Quote:
Originally posted by spinningfetus
Speaking of facts we'll start with an administration that has backed away from Ashcroft's statement that he was coming here to explode a dirty bomb. A dirty bomb would only hurt the real estate it was exploded on if our goverment stockpiled potassium iodide tablets the way they have anthrax antibiotics. The reason for the dirty bomb is fear as the administration has already said, they then turn around and use the word dirty bomb and the word radiation four times in the announcement of the arrest. Who is using fear? I have also noticed everytime this guy is mentioned they also mentioned that this guy was in a gang, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? The <b>fact</b> is he is a US citizen. The <b>fact</b> is he hasn't been charged. Guilty or not he should be let go. And if he does go and explode a bomb, it will be the government's fault for not followning it's own rules. Those rules are there for a reason, one I'm willing to risk my life for. Its that simple, as they say in NH "Live free or Die".
|
Let's get this out of the way really quick. <b>I don't care.</b> We are talking about whether or not we are at war, not whether or not this guy has been charged. Personally, I agree with you that he should be charged. But <b>that is not what we are talking about</b>. I'm not going to fall for your diversionary tactics.
Quote:
|
As for your point that this is a war specifically against the Taliban and al Quada, what about the expasion of the police action to the Philipines, not because the groups are necesssarily affiliated with the either of the afore mentioned groups but because they are radical muslim groups.
|
Yes, nevermind the fact that Abu Sayaaf is linked to al Qaeda. Even if they weren't, it still doesn't change the <b>fact</b> that they were holding <b>two</b> Americans as hostages and had <b>killed</b> another. We were involved in that operation before September 11 and will be finishing it soon (withdrawal date of June 30 I believe) now that the threat to American citizens has been alleviated. We're not fighting them because they're radical muslim groups; we're fighting them because they murdered an American citizen and held, for over a year, two others.
Quote:
|
You'll also notice that there are over fifty groups of the government's list of known terrorist groups. Does that include the paramilitary groups we trained in Colombia that are now resposible for most of the kidnappings and killings? No, we are trying to give them even more money. Which we will continue to do until they are no longer useful, at which point we will brand them as terrorists. Thats the cynical game our government is playing and as long as we allow them to do so it is the same as us asking to have planes dropped on our heads.
|
I'm not quite sure where you get this shit, but I'm guessing it's some totally leftist online rag. Here's a tip: read something else for a change.
The fact of the matter is that <b>nothing</b> our government does makes it <b>A-Okay</b> to murder over 3,000 <b>innocent</b> civilians. The terrorists may argue that, and you may believe it, but that doesn't make it okay. It's hardly the same as "us asking to have planes dropped on our heads". You apologists always crack me up. You say that from a distance because you're comfortably numb. You can argue that now... but I doubt you would if your child was killed in the World Trade Center. Sure, you'll sit here and say that you would, but you can't <b>know</b> because it hasn't happened to you. Suddenly it seems a little different... "She didn't deserve to die like that. She didn't support the presence of US troops on Saudi soil." Yeah. Then you begin to realize that really, no one deserved to die like that. It wasn't deserved. Let me tell you something: a lot of leftist kiddies died in those attacks too. A lot of people that probably <b>hated</b> Bush and probably even people that would have agreed with the bullshit you're spewing right here. Well, I'm sorry, but they weren't asking for planes to be dropped on their heads any more than the others were.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with whether or not we're at war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. We are, as simple as that.
sycamore - I'll respond more to you later. My contention is going to be that the Declaration of War is an outdated idea that is no longer practical and, therefore, will not be called in the future (unless it's a really <b>big</b> war). I'll flesh it out a little more later, but I have got to get everything done before I head out to California and after writing the above response, I have ten minutes less slack-off time.