So the man should be locked up for supporting charities that allegedly gave money to people involved in Terrorism? is that a crime?
μετά
BT Rep: +6
So the man should be locked up for supporting charities that allegedly gave money to people involved in Terrorism? is that a crime?
en(un)lightened
Originally Posted by j2k4
Were these acts undertaken in the name of Islam?
Killing people would be a crime, I think.
The other may be a motive, I suppose, if we're allowed to ask the question.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Shovel Ready
Yes.Were these acts undertaken in the name of Islam?
So?
Last edited by clocker; 11-28-2009 at 02:49 PM.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
en(un)lightened
Are we allowed to refer to the events of 9/11 as terrorist in nature, and the perpetrators as terrorists?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Shovel Ready
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?
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
en(un)lightened
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.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Who is this "PC" crowd and what qualifications do they have?
Shovel Ready
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.
Last edited by clocker; 11-29-2009 at 01:10 PM.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
en(un)lightened
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?".
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Shovel Ready
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.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks