Dead Terrorists

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Friday, June 30, 2006 06:11
VIEWED: 8309
PAGE 5 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Friday, June 9, 2006 3:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I'm serious--why should I not be glad that he's gone? If for no other reason than that he had it coming to him.

I agree.

A sick, twisted person who advocated slaughtering his own fellow Muslims has died. And we cannot even get most posters to agree this is a good thing. It is simply 1 down 1,000,000 more to go or a cheap ploy to build up support for Bush.

If Hero started a thread saying water was wet he would immediately get 10 responses arguing otherwise. Most of them blaming Bush in some way or another.

Believe it or not, it's okay to see the good in things every once in awhile. Doom and gloom all the time can get quite tiresome.

De-lurking to stir stuff up.

FLAUTISTFIRST

Friday, June 9, 2006 3:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Perhaps you simply lack an understanding about how wars work or maybe you just don't understand how jobs get done. As a liberal I suspect its a bit of both.

H

(in response to Chrisisall)

OK, just a small question here. Who's the liberal? Hero or Chrisisall? I just want to be sure to call the right person the right name.

BTW, I'm a liberal, proud of it, I understand war, and I finish all of my jobs.

There's no place I can be since I found serenity.

KANEMAN

Friday, June 9, 2006 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !

Iraq had turned yet another corner !

... and is now going in circles

Not all of Iraq..just the terrorist. Most little critters with no where to run or hide tend to go in circles...or hide in little holes in the floor of shacks with urine in their pants.

KANEMAN

Friday, June 9, 2006 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Terrorism- "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion" Webster
Yeah, like I said! At least we agree on something!
Quote:
Terrorism" is not a legitimate act by a person or state. War, though constrained by treaties and generally accepted rules, is a legitimate act by a state or a person at the direction of the state as embodied by, in our case, our elected President. He may be a warfighter, but he is not a terrorist.
Please- once again shown me the error of my ways. Our invasion of Iraq is a legitimate war because...? Hmm, lets see... what are the recognized reasons for war? (rummages through internet...) Self defense? Authorized by UN?

Help me out here Hero. You must know the reaons why our invasion was legal.

Why it was legal? Our congress( Senate & House ) voted to go to war. Our prez agreed. It has been awhile since my last civics class..(searches through constitution..yep there it is)..I'm pretty sure that makes it legal. And it has nothing to do with the UN,,even if they were against our decision to go to war. We are...(once again searches through constitution)...give me a sec...aha...a sovereign nation.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

STDOUBT

Friday, June 9, 2006 8:25 AM

99 Terrorists on the run from the Law,
99 Terrorists on the run,
Take one down, put him in the ground,
125 Terrorists on the run from the Law.

125 Terrorists on the run from the Law
125 Terrorists on the run..
Take one down, put him in the ground,
214 Terrorists on the run from the Law.
(stolen from digg.com)
Bush is the bestest president EVAR!!

SIGNYM

Friday, June 9, 2006 1:55 PM

Quote:
Help me out here Hero. You must know the reaons why our invasion was legal.

Why it was legal? Our congress( Senate & House ) voted to go to war. Our prez agreed. It has been awhile since my last civics class..(searches through constitution..yep there it is)..I'm pretty sure that makes it legal. And it has nothing to do with the UN,,even if they were against our decision to go to war. We are...(once again searches through constitution)...give me a sec...aha...a sovereign nation.

So.... any naiton that chooses to go to war w/o being attacked first and w/o being imminently threatened is OK. Like, say... Saddam invading Kuwait? And Nazi Germany?

Even Hero won't step into what you boldly planted your foot in because war is by definition an interational matter QUOTE constrained by treaties and generally accepted rules, is a legitimate act by a state UNQUOTE

But to nitpick your brainless point, this is what Congress voted for:

Quote:
The Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
... The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

Seeing as Bush forced out Hans Blix several weeks before his inspection was complete- an inspection that most likely would have found Saddam in substantial compliance with UN resolution- Bush did not actually meet the mandate of this act.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

HERO

Friday, June 9, 2006 1:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Or who caused thousands of unecessary civilian deaths with no apparent good coming out of it? What does someone like that deserve?

I wont let you say bad things about President Roosevelt or demonize the liberation of Europe...or maybe you are talking about Lincoln.

When America fights a war, there are no unneccesary civilian deaths except those that die as the result of enemy action, which in some sense is every one of them. Blame for the tragic deaths of civilians such as the woman and child who died with Zarqawi are entirely the responsibility of those who chose the bring this war upon themselves and then place those people in the line of fire.

Again, I call for all the Jihadists to assemble themselves in a remote desert location for efficient martyrdom. Until they do we are forced to fight the enemy where they are hiding which is usually behind as many women and children as they can force to stand in front of them.

H

SIGNYM

Friday, June 9, 2006 2:04 PM

"When America fights a war...."
But Hero, you have not shown that this is even a war. As far as I can tell it is simply an ilegal invasion, much like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or Germany's invasion of Poland.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 9, 2006 2:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

When America fights a war, there are no unneccesary civilian deaths except those that die as the result of enemy action, which in some sense is every one of them.

That's it. You are truly delusional.
If you're drunk right now, stop posting.
If you're kidding, it ain't amusing.

If you're serious...That's just gorram sad.

Chrisisall

HERO

Friday, June 9, 2006 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"When America fights a war...."
But Hero, you have not shonw that this is even a war. As far as I can tell it is simply an ilegal invasion, much like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or Germany's invasion of Poland.

Thats been the position of many liberals all along. There is ample evidence to the contrary. Some argue that this war was a legal continuation of the first Gulf War because Saddam abbrogated or ignored many of the cease fire terms like returning or accounting for several thousand Kuwaiti prisoners, the no-fly zone, WMDs, etc. Some argue that the war made legal by the UN resolutions regarding accounting for the WMDs. I suggest the war was legal only because Congress voted to authorize military action.

In any event several UN resoloutions from 1990 to 2003 authorize the use of force. Such resolutions have no legal standing. The UN cannot force the US or any other country to go to war, neither can they authorize such a war, all they can do is endorse or condemn an action the UN has no real power and wields only marginal moral authority. In the case of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait they condemned the invasion while endorsing the coalition's military response. The United States Congress made Bush's 1991 and GW's 2003 actions legal. There are no other standards for legality of American actions under the present system. The same is true for the various coalition partners who have a variety of means for legally engaging in conflict.

Now if another power chooses to expel the United States from Iraq and subsequently invades and occupies the United States then as happened following World War II they can dictate justice by holding the American leaders accountable to their own arbitrary standards that may or may not have existed prior to the conflict. This is what happened at Nurnburg. But until that happens, the US action remains legal under the US constitution and international law (which is really just international guidelines and only applicable when the powers in question choose to acknowledge them).

Now a personal note: Yesterday was a great day for America when we bombed and killed an important Al Queda leader. It was a bittersweet victory for us locally as I have just learned that yesterday a City police officer called to active service in Iraq was killed in action. He was a good man, devoted husband and father, and a proud public servant. He believed in the mission and was proud to be called. He will be missed. I'm closing my part in this discussion out of respect for him. I will observe silence on this board until after the funeral. I want to thank those of you of all sides who engage in this spirited debate. I think the honost dialogue of those who choose to disagree is a testiment to the system our soldiers are dying to serve.

H

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE