CIA demands drones despite 80% civilian death rate

[Arising_uk]

... Although, anyone at that compound was well aware that they were hanging out with a mass murderer ...

Hmm! This might have been the case if we'd actually treated 9/11 for what it was, a criminal act, but the US legitimised Bin Laden as a political terrorist and as such those who hung out with him thought him a freedom fighter.

We should have done what the Brits did with the Irish terrorists, treated and tried them as common criminals and not political fighters.

Also not sure at the Yank claiming the moral high ground about hanging-out with mass murderers given the amount of them they have sponsored and especially since the one in question was once a valuable CIA ally.

[SecularCauses]

... Although, anyone at that compound was well aware that they were hanging out with a mass murderer ...

Hmm! This might have been the case if we'd actually treated 9/11 for what it was, a criminal act, but the US legitimised Bin Laden as a political terrorist and as such those who hung out with him thought him a freedom fighter.

We should have done what the Brits did with the Irish terrorists, treated and tried them as common criminals and not political fighters.

Also not sure at the Yank claiming the moral high ground about hanging-out with mass murderers given the amount of them they have sponsored and especially since the one in question was once a valuable CIA ally.

Too bad you didn't hang out with him in the compound then. The US never legitimized the scumbag. The claim is ludicrous. How are you going to try a terrorist like Bin Laden in the criminal court system? Yu going to subpoena his fellow terrorists as witnesses? You going to provide the defense national security secrets to assist them in preparing a defense? You going to be able to handle security for the judge and jury? The criminal court system is not designed to address such attacks. Furthermore, Osama was not a US citizen and was not on US soil when he attacked or was shot dead, therefore, our Constitutional rights did not extend to him.

[Kayla]

hi forgy

Furthermore, the Obama administration has given orders to everyone in the executive branch to not mention Islam even when it is a factor in a terrorist attack.

evidence of that is where?

That's why one can read the Fort Hood memo on the attack, and despite the fact the attacker yeled out allah is great before opening fire,

it was not a terrorist attack as the targets were clearly military

[Kayla]

Furthermore, Osama was not a US citizen and was not on US soil when he attacked or was shot dead, therefore, our Constitutional rights did not extend to him.

where does the constitution say that

[Arising_uk]

Too bad you didn't hang out with him in the compound then. ...

Remember when you asked why others hate? You should take a long look at yourself as the answer is there.

The US never legitimized the scumbag. The claim is ludicrous. How are you going to try a terrorist like Bin Laden in the criminal court system? Yu going to subpoena his fellow terrorists as witnesses? You going to provide the defense national security secrets to assist them in preparing a defense? You going to be able to handle security for the judge and jury? The criminal court system is not designed to address such attacks. Furthermore, Osama was not a US citizen and was not on US soil when he attacked or was shot dead, therefore, our Constitutional rights did not extend to him.

Doesn't seem to stop you renditioning others? This is the trouble with the Yank as you have no view of context, so you have legitimised Al Queada's claim that they are fighting a war with your 'war on terror' although how you can war with such an abstract is beyond me. If your claims are correct you'd have to answer why the US government requested the Afghans to hand him over then, what was the point of such a request if there would have been no legal recourse? We Brits appeared to manage such things when we tried the terrorists funded by Americans.

No reply to my question about why you think you have the moral high-ground with respect to a man you trained and funded in the first place?

[Kayla]

Also not sure at the Yank claiming the moral high ground about hanging-out with mass murderers given the amount of them they have sponsored and especially since the one in question was once a valuable CIA ally.

"antisoviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace"

http://www.3laz3r.com/wordpress/wp-cont ... /Osama.jpg

however yanks refers to people from northern states not to americans in general

[Arising_uk]

...

however yanks refers to people from northern states not to americans in general

I know this Kayla but I'm not of your culture so I use "Yank" to refer to a certain type of American who cries anti-Americanism at any critique or questioning of American foreign policy and appears to think themselves morally unimpeachable just because they are American.

Personally, I've liked most of the Americans I've met and appreciate many of their ideals.

[bobevenson]

I use "Yank" to refer to a certain type of American who cries anti-Americanism at any critique or questioning of American foreign policy and appears to think themselves morally unimpeachable just because they are American.

There you go again, making up your own words and meanings. In case you didn't notice, your name's not Shakespeare.

[SecularCauses]

...

however yanks refers to people from northern states not to americans in general

I know this Kayla but I'm not of your culture so I use "Yank" to refer to a certain type of American who cries anti-Americanism at any critique or questioning of American foreign policy and appears to think themselves morally unimpeachable just because they are American.

Personally, I've liked most of the Americans I've met and appreciate many of their ideals.

No, you use the term "Yank" to refer t any American who has the intellect to challenge unfounded assertions made against Americans. I hve yet to see anyone here claim that I made any error in my criticism of the video. It is a bogus claim, and it figures that a Eurotard would buy it.

[SecularCauses]

hi forgy

Furthermore, the Obama administration has given orders to everyone in the executive branch to not mention Islam even when it is a factor in a terrorist attack.

evidence of that is where?

That's why one can read the Fort Hood memo on the attack, and despite the fact the attacker yeled out allah is great before opening fire,

it was not a terrorist attack as the targets were clearly military

Go look it up. It's an executive order, well known, something that even a backwoods highschooler should have heard about from her heroic, vodka-drinking, math teacher. Go ahead and look at the official reports from the muslim who tried to blow up a commercial airline flight about two Christmas seasons ago, again no mention of Islamic terrorism from the White House.

The Fort Hood attack was an islamic terrorist attack. Yelling, "Allah is Great," before opening fire, and doing it because one claims to be defending Muslims, means that a Muslim betrayed his fellow soldiers and murdered them like a coward. It also had the immediate effect of making every non-Muslim soldier in the US forces worried about the Muslim soldier next to him/her. That's a terrorist attack. In any event, it certainly had something to do with Islam, and for the executive branch of government not to mention it is to engage in nothin less than lies.

[Kayla]

Go look it up. It's an executive order, well known, something that even a backwoods

then it should not be difficult for you to provide a reference

Yelling, "Allah is Great," before opening fire,

so yelling allah is great is the defining characteristic of a terrorist attack?

and all this time i was thinking a terrorist attack is a deliberate attack targeting civilians in order to further a political or military goal

[SecularCauses]

Go look it up. It's an executive order, well known, something that even a backwoods

then it should not be difficult for you to provide a reference

Yelling, "Allah is Great," before opening fire,

so yelling allah is great is the defining characteristic of a terrorist attack?

and all this time i was thinking a terrorist attack is a deliberate attack targeting civilians in order to further a political or military goal

No, but it is a start. Do you really think any sane person would yell, "allah is great," for any reason? He attacked US forces because of a ridiculous belief in an imaginary friend who does not exist. It was a terrorist attack because he was not an authorized combatant of any Islamic nation, but turned out to be a traitor. The terrorist act helped to spread terror througout the military forces. But, who cares if you want to call it a terrorist attack or not? The fact is the attack certainly took place due to an Islamic belief and for the Obama administration to lie about that, especially when he is commnder in chief, is outrageous. Yet, it appears to be the kind of ie you are perfectly okay with. Let me guess? You believe socialism is the way to go and Obama is the second coming? You are wrong on both counts.

[Kayla]

No, but it is a start. Do you really think any sane person would yell, "allah is great," for any reason?

call to prayer comes to mind

He attacked US forces because of a ridiculous belief in an imaginary friend who does not exist.

or it was another workplace shooting with a bit of religious window dressing

It was a terrorist attack because he was not an authorized combatant of any Islamic nation,

what the hell is an authorized combatant

it makes no sense to insist that war must follow rules especially since the usa has dispensed with rules of warfare itself

by your definition any guerrilla fighter is a terrorist - eg the french resistance - who were not authorized by any government

or george washington

but turned out to be a traitor.

so he was - i never said otherwise

The terrorist act helped to spread terror througout the military forces.

spreading terror through the opposing forces is very common in military operations that has nothing to do with terrorism

But, who cares if you want to call it a terrorist attack or not?

you called it a terrorist attack so obviously it matters to you

The fact is the attack certainly took place due to an Islamic belief and for the Obama administration to lie about that, especially when he is commnder in chief, is outrageous.

what the fuck are you talking about

Yet, it appears to be the kind of ie you are perfectly okay with. Let me guess? You believe socialism is the way to go and Obama is the second coming? You are wrong on both counts.

you are ranting

[SecularCauses]

No, but it is a start. Do you really think any sane person would yell, "allah is great," for any reason?

call to prayer comes to mind

He attacked US forces because of a ridiculous belief in an imaginary friend who does not exist.

or it was another workplace shooting with a bit of religious window dressing

It was a terrorist attack because he was not an authorized combatant of any Islamic nation,

what the hell is an authorized combatant

it makes no sense to insist that war must follow rules especially since the usa has dispensed with rules of warfare itself

by your definition any guerrilla fighter is a terrorist - eg the french resistance - who were not authorized by any government

or george washington

but turned out to be a traitor.

so he was - i never said otherwise

The terrorist act helped to spread terror througout the military forces.

spreading terror through the opposing forces is very common in military operations that has nothing to do with terrorism

But, who cares if you want to call it a terrorist attack or not?

you called it a terrorist attack so obviously it matters to you

The fact is the attack certainly took place due to an Islamic belief and for the Obama administration to lie about that, especially when he is commnder in chief, is outrageous.

what the fuck are you talking about

Yet, it appears to be the kind of ie you are perfectly okay with. Let me guess? You believe socialism is the way to go and Obama is the second coming? You are wrong on both counts.

you are ranting

I'm not ranting at all, and you know it. The fact is that I was the only person on this entire site to point out that the video made a claim that could not be based on a rational assessment of the facts. I'm the only one who did that. Others have come here attacking me for it, but no one has pointed out any error in my position. I find this interesting because apparently people who frequent this site have no interest in the truth.

I further pointed out that in your specific case, you don't even mind the fact that the Obama administration has banned any mention of Islam in any terrorist attack. You can waffle all you want about the Fort Hood incident being a terrorist attack, but you cannot waffle on that the attack was indeed based on the perp's Islamic religious beliefs. I merely pointed out that you have no interest in the truth. You can call this "ranting" on my part, but the facts stand in my favor, not yours.

The people on this forum who have no interest in the truth about virtually anything include chaz, reason, spheres, john, satyr, etc., etc. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find the handful of people here who do have an interest in the truth.

Good luck with your crowd of idiots and hateful morons on this site. In the end, they are dumber than most high-school graduates I have met. They really are not worth any more of my time. I can see now why others have left this forum as well. There is just very little of real intellectual substance on this forum. There are some bright people here, unfortunately, they are a distinct minority.