Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010 - 11:18am PT
|
Bin Laden is "inspired" by the Koran and the Hadiths.
He's repeatedly stated that hundreds of times.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010 - 11:21am PT
|
Bin Laden was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2010 - 05:37pm PT
|
I don't answer your questions Coz because they have nothing whatever to do with the question at hand. This question has little to do with the terrorists and everything to do with the constitution.
Plus, they are stupid questions. But since you insist
1. Do you think, we deserve the attacks of 9/11?
There is no "America" to deserve the 9-11 attacks. "America" didn't die in those attacks, people did.
"People" died in those attacks that had nothing to do with politics, just as innocent people have been killed in Iraq that had nothing to do with our fallen puppet, Saddam Hussien. None of them "deserve" their killing, maiming or any of it, unless you want to delve into the realm of philosophy where everything that happens has a rhyme or reason. I lost a close buddy in those towers. It's not theoretical to me.
2. Do you feel we have all the intelligence that Obama has on this Dochebag?
Of course not. But I note that, particularly under Bush, intelligence as frequently been wrong or cooked. The Iraq war was framed under false intelligence.
3. Do you feel that the world the Muslim extremists believe in, is better than the one we fight and die for?
Our constitution defines the rules and principles that define this nation. Not my opinion, that's what the president swears to uphold. You're the one who wants to throw out the highest law of the land so we can kill some cleric, who, at worst, is a mere recruiter for a terrorist group. In doing so, you edge us much closer to the very autocracy that we oppose.
I answered your questions, now answer mine
1. When should the government be justified in ignoring the constitution. How should they have to prove their justification or do we take their word for it?
2. How should nations, just as Iran, North Korea, or the United States be held accountable for aggressive and unjustified military actions and wars? How about their leaders?
3. If we allow the government to spy and kill citizen without proving their case, how do we stop those powers from being used by a future corrupt leader against political opponents, whistleblowers and common criminals? Or is that OK too?
I answered yours, answer mine please
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 01:14pm PT
|
Here's how much truth you are getting regarding these "anti-terrorist" operations
From
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/asia/06afghan.html?hp
"...At first, the American-led military command in Kabul said that the two men who died were “insurgents” who had “engaged” — in other words, shot at — the forces at the scene. The initial account also said that the troops then stumbled onto the bodies of three women “tied up, gagged and killed” and hidden in a room.
Military officials later suggested that the women — who among them had 16 children — had all been stabbed to death or had died by other means before the raid, implying that their own relatives may have killed them.
But the military later said the men were innocent civilians shot after they went outside, armed, to investigate the presence of the forces conducting the raid. Then on Sunday night they admitted that the women were also killed during the raid.
Family members said several dozen relatives and friends had gathered at the compound that night for the Afghan equivalent of a baby shower.
In an interview, Mr. Yarmand said the raiding party had killed all five Afghans — and then meddled with the scene.
“We came to the conclusion that the NATO patrol was responsible for the killing of the two men and the three women, and that there was evidence of tampering in the corridor inside the compound by the members” of the assault team, Mr. Yarmand said. “There was a mess at the scene.”
He said he was pleased that the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, had accepted findings that all five Afghans were civilians killed during the raid...."
Less sanitized reporting at
http://www.alternet.org/story/146394/how_americans_are_propagandized_about_afghanistan
"....After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid.
One NATO official said that there had likely been an effort to cover-up what happened by U.S. troops via evidence tampering on the scene (though other NATO officials deny this claim). The Times of London actually reported yesterday that, at least according to Afghan investigators, "US special forces soldiers dug bullets out of their victims’ bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched night raid, then washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened."
What is clear -- yet again -- is how completely misinformed and propagandized Americans continue to be by the American media, which constantly "reports" on crucial events in Afghanistan by doing nothing more than mindlessly and unquestioningly passing along U.S. government claims as though they are fact. Here, for instance, is how the Paktia incident was "reported" by CNN on February 12:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/afghanistan.bodies/index.html
Note how the headline states as fact that the women were dead as the result of an "honor killing." The entire CNN article does nothing but repeat what an "unnamed senior military official said" about the incident, and it even helpfully explained:
"An honor killing is a murder carried out by a family or community member against someone thought to have brought dishonor onto them.
The U.S. official said it isn't clear whether the dishonor in this case stemmed from accusations of acts such as adultery or even cooperating with NATO forces.
"It has the earmarks of a traditional honor killing," said the official, who added the Taliban could be responsible. . .
The operation unfolded when Afghan and international forces went to the compound, which was thought to be a site of militant activity. A firefight ensued and several insurgents died, several people left the compound, and eight others were detained."
It's completely FUBAR and we're being lied to regularly about who we are killing and why
PEace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 01:21pm PT
|
Thanks for the link Bluering. Shows this guy is hardly important enough to throw away our rights as citizens for.
Peace
Karl
|
|
OR
Trad climber
VT
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 01:51pm PT
|
I love it. Awlaki is a real leader and a role model for all muslims to boot! He has been busted for passport fraud. He stole scholarship $$ by claiming to be be a foriegn born Yemeni studying in the US. ( Born in New Mexico) And was arrested with a prostitute.......twice. Atta boy...preach on. I believe those actions would get a muslim women beheaded in the radical world he is trying to promote.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 02:06pm PT
|
There's nobody here claiming he is a nice guy or even not a fiend. So what's your point?
How do we decide which citizens get constitutional rights and how do we know we're not being lied to about it?
Peace
Karl
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 02:28pm PT
|
After reading through all this, I think that there is a significant point being missed.
If one takes the position that the US gov't CANNOT kill an american citizen, even though they are actively engaged in war against the US, then effectively, that person has been transformed into a SHIELD for everyone around him. If you cannot kill him, then you cannot lob a missle at Osama bin Laden, if this guy is standing next to Osama, nor any other high level target, if it might have the effect of killing this man.
Is that really what you want?
What a brilliant Al-Queda strategy! Get loopy americans to accompany your leaders, making them impervious to attack!
How could you get around such a thing? I believe that one would need to have a Presidential "Finding" that authorizes killing, then let him stand where he will.
Would you want to publicize that was what you were doing, such that AQ will simply start keeping american hostages with all leaders? I don't believe that Carter found the solution to that strategy by Iran.
There are also a wide array of other issue that may be going on, here. In the one article, it mentioned that there'd been only one mention of this guy's name in the official AQ publications. In the famous episode of Midway Island of WWTT, the allies sent a message that they knew would be intercepted, then looked for it in Japanese code---thereby breaking their coding system, and revealing their attack plans.
I don't know what is going on here, but intelligence is complex stuff, and what appears on the surface is very often not what is actually going on.
Oh, and Karl, what is constitutional is not defined by you, it is defined by the Supreme Court.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 02:54pm PT
|
when there is good intelligence he is plotting and killing Americans.
Who decides the intelligence is "good"? This is the question that we as Americans have decided needs to answered in a court of law, not by some elected official. Cops can't just decide that they have good intelligence on some criminal and go in and kill them. They have to try to arrest them and bring them to trial. If the police follow good procedure and the person ends up dying anyway, then that is different then if they just go in with the intent to kill.
How many of those folks who were picked up on "good" intelligence and put in Gitmo were actually innocent? More then half.
Do you really want to trust your government to decide who needs to be killed without giving them a trial? Where does that end? Where is the line?
War is ugly. I agree. And we do have to do difficult things. But this is not a country against country type war. Instead it involves insurgents, and terrorist. My opinion is that many of our policies that are suppose to stop terrorism, actually end up creating more terrorist. It becomes a never ending cycle. We use bombs rained down from above to protect our soldiers, but what ends up happening is that innocents die, which creates more hatred against America, which ultimately creates more terrorist.
This is one of the reasons why I fought to keep us out of Iraq. We are creating more hatred, not less.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 03:57pm PT
|
Fatty said - The problem is that in the age of missiles, the decision making time is so much less.
I don't really think this is much more than an excuse for what has been a consistent creep of Presidential power. The "age of missiles" is also the age of phones, internet, blackberries, jet travel and everything else. Congress can convene in minutes or hours. Back in the Congress would have taken weeks to convene and declare war. The reality is that Presidents over the last 60 years have simply begun ignoring Congress more and more and Congress has been too spineless to reassert it's clear Constitutional authority on this issue.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 04:00pm PT
|
I've posted this before:
There are simple measures which could be instituted relative to putting how we go to war on a sane and rational footing:
 Allow the President to dispatch up to 20k troops to any two discontiguous conflicts for six months on their signature alone with a one week notice to Congress.
Within that one week Congress can overide with the same margin required to override a veto.
The day the President want's a third dispatch, a contiguous dispatch, one body more than 20k in any one conflict, or wants one more day past six months in any one conflict, they will need to seek a formal Declaration of War agreed to by Congress by the same margin required to override a veto.
The day a passed Declaration of War is signed by the President the following will occur: non-exempt military draft lottery for ages 18-35, freeze on the fed rate, freeze on wholesale prices, 15% national war sales tax, 15% war tax on capital gains.
Those protocols would remain in effect until the day troop levels are below 20k and the Congress rescinds the Declaration of War by the same margin required to override a veto.
Do that, and there will be precious few wars started, corporations and republicans will become anti-war protesters overnight, and what wars do get past those hurtles will be staggeringly brief.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 09:22pm PT
|
Nobody reads the last post on a page
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2010 - 09:31pm PT
|
Coz, your post avoids a few things that need emphasis.
You wrote
I have thought about your questions, but I truly can not see the logic in protecting a foreign combatant in war time when there is good intelligence he is plotting and killing Americans. I think the fact the he has a US passport does not allow for him to kill at will, and puts the burden on us to capture him alive and bring him to trail.
Your assertion that this some how destroys our constitution seems to me, completely out of the range of rational thought.
First. NOBODY has accused him of killing ANY americans. The worst evidence, if true, points to him recruiting for AL Queda and having the most minimal communication with that Fort Hood Guy (like one email) and the underpants bomber. There is no evidence he knew about their plans, and that's if you believe the worst about him.
Second. He is NOT in a war zone. We declared a war on drugs as well and it gives us no right to bomb drug dealers in foreign countries, (and hypocritically, we are totally turning our heads to major heroin business in Afghanistan, which will kill more innocent people than AL Queda will, up to 100,000 deaths a year according to net sources) Saying we have a war on terror does not qualify Yemen as a war zone.
Third. Why don't you call him a citizen? He is. That's the point. Lots of Americans live overseas.
Your assertion that my view is fringe show you don't understand the rights to due process that citizens are entitled to. Advocating violence, like Fatty does here all the time, is not the same as pulling the trigger. Nobody said he's killed anybody
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2010 - 12:59am PT
|
Just saw some recent news about this
from
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/14-4
"WASHINGTON - Last weekend, authorities in Yemen said they would not participate in the extrajudicial killing of U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was recently targeted by military and intelligence agencies in Washington.
This Oct. 2008 file photo provided by Muhammad ud-Deen, shows American-Yemeni Islamic cleric Imam Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. Yemen says it will not hunt down al-Awlaki who has reportedly been added to the CIA's list of targets to be killed or captured. (THE ASSOCIATED PRESS/Muhammad ud-Deen) "Anwar al-Awlaki has always been looked at as a preacher rather than a terrorist and shouldn't be considered as a terrorist unless the Americans have evidence that he has been involved in terrorism," Yemen's foreign minister, Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, told reporters in the capital city of Sa'na.
However, al-Qirbi also told Al Jazeera television that al-Awlaki "is wanted by Yemeni justice for questioning, so that he can clear his name ... or face trial."
Though Al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen, born in New Mexico, he lived in Yemen with his family for most of his early life. He returned to attend college and graduate school and it was during this period he began serving as an imam for various mosques around the country.
Al-Awlaki admits to supporting - but not encouraging - the recent attacks of Umar Abdulmutallab and Maj. Nidal Hasan on military and civilian targets within the U.S. His sermons are known to be extremely critical of U.S. foreign policy and military intervention in Muslim countries.
"Although we don't have the high-level homegrown threat facing Europeans, we have to worry about the appeal that figures like Anwar al-Awlaki exert on young American Muslims," said Dr. Mathew Burrows, counselor to the National Intelligence Council, during a recent press briefing, referring to al-Awlaki's reputation as a charismatic and thoughtful speaker......
....On Monday, al-Awlaki's father attempted to reach out to officials in Washington regarding his son's fate, saying his son would halt his anti-U.S. messages if Washington removed him from its hit list.
"If Washington stops targeting [him] by threatening to abduct, capture, or kill him, Anwar will cease his statements and speeches against it," Nasser al-Awlaki, a former minister of agriculture and rector at the University of Sa'na, told Al Jazeera.
Though his father has ties to the government, al-Awlaki has been at odds with the authorities in Yemen for years and reportedly spent time in jail for terrorism-related offences there before going into hiding several years ago.
In an interview with Al Jazeera Arabic in February, al-Awlaki made it clear that he believed the charges against him to be ideologically motivated and not based on any evidence of wrongdoing or violence.
"The charge is 'incitement'," said al-Awlaki, when asked about why he thought U.S. authorities would want to kill him. "All this comes as part of the attempt to liquidate the voices that call for defending the rights of the Umma [Muslim nation]."
"They reject the principle of pride and demanding justice, they want to promote the principle of humiliation and compliance," he said."
For those who might forget, here is section 1 of the 14th amendment to the constitution
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Peace
Karl
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2010 - 03:01pm PT
|
As the car bumper-sticker says,
"We are Making Enemies Faster than We can Kill Them."
This must be the our US Foreign Policy, since at least Ray-Gun.
Wow, how endearing.
Can anyone really question why the Muslim world (or any people of the world we have wronged) call us "The Great Satan?"
War and Assassinations are insane. When does it stop?
It sickens me.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!