Reply With Quote
looks like their terror has affected you successfully.
Human life defies the laws of economics...
In human history... as there becomes more of it... it has become valued more...
There is a big "human life bubble" going on right now... and I fear before too long it is going to burst.
I value the life of my friends and my countrymen. Outside of that... if someone else stands in the way of my life or liberties... or threatens them by their actions I have no problem with their termination.
That's human nature then, now and forever... It's a social animal thing... tribal.
You say I'm evil and have no regard for human life. I value mine very much, and to protect it, I would be willing to take others.
If someone gave me a button and told me I (Or someone I loved or cared about) would die unless I pushed it... and in that case some random would die in my place... I would push it every time.
I'm not some internet tough guy... I'm not saying I'm going to be out there guns a blazing. I'm just being honest about my nature. I know who I am and what I care about.
It doesn't make me evil... it just makes me human...
looks like their terror has affected you successfully.
The terrorists have already won as far as Sec24Row7 is concerned.
But I'm not sure how someone who cannot be proven to be a threat to your way of life or liberties and who hasn't actually threatened them by their actions is in any way a threat to your way of life or liberties.
You're essentially saying that you agree that people who happen to be in Afghanistan and who happen to be near areas of fighting and who happen to be suspected of wrongdoing (on the say-so of whomever and without a definable standard for what cons utes wrongdoing) and who happens to look the way we think a terrorist should look (a view that has changed radically since 9/11), then they should die. No proof, no defenses. Just guilty of being an Afghani.
If we fight terrorists because they hate our freedoms, why do we so readily deny basic freedoms (such as due process of law) to those who we fight?
Other than philosophically there is really no reason to have this argument at this point in our society...
But if things ever go to and we all end up in trenches again charging machine guns... write your name down and I won't go out of my way to save you. My willingness to take life is incorruptibly bound to the need to save it.
Ahhh... but you said that our hypothetical goat farmer was hindering our progress, hence an obstacle to our goals.
Yeah because I'm dead and in my place the people are speaking Arabic, breaking out a compass 5 times a day and attend a weekly stoning.
What are you smoking man? What do you think their goals are?
They don't want us afraid... they want us GONE.
So killing him and anyone else who didn't initially cooperate would have no potential negative effect on our progress or goals?
I think the goat herder probably just wants to raise goats and be left alone.
But not a terrorist; at least not proven to have been one. He's just a guy who wants a foreign army off of his land.
That's relatively American of him, one might think.
We have concentrated for the last 70 years on perfecting our military to win military victories, when no true victory is possible without defeating OR WINNING the spirit of the population.
PICK ONE and the problem of the Goat farmer is solved....
So if the military was fighting this war in the United States and an orange grower in Florida objected to the army crossing his orchards, he should be executed?
Pick one what?
Depends. Why is he objecting?
Bad example. To be correlative he should be aiding the enemy... In which case, yes , he should be.
it is clear that us citizens do not apply to anyone's definition. To say that it would happen in the future, would begin from a different cir stance or you are fear mongering.
Since we are at war, we should not have to give habius corpus, which isn't in the cons ution, at the time we give a citizen. Jstice Roberts' dissent with the (detainees name) v. Bush explained this pretty well. It was also precedent when we kiilled Nazi's who were POWs.
The most liberal of the military are the Officers, IMO. This is a judge panel. ALthough it is not the most perfect answer, it is the better of all others.
US citizens are protected by the cons ution and all other laws and regulations.
FTR, the IRS and Game Warden can go into anyone's house without any reason and they are both federal agencies.
He would be arrested and the Army probably would not have anything to do with it. Contrary to popular belief, the military does not want to be a police force, even those druggie MPs.
Actually, a foreign army that is claiming to work in the interest of the farmer's government.
How many Gitmo detainees have gone back to terrorism after they were released from Gitmo? If the number is high, that probably means that they shouldn't be released in the first place.
amazing how terrorist have created such a kickass military machine in your mind.
yep, their terror has definite control over you.
Definitions on recidivism vary, but the last numbers I saw were between 4 and 11 percent.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/...ees/index.html
provided they were terrorist to begin with.
True enough.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
