Terrorism

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.[/quote]

Russ: Reading the above, I come away with a definite sense of nativism, especially as it relates to the Mideast. You mention missionaries. Why is this so bad? It would seem to be that you’re arguing that a Christian proselytizing in the ME is a bad thing and that reads to me as though you believe Islam belongs there, but Christianity doesn’t. If I’m not reading this right, please set me straight.

I bring this up because there are and have been competing religions and ideologies there for millenia (which is, in large part, the motive force behind all of this shit).

As far as capitulation goes: The “resistance” you mention is completely understandable and I would agree that it becomes almost a duty. However, Osama and his little minions aren’t “resisting” anything. To the contrary, they are actively seeking the worldwide establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, operating under Sharia law, to which all of us, regardless of faith, would submit (upon pain of death, I would add).

So, given that, 9/11 wasn’t an act of resistance, it was an act of war and delivered by an enemy utterly dedicated to our total destruction as a country, and a way of life. You may recall Osama declaring his desire to kill 4MM Americans. This isn’t “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. If we equate Osama to Hitler, the only thing missing is his control over a country like Germany. Remarkably similar goals (world domination under a unifying “theology”) and similar wills.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Arraya][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?[/quote]

Arraya: Actually, I was. As far as the CIA missing something, well, Arraya, come on. You’re not really going to use that to buttress your argument, are you? Saying that the CIA missed something significant is akin to noting that the sky is blue. Hell, its almost a tautology.

No, there is precedent here (think Otto Skorzeny’s operatives during the German Ardennes offensive in late 1944). If, in fact, he entered Ft. Hood with the stated intent of firing upon American soldiers (and his possession of two illegal firearms would certainly seem to make that part of the case) and doing so as a de facto enemy combatant (and many of the posters here are making the distinction between enemy combatant and terrorist), then he was, in essence, an enemy soldier wearing the uniform of the US Army.

[NotCranky]

I think that for the most part the missionary work and the Christian warmonger lobbyists associated is sickening. Connversion by the sword is not my cup of tea.

The other questions we have hashed out before.

I think you tend to dramatize the enemies bouts of saber rattling for effect and to support your conclusions and team, which tends to look like a smokescreen for me and derails the conversation. I won’t get mad about it though.

I don’t doubt that in some minds a new caliphate is on the table, it more or less always has been,but lets face it there is not much risk of all the evil possibilities you so willfully embellish. This is fear mongering. For us to see 9/11 so differently it must be yet another case of how we see the antecedent events and the hostilities in general.

[NotCranky]

I think that for the most part the missionary work and the Christian warmonger lobbyists associated is sickening. Connversion by the sword is not my cup of tea.

The other questions we have hashed out before.

I think you tend to dramatize the enemies bouts of saber rattling for effect and to support your conclusions and team, which tends to look like a smokescreen for me and derails the conversation. I won’t get mad about it though.

I don’t doubt that in some minds a new caliphate is on the table, it more or less always has been,but lets face it there is not much risk of all the evil possibilities you so willfully embellish. This is fear mongering. For us to see 9/11 so differently it must be yet another case of how we see the antecedent events and the hostilities in general.

[NotCranky]

I think that for the most part the missionary work and the Christian warmonger lobbyists associated is sickening. Connversion by the sword is not my cup of tea.

The other questions we have hashed out before.

I think you tend to dramatize the enemies bouts of saber rattling for effect and to support your conclusions and team, which tends to look like a smokescreen for me and derails the conversation. I won’t get mad about it though.

I don’t doubt that in some minds a new caliphate is on the table, it more or less always has been,but lets face it there is not much risk of all the evil possibilities you so willfully embellish. This is fear mongering. For us to see 9/11 so differently it must be yet another case of how we see the antecedent events and the hostilities in general.

[NotCranky]

I think that for the most part the missionary work and the Christian warmonger lobbyists associated is sickening. Connversion by the sword is not my cup of tea.

The other questions we have hashed out before.

I think you tend to dramatize the enemies bouts of saber rattling for effect and to support your conclusions and team, which tends to look like a smokescreen for me and derails the conversation. I won’t get mad about it though.

I don’t doubt that in some minds a new caliphate is on the table, it more or less always has been,but lets face it there is not much risk of all the evil possibilities you so willfully embellish. This is fear mongering. For us to see 9/11 so differently it must be yet another case of how we see the antecedent events and the hostilities in general.

[NotCranky]

I think that for the most part the missionary work and the Christian warmonger lobbyists associated is sickening. Connversion by the sword is not my cup of tea.

The other questions we have hashed out before.

I think you tend to dramatize the enemies bouts of saber rattling for effect and to support your conclusions and team, which tends to look like a smokescreen for me and derails the conversation. I won’t get mad about it though.

I don’t doubt that in some minds a new caliphate is on the table, it more or less always has been,but lets face it there is not much risk of all the evil possibilities you so willfully embellish. This is fear mongering. For us to see 9/11 so differently it must be yet another case of how we see the antecedent events and the hostilities in general.

[Aecetia]

What difference does it make what religion or background Allan has? How is that germane to this discussion? If he was a “Hebe,” should his comments be discounted? That strikes me as bigoted.

[Aecetia]

What difference does it make what religion or background Allan has? How is that germane to this discussion? If he was a “Hebe,” should his comments be discounted? That strikes me as bigoted.

[Aecetia]

What difference does it make what religion or background Allan has? How is that germane to this discussion? If he was a “Hebe,” should his comments be discounted? That strikes me as bigoted.

[Aecetia]

What difference does it make what religion or background Allan has? How is that germane to this discussion? If he was a “Hebe,” should his comments be discounted? That strikes me as bigoted.

[Author]

Posts