NY Trial

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

buzzard 11/19/2009 9:25:04 AM

Jesus, some of these responses...okay let me calm down. Look, most of you have no idea what a war is or what it means to kill people. And I hope you never have to. I do, and because of that, let me explain to you a few things. You are viewing warfare through the eyes of a westerner. OUR ENEMY DOES NOT. You can look at it one of two ways. They have EVOLVED TO A SUPERIOR WARRIOR MINDSET, OR WE HAVE DEVOLVED TO THE INFERIOR. I'm not advocating the needless death of innocents. But what I am saying is that most of you are a lot like the British during the American Revolution wearing your Red Coats and Standing in formation while partisans are sniping at your Officers and NCOs. The Only difference between then and now is that rather than Red Coats we wear ACUs. Rather than formations we have FOBs. People like KSM don't bother to fight in a way they have no hope to win. Rather they study our weaknesses and exploit! That's CLASSIC WARFARE. It's why after 8 years we are locked in a stalemate. That doesn't mean I'm saying the Army should slaughter innocents. But I am saying that to win traditional western style methods won't work.

Superior Warrior Mindset? Good lord what kind of meds are you on? If that's a superior warrior mindset, then street trash murderers are superior citizens. Honestly, I'd love to see what an actual military officer has to say about this bilge.

I only sound like that because you don't understand. No disrespect to the dead but 3K American dead is nothing compared to the losses from our collateral. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were waged on purpose by the USG and have killed tens of thousands in collateral. I know that because I lived among the wreckage of the society we bombed into oblivion. Not that I disagree with our actions. I'm just acknowledging the very real consequences....

If you can't understand the difference between targeting civilians and killing them by accident, you should just give up the discussion because it's too complex for you.

Legitimate to whom? You? Some western nation state initiated treaty? LOL. KSM will wipe his behind with that legal nonsense. A "legit combatant" is anybody with a weapon or a plan to harm US interest. KSM is no coward. He is a warrior using unconventional warfare and terror tactics to his advantage. Or do you really think a non state actor can fight head up with a nation state? Use your brain man.

Legitimate in following the rules of war. If this has to be explained again, then you are utterly hopeless and it is pointless to argue with you since you are either incurably ignorance or deliberately obtuse. This does not stop him from being our enemy and a real threat. However legitimate combatant is a measure of legal status and if he breaks the rules, he doesn't make that status.

Yeah, except not everybody has agreed to fight by the rules of our text books. By the way, what was Nanking, Hiroshima or how about the civilian targets we attacked in Kosovo? The WTC was an economic target. AQ went after the Political, Military and Economic Headquarters of the United States for the purpose of inflicting a critical blow that would SHOCK us into retreat and motivate other Muslims to join their cause. We aren't going to win this war preaching to the choir!

Nanking was a war crime and was prosecuted as such(and frankly I think bringing up the Rape of Nanking in the same sentence as Hiroshima is utterly contemptible). Again your lack of history knowledge shows itself. Hiroshima was a legitimate military target as a production center during a declared war. Kosovo, I am not so familiar with, but I am reasonably certain we did everything possible to avoid civilian casualties while destroying infrastructure.

I do mean it. Terrorist in t

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @Buzzard and swhitebull 11/19/2009 10:48:46 AM

I did "specify". Perhaps you are not as informed as you think with regard to current and past events related to the GWOT if you did not know that Blackwater is now and has been for quite some time known officially as "Xe". I understand what you are saying and it's clear that you are not dealing in reality and you do not understand the nature of this enemy. The same applies to swhitebull who has claimed expertise while simultaneously demonstrating the same western ignorance of the enemy and dogmatic view mixed in with a bit of ad-homimem.

You guys just don't get that the rule sets we fight within and impose of state actors do not apply to these people. They have already accounted for our laws and interpretation of things and exploit that. You also don't understand that I'm not seeking to justify or defend KSM but rather I'm taking into account the consequences of Obama's and YOUR misunderstanding on some of the people who have to wage war on our behalf.

Like the British, you are stuck in your traditions and have failed to understand the nature of our enemy. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in charge over the last 10 years who like you also failed to understand. One way or the other you will learn the truth. The Russians did. Hopefully Obama does too before it's too late.

-DA

Quote Reply

buzzard 11/19/2009 11:52:41 AM

Never heard that term. Thanks for the clarification.

I understand what you are saying and it's clear that you are not dealing in reality and you do not understand the nature of this enemy. The same applies to swhitebull who has claimed expertise while simultaneously demonstrating the same western ignorance of the enemy and dogmatic view mixed in with a bit of ad-homimem.

Again your swelled head is preventing thinking. I fully understand what they are doing, why they are doing it and how it works. That's been thoroughly hashed out. However it doesn't make a damned bit of difference when it comes to legal treatment. His acts are criminal but either international treaty or U.S. law. That is the point. Why you can't grasp that escapes me.

No, we fully understand that the rule sets we fight within are ignored by these people. This is why we don't apply the rules sets to them. We don't vigorously interrogate actual prisoners of war like we have people who we have captured in the GWOT.

Again, you are assuming positions from other people that have nothing to do with what they have stated or reality. I am not advocating mollycoddling these people. I'm certainly not advocating adoption of the latter Geneva Protocols. Personally I'd say interrogate them for as long as we think they still have relevant information and then shoot them as spies since by a reasonable reading of the rules of war, that's what they are. Is that harsh enough for you?

Remember it is the president you favor and his administration which is treating this like a legal matter instead of a war. I think that position is ludicrous and dangerous and will surely come back to bite us in the behind.

Quote Reply

Vulture 11/19/2009 12:58:11 PM

From the Vulture to the Buzzard , "Well said indeed!"

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 11/19/2009 1:16:08 PM

Never heard that term. Thanks for the clarification.

No problem. BTW, they made that name change due to outrage over collateral damage they caused in theater.

I
understand what you are saying and it's clear that you are not dealing
in reality and you do not understand the nature of this enemy. The same
applies to swhitebull who has claimed expertise while simultaneously
demonstrating the same western ignorance of the enemy and dogmatic view
mixed in with a bit of ad-homimem.

Dispense with the ad-hominem. You are missing the point. The point is handling them in the legal system and treating him as a criminal EXPOSES OUR MEN AND WOMEN WHO OPERATE Clandestinely as well as those who PLAN THOSE ACTS to the same kind of treatment where normally they are just tossed out of the country. KSM is also LEGALLY protected from his own confession by virtue of the fact that the confessions were obtained through torture and without regard to KSM alleged legal rights. That's the point.

You guys just don't get that the rule sets we fight within and
impose of state actors do not apply to these people. They have already
accounted for our laws and interpretation of things and exploit that.
You also don't understand that I'm not seeking to justify or defend KSM
but rather I'm taking into account the consequences of Obama's and YOUR
misunderstanding on some of the people who have to wage war on our
behalf.

This is where you are wrong. Again. We do apply those rules.

Like the British, you are stuck in your traditions and have failed
to understand the nature of our enemy. Unfortunately, there are a lot
of people in charge over the last 10 years who like you also failed to
understand. One way or the other you will learn the truth. The Russians
did. Hopefully Obama does too before it's too late.

It's not about harsh. I don't hate these people. It's about being practical.

Remember it is the president you favor and his administration which is treating this li

Quote Reply

warpig 11/19/2009 1:39:39 PM

Like the British, you are stuck in your traditions and have failed
to understand the nature of our enemy. Unfortunately, there are a lot
of people in charge over the last 10 years who like you also failed to
understand. One way or the other you will learn the truth. The Russians
did. Hopefully Obama does too before it's too late.

Except that you have pulled a bait-n-switch, DA. Back about 6-8 posts ago, you explicitly spoke of how *you* (as in personally) think about guys like KSM and about what they have done: something about how "he's a warrior."

Now you are claiming that SWB, buzzard, and probably everyone since they aren't you, don't understand how *KSM* and his ilk think about guys like KSM and about what they have done.

Those are two completely different topics.

I doubt that anyone here disagrees with you regarding how the terrorists think about themselves and whether they are terrorists or whether they even care if we think they are terrorists, etc. That isn't the same thing whatsoever as whether they really are terrorists, that's just what *they* think about whether they are terrorists.

They are what WE think they are, not what they think they are. Of course, when considering how to combat them, treat them when captured, etc., we should *also* take into account what they think about themselves (and us, life, etc.), but it's what we think of them and what we think will best advance *all* our goals (including not just victory in this war but also consequences for us in the future, as well as concepts like America, liberty, justice, etc., and probably many other things I'm not smart enough to think up right now) that should determine what we do with KSM.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica @Warpig 11/19/2009 3:49:56 PM

Here is where I disagree with you Warpig. They are neither. Rather they are what they are. Our perception cannot change the reality. The reality is that they are an opponent who follows a rule set that is still alien to most westerners it seems. Thats interesting considering how we got our start using that same or similar rules. I don't think the Admin or the last understands that along with many of the people in this thread.

-DA

Quote Reply

warpig 11/19/2009 4:28:44 PM

Fine, I meant that with respect to what category we consider them to fall under with respect to how we are to process their fate, they are what we think they are and not what they think they are. If we think they are terrorists and that it is best to treat them as terrorists, then we do, and at that point it is irrelevant whether they think they are terrorists or warriors or anything else.

That's still completely different from the process of understanding them, their ruleset, why they think they are warriors, etc. And treating them as terrorists does not necesarily hamper or prevent us from understanding them in that way. I'm sure we do not understand all that fully, and it certainly seems likely we could learn something useful if we did--but they are still terrorists, because we say they are, regardless of what they think and regardless of what they truly are (to the extent that we are wrong in an ultimate, God's-eye-view sense).

Somehow these last dozen posts in particular seem very familiar, as they seem in style to be very much like many of the arguments in threads leading up to the election last November, where arguing over the merits of political philosphies was frequently being (falsely) intepreted by you to mean that those who disagreed with Obama didn't understand the who/what/why/how of the people who agreed with Obama, and those that were planning to vote for a different candidate didn't understand that Obama was going to win and why. You were wrong then to make those assumptions/connections, and you are wrong now to whatever extent you are doing so again.

Quote Reply

appleciderus Enough 11/19/2009 4:51:06 PM

If you guys are done nitpicking and chin kicking could we return to the subject? What purpose is there in a trial of a terrorist who has pled guilty (or asked to), will not be released if found not guilty (As per Jack Reed), will be executed (As per BHO), or as Eric ?The Bag Man ? Holder said yesterday, not released in this country. Who benefits by having this trial?

Is there a serious fault with Holder being a partner in the law firm that represented Gitmo terrorists, perhaps KSM? Who benefits?

And please, don?t tell me WE (as in the USA) do.

Somewhere in NYC are 12 people who will live in fear for the rest of their lives, along with their families and others.

Why does an administration that finds the US Constitution an impediment to instituting socialist agenda will use the Constitution to try SOME of the terrorists?

For those not familiar to my previous referral of Holder as a ?Bag Man -, Holder was the facilitator of the Mark Rich pardon. He accepted $550,000 from Rich?s wife, and delivered $500,000 to the Clinton Library. A man who put money in his pocket as payment for the Presidential pardon of a fugitive from justice telling the country through his Congressional testimony that JUSTICE would be served is vomitous.

Forget about the legalese, the crossing of T?s and dotting of I?s, Who benefits from this comedy?

Quote Reply

warpig 11/20/2009 2:13:59 PM

I typically would have little use for Sen. Graham, but he certainly came through on this one:

"Can you give me a case in United States history," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked of Attorney General Eric Holder this week, "where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?" Holder, the chief surrender-facilitator, was outlining to Congress the administration's latest ploy to appease its über-Left base, namely, moving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) -- the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11 -- and four other al-Qa'ida 9/11 planners from Guantanamo to New York to be tried like ordinary civilians in a Manhattan federal court. When Holder hemmed and hawed ("I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made..."), Graham shot back, "We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no."

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