homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums!


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums!   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Politics/Religion/Current Affairs   » 9/11: Six Years Later (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Author Topic: 9/11: Six Years Later
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 17, 2007 11:27      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dude -- if that's Shakespeare, then I'm Audrey Hepburn. [Wink]

--------------------
Shameless plug. (Please forgive me.)

Posts: 6530 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 17, 2007 15:00      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Akshully, that would make you Barbra Streisand.
Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callipygous
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 2071

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 17, 2007 15:15      Profile for Callipygous     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're both right

--------------------
"Knowledge is Power. France is Bacon" - Milton

Posts: 2922 | From: Brighton - UK | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 17, 2007 16:56      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by spungo:
Dude -- if that's Shakespeare, then I'm Audrey Hepburn. [Wink]

But you said I could be Audrey Hepburn tonight.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10699 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted September 18, 2007 21:24      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Part I: Cap'n Vic Is Still an Idiot
quote:
from Barbara "Shakespeare" quote:

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor....

Maybe that should read "bangs the drums of Jihad"

... and then "the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will strap plastic explosives upon themselves to kill hundreds of unarmed people in suicidal blasts, and gladly so."

[shake head]   I would say that giving up rights is trivial compared to killing unarmed people with suicide bombing. It's sad how much hypocrisy it takes to think the "Shakespeare" quote only applies to the US, but doesn't reveal a dark truth about Islam in the Mideast.
 

Part II: "What? Me Worry About Terrorists?"

I've found it difficult to explain why so many people act as if Islamic Extremism (aka. Terrorism) poses less threat than Drunk Driving, or random homicides. Each of the following attitudes are poor policies; however, the last two are the result of being psychotic, so it's futile to debate anyone that has them.

Top Theories for Attitudes That Explain Why People "Show No Concern" About Islamic Extremism
  1. "They haven't killed anyone I know." / "None of my stuff got blown up."
     
  2. "Terrorism doesn't cause much damage, so it doesn't make things any worse than they already are."
     
  3. "It's all government propaganda -- people that read the Koran and worship in Mosques haven't killed anyone."
     
  4. "The ends justifies the means; therefore, Muslim suicide bombing, sectarian violence, and death threats are no different from soldiers killing insurgents."
     

Fallacy of "They haven't killed anyone I know":   In the case of escalating violence, others may be the victims in the beginning, but eventually no one is spared the wrath of tyrants. Martin Niemoller gives the most famous adage of this dangerous attitude ("First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out ...").

Fallacy of "Terrorism doesn't cause much damage":   If terrorism is the force that pushes countries to war -- expect lots of damage. For those who say "just ignore them," there is a limit to how many times a country will tolerate acts of war made against it. For decades, Islamic Extremists have carried out "acts of war" against the US -- was anyone surprised that the US destroyed the Taliban government when they protected al-Qaeda to the end? Even if terrorism does not "start a war," the peace it prevents can result in much death and destruction.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 18, 2007 23:56      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once again, when ASM's factual errors are pointed out (i.e. his claim that the torture of prisoners was minor stuff involving womens underwear and humiliation, just some harmless zany 'Animal House Iraqi Vacation' high jinks) he is faced with a choice, he can

a) Acknowledge his error, and adjust his position to account for the facts that have been pointed out to him

or

b) ignore the new facts, and unleash a torrent of vitriol in which he abuses someone for views that person has never expressed, and which exist only in ASMs fevered imagination.

Those familiar with ASMs previous postings will be unsurprised at his choice.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10699 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 19, 2007 10:42      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hi All _____________________ Every one seems to miss that this about where and how someone prays.

There is extreme mistrust between the haves and the havenots,

Until all people have all, of their needs met, Health, Food, Housing and Creature comforts there will be mistrust.

Does my religion say that any one that does not pray as I, is dirt? Nope all are created equal.

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5855 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted September 19, 2007 17:58      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Less than One-Tenth of One Percent Is Not "Widespread"
      (It's "Minor Stuff.")
quote:
Originally posted by TFD:

Once again, when ASM's ... claim that the torture of prisoners was minor stuff....

   -
 
Fine, TFD, I'll make a statement based on your "logic" of "because someone was THIS BAD, it proves how bad the whole group is."
quote:
Mr. This-Proves-All-Are: (About a dozen) Muslims killed 191 people on Madrid's commuter trains and wounded over 2000 on March 11, 2004. The widespread, horrific violence of this act shows that Muslims are truly a despicable excuse for human beings.
 
"Nobody" is going to accept the statement above, so don't be a hypocrite and use a verbal attack against Americans that you wouldn't accept against "anyone else."

Since we're having fun, maybe you can make a Pie Chart showing the percentage of "Bad" Islamic Extremists. It might amuse me. In fact, I might laugh so hard that beer spews out my nose and gets "boogers" on my keyboard.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Colonel Panic
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1200

Icon 1 posted September 19, 2007 18:25      Profile for Colonel Panic         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey ASM,

I was wondering if your attitude toward torture and killing babies -- you know that kind of thing being "minor stuff" -- had anything to do with our armed forces not thinking you were good enough for them to take you back?

Has the idea of shooting at innocent women and children from a Blackwater helicopter ever caught your interest?

You seem to be that kind of guy.

Colonel Panic

--------------------
Free! Free at last!

Posts: 1809 | From: Glacier Melt, USA | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Explainer
Mini Geek
Member # 5716

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 19, 2007 19:53      Profile for The Explainer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
More data in support of The Explainer's 'Great Satan' theory.

A thorough review of this thread revealed no evidence of anyone defending Islamic terrorists, claiming that all US soldiers are guilty of torture, or expressing any of the other extreme views Mr 65816 attempts to 'refute'.

Posts: 53 | From: The hall of logic | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 5 posted September 19, 2007 23:03      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
September 19, 2007, 19:53
... no evidence of anyone defending Islamic terrorists

Gee ... I guess I misunderstood the unending hate that "you people" spew against the US.   [ohwell]

Just curious, hope you don't mind answering a question or two....

Can war against "evil" be fought without innocent people dying?
  (For example, in a case where "evil" says "if you fight me, I will kill innocent people.")

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 19, 2007 23:18      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Explainer:
More data in support of The Explainer's 'Great Satan' theory.

Hmmm, let's see...

Long rambling posts full of factual errors, meaningless vitriol, and gross misrepresentation of other peoples positions. Responds to anyone who points out the factual errors with a long rambling post full of factual errors, meaningless vitriol, and gross misrepresentation of other peoples positions.

Seems to fit the 'deranged trolling git' theory pretty well.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10699 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 5 posted September 20, 2007 19:07      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
September 19, 2007 23:18
... gross misrepresentation of other peoples positions.

The only position you have made clear is an intense hatred for the US. How well have you stated the means where ideas you support would be achieved?

Saying something like "My position is -- I support GOOD" makes you sound like a politician making promises without any clue on how to fulfill them.

Why don't you answer questions directed towards you, instead of restating how much you despise certain people?
  • Question 2: What would be your solution for a situation where terrorists take the passengers of a commercial aircraft hostage? (Catch: No innocent people may be harmed, since harming innocents is "unacceptable.") PS: Consider posting a solution that works for the events on September 11, 2001.
     
  • Question 3: Assuming the phrase "beware the leader who bangs the drums of war" only applies to the US, why does the phrase not apply to religious leaders that call for "holy war"?
     
  • Question 4: How do you achieve justice in a situation where a man kills a dozen unarmed people, announces he has carried out the will of "god," and then kills himself?

If your behavior remains the same, you still won't answer any of my last four questions. That tends to indicate you don't want people to know what you think, so you refuse to reveal your beliefs on certain issues.
 

quote:
September 19, 2007 19:53
A thorough review of this thread revealed no evidence ....

It reminds me of the 5th Amendment in courtrooms: A person is not required to provide incriminating testimony against one's self. So if I ask a question, certain people avoid answering because "it would be used against them."

If someone holds a belief that is "good" and logically sound, why should he evade questions about it? How would one demonstrate hypocrisy in something which is logically sound?

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 20, 2007 21:00      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You still don't get it, do you ASM?

I don't accept your invitations to explain my support of terrorists, because I don't support terrorists.

I have better things to do than compose detailed denials of the figments of your deranged imagination when I know you'll just ignore my words and say something like your drivel below. Been there, done that.

quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
quote:
September 19, 2007 19:53
A thorough review of this thread revealed no evidence ....

It reminds me of the 5th Amendment in courtrooms: A person is not required to provide incriminating testimony against one's self. So if I ask a question, certain people avoid answering because "it would be used against them."

So, the complete lack of evidence for the views you know I hold just proves how sneaky I am?

There's a word for that kind of thinking ASM, starts with a 'P', ends in 'aranoid'.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10699 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 5 posted September 21, 2007 01:21      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TFD:

I don't accept your invitations to explain my support of terrorists ....
I have better things to do than compose detailed denials ....

TFD, I posted four questions. Pick one and answer it.
  • Question 1: Can war against "evil" be fought without innocent people dying? (For example, in a case where "evil" says "if you fight me, I will kill innocent people.")
     
  • Question 2: What would be your solution for a situation where terrorists take the passengers of a commercial aircraft hostage? (Catch: No innocent people may be harmed, since harming innocents is "unacceptable.") PS: Consider posting a solution that works for the events on September 11, 2001.
     
  • Question 3: Assuming the phrase "beware the leader who bangs the drums of war" only applies to the US, why does the phrase not apply to religious leaders that call for "holy war"?
      
  • Question 4: How do you achieve justice in a situation where a man kills a dozen unarmed people, announces he has carried out the will of "god," and then kills himself?
     
These questions are not accusations. Disagree on that if you like, but you'd be wrong. Are you saying that no matter how a person answers these questions, they must say something that supports terrorism?

If you can't answer any of these questions without "self-incrimination," you've got problems with your sense of values.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
GMx

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1523

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 21, 2007 08:30      Profile for GMx     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
 -

Posts: 5855 | From: S-4, Area 51 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 21, 2007 09:24      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Explainer
Mini Geek
Member # 5716

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 21, 2007 15:26      Profile for The Explainer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
quote:
September 19, 2007, 19:53
... no evidence of anyone defending Islamic terrorists

Gee ... I guess I misunderstood the unending hate that "you people" spew against the US.   [ohwell]
1. Mr 65816 believes anyone who points out his logical errors is guilty of "hate" towards the USA.

2. Mr 65816 has made an obvious logical error, of the following kind
quote:
A hates B.
C hates B. &dagger
-> C likes A

 
&dagger - Mr 65816 needs no evidence - see his comments in another posting above

This could be expressed in English as "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" a belief Mr 65816 has expressed several times before,

The fallacy of this theory is easily shown in the following example

The USA hates the Soviet Union.
Osama Bin Laden hates the Soviet Union.
-> Osama Bin Laden likes the USA.

Posts: 53 | From: The hall of logic | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mr Agreeable
Maximum Newbie
Member # 11127

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 22, 2007 06:30      Profile for Mr Agreeable     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
FYI: Soldiers take orders -- if ordered to kill, they kill -- without orders they don't kill (although they may kill in self-defense). AN "ILLEGAL COMBATANT" KILLS WITHOUT A CHAIN OF COMMAND (Orders) -- there's a term for this "Murdering Psychopath."

I agree.
Killing is perfectly OK, as long as someone else told you to do it.

Posts: 10 | From: TX | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted September 22, 2007 09:02      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
September 21, 2007 15:26
Mr 65816 believes anyone who points out his logical errors is guilty of "hate" towards the USA.
...
This could be expressed in English as "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" ....

The best wording is "people like TFD defend terrorism" (from one specific category). The term "support" is less accurate, and your "reasoning" is wrong.

One reason I see TFD as defending terrorism goes back to back to late September 2001: TFD said the Taliban was right not to turn over Osama bin Laden.
quote:
from articles:

UN Resolution 1267 was adopted in October 1999 to urge the Taliban, the largest warring party in Afghanistan, to hand over bin Laden immediately and to close terrorist training camps in the territory under its control.

The FBI stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable. The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks....

Regardless of if one assumes TFD was absolutely, perfectly correct that the Taliban should not turn over Osama bin Laden on one charge of terrorism occurring on Sept 11, 2001 -- TFD defended Osama bin Laden (much like a lawyer, specifically a defense attorney).

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 22, 2007 14:14      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
One reason I see TFD as defending terrorism goes back to back to late September 2001: TFD said the Taliban was right not to turn over Osama bin Laden.

Well, it was quite a while after September 2001, (I didn't register on GC until late 2002) but let's not sully any ASM postings with 'facts' (after all - Reality has a well-known liberal bias).

What I said was that any government should demand to see evidence of guilt before turning anyone over to a foreign government who wanted to kill him, and that the USA should have shown the evidence they claimed to have.

ASM displayed his usual contempt for 'evidence', and persistently claimed that I was proclaiming bin Laden's innocence, despite very clearly worded statements from me that I wasn't.

Gee, I guess that means ASMs postings then, and now, are "full of factual errors... and gross misrepresentation of other peoples positions".

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10699 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 1 posted September 22, 2007 18:37      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TFD:
Well, it was quite a while after September 2001, (I didn't register on GC until late 2002) but let's not sully any ASM postings with 'facts' ....

Being wrong about when you said something does not change what you said.

The only reason I didn't provide the exact date, name of the thread, and quote you was because I didn't find it in any searches. I apologize for that part.
 

quote:
Originally posted by TFD:
What I said was .........

Spin it any way you like, you defended the Taliban "fiercely."

Here are three rhetorical questions:
  • Was Osama bin Laden a criminal on September 12, 2001?
  • Was Osama bin Laden a criminal on September 10, 2001?
  • Was Osama bin Laden a criminal in October 1999?
     
      Note: The UN "urged" the Taliban to "hand over" Osama bin Laden in 1999, and the Taliban refused.

Question: Why did the UN "urge" the Taliban to hand over bin Laden under UN Resolution 1267?
quote:
from UN Resolution 1267,   October 15, 1999

Reiterating its deep concern over the continuing violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights, ... stressing that the capture by the Taliban of the Consulate-General of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the murder of Iranian diplomats and a journalist in Mazar-e-Sharif constituted flagrant violations of established international law....

Strongly condemning the continuing use of Afghan territory, especially areas controlled by the Taliban, for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts ....

Determining that the failure of the Taliban authorities to respond to the demands in paragraph 13 of resolution 1214 (1998) constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

 

quote:
I was defending Law And Order.
I admit having failed to find your statements from more than four years ago; therefore, I have to ask you:
  • Question: How did you defend "Law and Order" in the matter of Taliban criminal acts?
     
  • Question: Would you agree with the UN assessment of the Taliban as constituting "a threat to international peace and security"?
     
  • Question: Why would you expect Taliban compliance with international law after years of "flagrant violations," support of terrorism, and posing a threat to international peace?


--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 22, 2007 19:27      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ASM65816:
quote:
Originally posted by TFD:
What I said was .........

Spin it any way you like, you defended the Taliban "fiercely."

The original thread is here.

In response to a factual error in ASMs posting (i.e. that the Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over) I pointed out
quote:
Actually, they said they'd hand him over, but they wanted to see the evidence first.
I'd like to think that my government would do the same thing before handing me over to a foreign power that wants to kill me.

and later, when ASM had expressed his contempt for the 'show the evidence' approach
quote:
So, you'd be happy to hand Americans over to foreign governments to be killed, on the basis of unseen "intelligence reports" ?
You wouldn't ask them to show any proof at all?
That's what the US demanded.
I dunno about the US, but in Australia you can't legally extradite anyone without a court case, and a presentation of evidence.

No defence of terrorism.
No claims that bin Laden was innocent.
A simple statement in support of the rule of law.

ASM's response, as usual, was a torrent of vitriol attacking his gross misrepresentation of what I said.

Factual errors, vitriol, gross misrepresentation.
3+ years later, the song remains the same.

<Willow-voice>Bored now.</Willow-voice>

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10699 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
TheMoMan
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1659

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2007 10:10      Profile for TheMoMan         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ASM65816 ________________ Lets just for the sake of the argument say that Fidel Castro notified the US State Department that you were wanted for murder in Cuba, and that your local authorities did in fact arrest you and prepare to extradite you to Cuba. At this point according to your argument you should be sent kicking and screaming, I was never in Cuba, I do not know who those people are, and why me? Go you must. damn with the rule of law. Why should the state department protect you?

--------------------
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


Benjamin Franklin,

Posts: 5855 | From: Just South of the Huron National Forest, in the water shed of the Rifle River | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ASM65816
SuperBlabberMouth!
Member # 712

Member Rated:
2
Icon 2 posted September 23, 2007 10:14      Profile for ASM65816   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
September 22, 2007 19:27

No defense of terrorism.
No claims that bin Laden was innocent.
A simple statement in support of the rule of law.

Here's another question I bet you'll refuse to answer:

Question: Why would any reasonable human being expect law-abiding behavior such as honesty from a group (or individual) that commits flagrant "violations of established international law"?

(Note: TFD, I hope you don't intend make the accusations against the US being the same as the Taliban because if the accusation extends to the Clinton administration, then you should simply your beliefs to "I hate the US forever.")
 

quote:
RE: The Taliban
Actually, they said they'd hand him over, but they wanted to see the evidence first.

Given that the Taliban said that they had not been presented with sufficient evidence:

Do you believe they were telling the truth?

Why would they tell the truth if it meant self-incrimination?

TFD, you used the false pretense that the Taliban was truthful to:
  • Claim the Taliban was acting within the bounds of "law and order."
  • Refuse to accept the validity (truth) of statements incriminating the Taliban (before Bush had become president).
 

quote:
Originally posted by TFD:

I dunno about the US, but in Australia you can't legally extradite anyone without a court case, and a presentation of evidence.

Given that Clinton was the US president in 1999, and Bush could not affect UN behavior:

Do you believe that the UN "had no court case(s)" and "presented no evidence" when it passed Resolution 1267 in 1999?

If you accept UN Resolution 1267 as valid, the Taliban should have turned over bin Laden even on the day before the 9/11 attacks.

--------------------
Once a proud programmer of Apple II's, he now spends his days and nights in cheap dives fraternizing with exotic dancers....

Posts: 1035 | From: Third rock from sun. | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam