 PM
Both, and also, if the event is determined (as it appears that it must) to be a terrorist act, whether it would be tried in a military court, given recent events vis a vis the Gitmo/NYC scenario.
We may be on the verge of a fantastical rationalization.
fox news lol.
i thought this area wass for SERIOUS discussion and debate.
God love you, Allen, but that was a supremely stupid post; if you cared to look elsewhere (that is to say, somewhere other than Foxnews) you'd find the same story - ffs, I even gave you an alternate link; CBS, if you can be bothered to look.
If you're going to muck about in here, elevate your game, or go back to the shallow end of the pool.
sorry, It's not the same story, it's a story told to you by different organizations.
Both, and also, if the event is determined (as it appears that it must) to be a terrorist act, whether it would be tried in a military court, given recent events vis a vis the Gitmo/NYC scenario.
We may be on the verge of a fantastical rationalization.
God love you, Allen, but that was a supremely stupid post; if you cared to look elsewhere (that is to say, somewhere other than Foxnews) you'd find the same story - ffs, I even gave you an alternate link; CBS, if you can be bothered to look.
If you're going to muck about in here, elevate your game, or go back to the shallow end of the pool.
sorry, It's not the same story, it's a story told to you by different organizations.
Ah.
So, we are left to...what, precisely?
Are the basic facts in dispute somehow.
clocker
11-28-2009, 12:28 AM
Are we allowed to think or speak of it as an Islamic event at all (at all).
Sure.
Assuming you're willing to think or speak of the Dr. Tiller murder as a "Christian event".
Goose/gander type of thing, you know.
A reasonable request.
Any more qualifying quibbles?
Oh, no.
A trifle curious where you're going with this but I'm sure you'll get there eventually.
Do you think the events of 9/11 were perpetrated in the names of Allah and the Koran - Islam?
clocker
11-28-2009, 03:26 AM
What difference does it make?
Were terrorist acts performed on 9/11?
clocker
11-28-2009, 05:31 AM
Yes.
Alien5
11-28-2009, 11:11 AM
So the man should be locked up for supporting charities that allegedly gave money to people involved in Terrorism? is that a crime?
Were terrorist acts performed on 9/11?
Yes.
Were these acts undertaken in the name of Islam?
So the man should be locked up for supporting charities that allegedly gave money to people involved in Terrorism? is that a crime?
Killing people would be a crime, I think.
The other may be a motive, I suppose, if we're allowed to ask the question.
clocker
11-28-2009, 02:48 PM
Yes.
Were these acts undertaken in the name of Islam?
Yes.
So?
Are we allowed to refer to the events of 9/11 as terrorist in nature, and the perpetrators as terrorists?
clocker
11-28-2009, 07:52 PM
First of all, from whom are you seeking permission and why?
Secondly, if you have something to say why not just lay it out and quit leading us by the nose?
First of all, from whom are you seeking permission and why?
Secondly, if you have something to say why not just lay it out and quit leading us by the nose?
Not seeking permission at all, just trying to determine whether the PC crowd has laid claim to this event as it does all others.
As to the latter, I promise your nose will suffer no damage for my having led you by it.
devilsadvocate
11-29-2009, 02:30 AM
Who is this "PC" crowd and what qualifications do they have?
clocker
11-29-2009, 02:51 AM
If you're going to build a straw man, shouldn't he be taller than 6"?
This coy act is bullshit.
If there was a PC crowd, it was the Axis of Evil- Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush- who stifled any dissent by labeling it "un-American" and "soft on terrorism".
Nobody was denying that a terrorist attack had taken place on 9/11, just Iraq's involvement.
If the evidence supports that Hasan was indeed a self-styled terrorist- as opposed to just a random nut-job- and Ft. Hood was politically motivated, then so be it...who are you expecting to muzzle you?
Again, if you have a point, make it for crissake.
Okay, let's cut to the chase:
Why a public trial in a public venue rather than a military tribunal for the Gitmo crowd?
Please answer by means other than merely saying "why not?".
clocker
11-29-2009, 02:27 PM
Isn't the justice system one of the main bulwarks of the democracy we're so eager to impose on the rest of the world?
Public trials in public venues- i.e., transparency- are supposed to be one of the things that's admirable about our system and yet you imply that it's not robust enough to handle a case like this.
What- if anything- does the choice of venue have to do with the "labeling as terrorist/Islam" thing you introduced into the thread, or was that just a random diversion?
I still have absolutely no idea what you think the point of this thread is.
Burnsy
11-29-2009, 02:34 PM
I still have absolutely no idea what you think the point of this thread is.
Me either and I've been following it, patiently waiting for it go go somewhere for 2 or 3 days now... :lol:
I think I'll give up now...
Isn't the justice system one of the main bulwarks of the democracy we're so eager to impose on the rest of the world?
Public trials in public venues- i.e., transparency- are supposed to be one of the things that's admirable about our system and yet you imply that it's not robust enough to handle a case like this.
What- if anything- does the choice of venue have to do with the "labeling as terrorist/Islam" thing you introduced into the thread, or was that just a random diversion?
I still have absolutely no idea what you think the point of this thread is.
Transparency?
You mean that principle promised but only selectively practiced by the Obama administration?
Ah.
Okay, why is transparency so desirable in this instance?
Do you want to gamble a public trial will satisfy it's own requirement of unanimity in rendering a verdict?
I suppose 'fairness' would seat a Muslim or two on the jury, wouldn't you?
Feel free to make your next (incorrect) leap, presumably wherein you accuse me of a racial or religious bias.
Along another line, perhaps you remember the trial of OJ Simpson, who was found not guilty, not because he was actually innocent, but rather to service a felt need to put paid to the racist belief that black men have been historically held to wrongful account in criminal matters.
I mean, really - the mob fixes this kind of stuff all the time, and they don't even have the Islam's constitutional sanction.
Why do you think this isn't a risk?
One last thing:
Even if it all works out just fine (one may wonder what "fine" might be), this trial will set a precedent for the future.
Are you sure you want to obsolete military courts?
Just as an example, you see.
clocker
11-29-2009, 04:54 PM
So, a trial in a civilian court is a "gamble"...does this mean a military tribunal is a sure thing?
Anyway, what trial are we talking about here?
So, a trial in a civilian court is a "gamble"...does this mean a military tribunal is a sure thing?
Relatively speaking, yes - in both cases.
Anyway, what trial are we talking about here?
Since you asked, I'll take an opinion for each - the Gitmo/NYC trial and whatever eventuates with Hasan/Ft.Hood.
3RA1N1AC
11-29-2009, 11:53 PM
So, a trial in a civilian court is a "gamble"...does this mean a military tribunal is a sure thing?
Anyway, what trial are we talking about here?
trial of u.s. army major nidal malik hasan, who is accused of killing 13 and wounding approx 40 at fort hood. victims were mixture of military personnel and civilians. immediate legal jurisdiction over the murder trial is military court. federal prosecution could charge him with other crimes (such as violation of antiterrorism law) and either stage a second trial or just supercede the military trial.
as for whether someone can or should be tried for the crime of terrorism: i suggest that we should have first provided precise, comprehensive definitions of "terrorist" & "terrorism" and demonstrated the ability/willingness to apply the terms consistently before we outlawed them & proposed war against them. so far, i think the terms have not been well-defined, not been consistently applied (see history of references to u.s.-allied terrorists as "freedom fighters"), and have functioned better as pejoratives and propaganda than as technical or legal denotations.
That's not a bad post.
Please don't take exception to my having noted this.
clocker
11-30-2009, 03:45 AM
Relatively speaking, yes - in both cases.
So why not eliminate civil courts in favor of the (apparently) superior military tribunal system?
In fact, why not eliminate trials altogether?
You seem to believe that guilt has already been determined, what happened to the presumption of innocence?
That's quite a leap.
Try again.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.