Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: NY Trial
appleciderus    11/13/2009 9:24:28 PM
Former mayor Rudy: ?Returning some of the Guantanamo detainees to New York City for trial, specifically Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has now brought us full circle ? we have regressed to a pre-9/11 mentality with respect to Islamic extremist terrorism,? former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a statement. ?Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be treated like the war criminal he is and tried in a military court. He is not just another murderer, or even a mass murderer. He murdered as part of a declared war against us?America.? Rudy said the same on Cavuto this afternoon. I think as soon as the sheilk's usefulness expires, so should he. Quietly, painfully, and anonymously. Not another 5 year trial with casualties.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT
PlatypusMaximus       11/29/2009 4:46:25 PM
Those bases, American feet on sacred soil, were the justification to murder & mutilate Mr. Berg and destroy the WTC, so I doubt Araboioli is going make like life on a bristling military base, built on that same soil, much more dangerous.
Something as trivial as the extension of an invitation from such people will not allow me to accept the desecration of a Koran as a capital offense, or civilians as being legitimate opponents for warriors to do battle with.
 
I don't care how many of them there are, where they live, or what they have to offer. I have no desire to understand or analyze
it. I have chosen a side. Our rules or die, you terrorist scum..Ready? Vote!
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       11/29/2009 5:25:24 PM

Those bases, American feet on sacred soil, were the justification to murder & mutilate Mr. Berg and destroy the WTC, so I doubt Araboioli is going make like life on a bristling military base, built on that same soil, much more dangerous.

Something as trivial as the extension of an invitation from such people will not allow me to accept the desecration of a Koran as a capital offense, or civilians as being legitimate opponents for warriors to do battle with.

 
I don't care how many of them there are, where they live, or what they have to offer. I have no desire to understand or analyze


it. I have chosen a side. Our rules or die, you terrorist scum..Ready? Vote!



Then you are doomed to failure.

-DA 
 
"If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. " - Sun Tzu
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus    Doomed Either Way.   11/29/2009 7:58:22 PM
No sir. I say we may treat barbarians like barbarians and sleep well at night. You seem to be excusing acts of barbarism against thousands of regular people...and of all things, for a post-dated, imaginary act of barbarism...against a barbarian.(googleit)
It just leaves me wondering what the original crime was that justifies all of that...and if after all that murder and destruction, putting a caterpillar on the forehead of the perp justifies it all over again, then let's just skip the middleman so to speak and get on with dragging him through the streets, shall we?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       11/29/2009 9:34:30 PM

You like so many others have ZERO clue about how to fight this war. Trust me, leave it to those of us who actually know what we are doing and don't meddle...




-DA

Perpetual cash payments won't cut it, DA.  Witness Karzi and Pakistan.  We merely expanded our problem set once we deigned to proceed in the name of democracy.  Islam already had its own version of that philosophy for millenia; we refer to this as "tribalism/sectarian violence."  Jefferson will never take root in Islam, at the very least not for many many generations, if.  Either destroy "the base" without mercy or concede now.  And nobody who has his a$$ on the line sleeps well at night.  Islam is a bottemless pit that will consume blood and treasure until well beyond our bankruptcy declaration  If you disagree, please tell us how we must fight this war and include timelines or else don't bother and simply casually ignore this request.  0.02

v^2
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/30/2009 3:10:08 AM




^1 Have you been keeping up with Al Qaeda videos?












Now if those idiots were dead, would they be recruiting?






Who understands war here?






Not you.







I've never seen such an incoherent response ever of SP...lol. At what point did I argue AQ prime members should not be killed? NEVER. Thats yet another example of you twisting the truth and someone else's words when you are proven incorrect.










 I said mutilating a muslim and then insulting Islam by desecrating his body is STUPIDITY. You will never kill those AQ prime members if you further motivate the muslims they live with to keep hiding them. Duuh! From now on you just don't worry about who understands wars. Behind this and missiles for merchants it's clear you are blind as a bat on ANYTHING having to do with war at both tactical and strategic levels. You are an armchair general with a very bad google based knowledge of warfare. Finally, your assertion that Germany is the only other site is a clear indication you know very little about missile defense as well. But we already knew that since you honestly tried to argue that the GBI were there to counter Russia.







-DA 
Meningless noiae from a person who argues emotion. Tell me how coddling war criminals and pirates is justified:. Tell me how many troops are wasted to patrol and secure logistics in Afghanistan? Tell me how much money we pay in wasted bribes. Tell me how many in custody we should have killed are out there after we released them, training others and using what they learned about our laws to train others to use lawfare against us?
 
In other words instead of trying to use specious and emotional appeals to others to personally attack the man, why don't you TRY to make a coherent argument based on facts in the REAL world? You serem incapable pf addressing an argument without resorting to the personal attack. Why don't ypou address the errors I point out in your specious logic/
 
"The administration knows what it is doing." was/is your argument.
 
Since March we have abundant  economic and geo-political evidence, that they and you don't have a clue as to what is going on.

Address that in terms of the trial. Since you know nothing of law, I doubt you can even handle that little on the merits. HINT: I supplied the US basis in law earlier and suggested why Holder showed incompetence and political vengeance in what he tried to do. Justice has to be efficient and on point to be fair, just as war has to be fought with common sense and a concrete objective to break the enemy's will to be effective.
 
Now apply some common sense and address what is really at issue here.
           
We have a clueless clown who works for an incompetent who is practicing some kind of Alinsky community organizing to war and criminal law.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Hamilcar & V^2   11/30/2009 4:03:08 AM

Meningless noiae from a person who argues emotion. Tell me how coddling war criminals and pirates is justified:. Tell me how many troops are wasted to patrol and secure logistics in Afghanistan? Tell me how much money we pay in wasted bribes. Tell me how many in custody we should have killed are out there after we released them, training others and using what they learned about our laws to train others to use lawfare against us?

In other words instead of trying to use specious and emotional appeals to others to personally attack the man, why don't you TRY to make a coherent argument based on facts in the REAL world? You serem incapable pf addressing an argument without resorting to the personal attack. Why don't ypou address the errors I point out in your specious logic/

"The administration knows what it is doing." was/is your argument.

Since March we have abundant  economic and geo-political evidence, that they and you don't have a clue as to what is going on.

Address that in terms of the trial. Since you know nothing of law, I doubt you can even handle that little on the merits. HINT: I supplied the US basis in law earlier and suggested why Holder showed incompetence and political vengeance in what he tried to do. Justice has to be efficient and on point to be fair, just as war has to be fought with common sense and a concrete objective to break the enemy's will to be effective.

Now apply some common sense and address what is really at issue here.

We have a clueless clown who works for an incompetent who is practicing some kind of Alinsky community organizing to war and criminal law.
You arent even at the novice stage of being able to make a tactical or strategic assessment. Your entire post was nothing but a huge unfounded personal attack against a person with first hand experience you lack and an administration you hate to a fault. You are further demonstrating your complete and utter lack of knowledge by referencing patrols and bribes. Both of which you know VERY LITTLE ABOUT. Adding to your military ignorance you are now diving into politics by referring to Holder. It's not a matter of incompetence, its a matter of choosing to treat terrorism as a police/criminal issue rather than as acts of war. Those are two distinct paths and obviously that is lost on you as well. While I don't agree with Holders choice, I DO AT LEAST UNDERSTAND IT. You should try that before you go calling people names.


V^2,

There are three military solutions to this problem. The Soviet method of massive troop levels. The long view which is SOF/Intel centric and largely removes most of the conventional forces or to disengage and end OEF. Bribes work. But the primary difference here is Afghanistan's internal political situation is a lot more fractious than Iraq. That has to be taken into account and those relationships have to be consistently maintained. The "Soviet" method, what we are starting to do now, is not a viable solution in the long term. We have far too many commitments and the patience for OEF is wearing too thin at home for it to work. FInally, we cannot use the kind of indiscriminate violence that would also be necessary to make it work. That leaves the SOF/Intel centric forces. These kinds of forces have very light logistical footprints, are extremely precise and could work with Afghans easier. They also have the advantage of long political endurance. It's important to remember why we are in OEF in the first place. We went there to hunt and kill Osama, remove the Taliban Gov as an AQ sanctuary and capture kill AQ prime. We've achieved that. Of course it is in our interest to prevent a return so for that reason we must maintain some ground components there. The only other options are to leave all together which is unacceptable considering the status of the Afghan gov.

-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    DA   11/30/2009 6:04:03 AM
We went there to hunt and kill Osama, remove the Taliban Gov as an AQ sanctuary and capture kill AQ prime. We've achieved that.
 
bin Laden is confirmed dead?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       11/30/2009 1:01:18 PM

We went there to hunt and kill Osama, remove the Taliban Gov as an AQ sanctuary and capture kill AQ prime. We've achieved that.

 

bin Laden is confirmed dead?

No, he isn't. However, he is being "hunted" and is no longer thought to be in Afghanistan or able to operate from there. So as far as OEF-Afghanistan is concerned he is not an issue.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/30/2009 3:34:36 PM
THEY ARE WARRIORS BY DEFINITION. Just because YOU don't like them doesn't change the facts. Google up what the word warrior means. Common criminals don't organize to wage wars against nation states or take over areas of a city by force. Why are you arguing something so trivial? 


Since this could be an issue of semantics, let's try this.  This is Webster's definition of a warrior:  "A man engaged or experienced in warfare" or "(broadly) a person engaged in some struggle or conflict."  An example they give is a "poverty warrior," whatever that is...someone engaged in the "War on Poverty."  By that definition, I myself am a warrior, since part of my job is to promote literacy, and since literate people tend to have more opportunities to get themselves out of poverty...
But let's take that first definition instead, since the other is far too broad.  Where you and I may be disagreeing is I define a warrior as a soldier.  You use the definition that anyone who fights is a warrior.  Therefore, to you, DA, maybe there is no difference between a US Army soldier humping a SAW in Fallujah in 2004 and a Blood doing a drive-by on some Crips in Southcentral.  (Or, if you like, Capone's boys doing a hit on a rival gang in 1920s Chicago.)  By that definition, then yes, KSM is indeed a warrior.  Of course, so is Hitler's SS, SD, and various Einsatzgruppen who murdered 12 million people for the crime of being Jewish, for being a Catholic priest, for looking funny at a SS man, etc.
 
IMHO, KSM may be a warrior, but he is no soldier.  A soldier in my definition is a man or woman who fights according to the rules and with honor.  And we all know there are rules.  You don't arbitrarily and purposely murder civilians because they don't think like you do; you don't saw the heads off of people because they're not the same religion or even religious sect that you are; you don't just randomly treat prisoners like dog crap because you're having a bad day or you think it's funny.  By that definition, to cite Americans as examples to be perfectly fair--Chivington, Calley, and England ceased being soldiers and became war criminals, and deserved what they got.  (Chivington and Calley didn't get what they deserved, but that's another thread.)
 
So if you want to argue that a warrior is a warrior no matter what, then I guess we agree, though I find such a definition both disgusting and ridiculous.  If you want to argue that KSM is a soldier, then no, I disagree entirely and there's no real point in arguing over it, since I'm not going to change my mind.  KSM deserves death, and my only regret is that we can only kill him once.  I prefer a military tribunal because of two reasons: a civil court gives KSM a platform to spew his garbage, and I don't want him acquitted because a soldier didn't read him his Miranda rights.  (And please, DA, tell me you don't think our soldiers or anyone else's should have to start doing that.) 
 I just showed you the proof that a chief objective was terror. It doesn't matter that Truman felt remorseful AFTER. And no it isn't an insult to compare the Luftwaffe to the USAAF. Both sides were following lawful orders of their respective countries in a war.
The problem is that Truman didn't feel remorseful afterwards.  He felt remorseful before.  His diary entry is dated during the Potsdam Conference.  He felt it was either the atomic bombings or the extermination of Japan.  Thankfully, he made the choice between the lesser of two evils.   The objective was not terror, but to end the war to prevent further terror.  There is a difference between "shock" and "terror." 
 
Oh yes, it is an insult to compare the Luftwaffe to the USAAF.  It wasn't the US who started World War II or practiced a policy of racial extermination.  "Murder civilians" is never a lawful order, and the Luftwaffe were known to attack unarmed civilian refugee convoys.
 
Basically, DA, what our argument boils down to is that you seem to think there is no difference between Germans committing a Malmedy or a Babi Yar, and Americans who fought to prevent it.  Is
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Sentinel   11/30/2009 4:38:02 PM

THEY ARE WARRIORS BY DEFINITION. Just because YOU don't like them doesn't change the facts. Google up what the word warrior means. Common criminals don't organize to wage wars against nation states or take over areas of a city by force. Why are you arguing something so trivial? 





Since this could be an issue of semantics, let's try this.  This is Webster's definition of a warrior:  "A man engaged or experienced in warfare" or "(broadly) a person engaged in some struggle or conflict."  An example they give is a "poverty warrior," whatever that is...someone engaged in the "War on Poverty."  By that definition, I myself am a warrior, since part of my job is to promote literacy, and since literate people tend to have more opportunities to get themselves out of poverty...

But let's take that first definition instead, since the other is far too broad.  Where you and I may be disagreeing is I define a warrior as a soldier.  You use the definition that anyone who fights is a warrior.  Therefore, to you, DA, maybe there is no difference between a US Army soldier humping a SAW in Fallujah in 2004 and a Blood doing a drive-by on some Crips in Southcentral.  (Or, if you like, Capone's boys doing a hit on a rival gang in 1920s Chicago.)  By that definition, then yes, KSM is indeed a warrior.  Of course, so is Hitler's SS, SD, and various Einsatzgruppen who murdered 12 million people for the crime of being Jewish, for being a Catholic priest, for looking funny at a SS man, etc.

 It's not my definition. That is what a warrior is defined as. Look it up.

IMHO, KSM may be a warrior, but he is no soldier.  A soldier in my definition is a man or woman who fights according to the rules and with honor.  And we all know there are rules.  You don't arbitrarily and purposely murder civilians because they don't think like you do; you don't saw the heads off of people because they're not the same religion or even religious sect that you are; you don't just randomly treat prisoners like dog crap because you're having a bad day or you think it's funny.  By that definition, to cite Americans as examples to be perfectly fair--Chivington, Calley, and England ceased being soldiers and became war criminals, and deserved what they got.  (Chivington and Calley didn't get what they deserved, but that's another thread.)

I did not say IIRC that KSM is a soldier. Soldiers are different although both are indeed warriors. 

So if you want to argue that a warrior is a warrior no matter what, then I guess we agree, though I find such a definition both disgusting and ridiculous.  If you want to argue that KSM is a soldier, then no, I disagree entirely and there's no real point in arguing over it, since I'm not going to change my mind.  KSM deserves death, and my only regret is that we can only kill him once.  I prefer a military tribunal because of two reasons: a civil court gives KSM a platform to spew his garbage, and I don't want him acquitted because a soldier didn't read him his Miranda rights.  (And please, DA, tell me you don't think our soldiers or anyone else's should have to start doing that.) 

No, I do not think soldiers should perform police functions.
 I just showed you the proof that a chief objective was terror. It doesn't matter that Truman felt remorseful AFTER. And no it isn't an insult to compare the Luftwaffe to the USAAF. Both sides were following lawful orders of their respective countries in a war.

The problem is that Truman didn't feel remorseful afterwards.  He felt remorseful before.  His diary entry is dated during the Potsdam Conference.  He felt it was either the atomic bombings or the extermination of Japan.&nb
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy