There must be a difference in the emperor's view.
|
There must be a difference in the emperor's view.
Hello again, tom:
So, if I, and elderly Jewish man attacked the police station BECAUSE I don't like their POLITICS, should I be sent to Gitmo, or the county jail?
Would it be different if I were a young Arab?
Look. IF Gitmo WORKED, and if unlimited detention WORKED, and if military tribunals WORKED, I'd be all for them. But, they DON'T work. They're EXTRA Constitutional. Bush TRIED to avoid the Constitution, but fortunately (for ALL of us), he couldn't.
So, I'm for what works. The federal judicial system WORKS.
It DOESN'T work to try to get REVENGE, and that's what Gitmo looks like.
excon
It could easily and accurately be argued that McVeigh declared war on the United States. But some guy who thinks he's doing a college buddy a favor by tossing his back pack into the dumps is not necessarily complicit in an act of terrorism. He may have been... and if the idiots in the Justice Dept didn't cut off the interrorgation before the 48 hr rule ended,we may have found out for sure . But now we will probably never know if the guy was any more involved .Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I don't know dude, if the Jew's goal was to kill or subjugate the infidels for the sake of noble and exalted goals, and for the sake of Jehovah I think Gitmo would be appropriate.
Hello again, Steve:
If it LOOKS like a duck, and all that stuff... Clearly, you're describing a hate crime.
Ohhhh, it matters WHY I hate?? No it doesn't...
excon
Clearly you don't understand Jihad, or you're in denial about it. Which is it?
Hello again, Steve:
Got nothing to do with Jihad, and everything to do with the Constitution. If you catch 'em on the battlefield, put 'em in a POW camp. If you catch 'em committing crimes in the US, put 'em on trial.
I don't CARE what they think.
excon
What do you not get about an act of war then?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
There are two commonly accepted meanings of jihad: an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle.[1] The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties.[1][5] This non-violent meaning is stressed by both Muslim[6] and non-Muslim[7] authors.
This is what's taught in the Quran and any other interpretation or western version is rejected by Islam and should be noted that the acts of terrorism in the name of Allah are considered blasphemy and the acts of criminals. It's a dangerous and misleading thing to take a line out of any religious writing/book and not note the entire context for understanding.Quote:
In the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence, the rules associated with armed warfare are covered at great length. Such rules include not killing women, children and non-combatants, as well as not damaging cultivated or residential areas.[38] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[34] Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[39]
Confusion and chaos are the vehicles of those who plant the seeds of misunderstanding in furtherance of self motivation, and agendas, and history is full of these fools.
The religion never has mattered for those that subvert, and pervert for there own ends and hide those motives behind whatever god is available. The true war I with real people who have bad intentions for their own purpose and labels can distract us from these evil crazy nut job criminals. They count on our fear and hate to get over on us, and seems to be effective.
Spare us the namby-pamby apologetics, it's clear that Jihadistan doesn't give a rip about the Wikipedia definition. What's sad is that's exactly what they want you to believe, you've fallen right into their trap.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Whose trap?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Actually its what mainstream Islam is about and the ones you choose to believe are the actions of criminals. If YOU were right then there would be a whole lot more people trying to kill you and they wouldn't have to be sneaky about it or hide behind women and children.
Matter of fact those criminals count on you being afraid, and easily distracted by your own hate and fear. They count on the easily influenced for the soldiers to make you afraid. You probably don't know any Muslims so its understandable that you don't know what you are talking about.
Dude, we've already established I don't consider all Muslims terrorist so you can forget that meme and how many I know is entirely irrelevant. The difference between you and me is I'm not in denial about the reality and the goals of the Jihadists that have already killed thousands and unlike you I refuse to whitewash their Jihad, which is what they count on from you. You're a tool to them, they sit back and laugh at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It has nothing to do with fear, it's called REALITY. Ignore it at your peril.
You are in more danger from American criminals than jihadist. That's who your guns protect you from is it not? What you think your Remington will work against the jihadist?
What is your suggestion to protect us from Islamic radicals? Any in your neighborhood?
Smh...Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!! Oh did you say something?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The problem of gum control could be solved in near future with political willingness and controlling arms lobby. But the problem of jihad need introspection, islam as a community need deeper discussion and introspection.
The problems of gun control can be solved with law enforcement, that is if you have enough cops looking specifically at violations, it always comes down to resources. The poli's act but fail to resource you have 270,000,000 guns and 794,000 police so on a quick count every police officer is outgunned 3,000 times and that's the ones you know about
A local intelligence assessment identified the finish line of the Marathon as an "area of increased vulnerability" and warned Boston police that extremists may use "small scale bombings" to attack spectators and runners at the event.
But what caught my eye was the fact that the FBI never informed local authorities that Tamerlan Tsarnaev(aka 'speed bump') had travelled to Dagestan; had been interviewed by the FBI at the request of the Russians.
This it the type of intelligence sharing gap that led to 9-11 . Apparently the gaps in intel sharing have not been closed yet . You would think that local officials would need to know if someone on watch lists ,who frequents radical Mosques at home ,who posted jihadists related material on his Facebook ;and had travelled outside the country to regions known for it radical Islam recruitment.
Intelligence report identified vulnerability before Boston bombing - latimes.comQuote:
Top police officials in Boston testified to the panel that the FBI never shared with local law enforcement agencies that Tsarnaev had visited Dagestan and that FBI and Russian officials were concerned he and possibly his younger brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, might become radicalized extremists.
“We would have liked to have known,” said Edward F. Davis III, commissioner of the Boston Police Department. But, he said, “we were not aware of the two brothers, we were not aware of their activities.”
In fact, Davis testified, it was more than three days after the April 15 bombing, after Tamerlan was killed in a police shootout and Dzhokhar was on the run, before he learned about the Tsarnaevs.
“We didn't look at the brothers until after the shootout,” he said.
But he said he was uncertain what his local intelligence officers would have made of Tamerlan's 2011 trip to Dagestan, noting that the FBI interviewed him but found nothing suspicious and that Russian officials did not tell the FBI why they were interested in him.
“We would certainly have looked at the information,” Davis said. “We would certainly have talked to the individual.” But, he added, “I can't say I would have come to a different conclusion” than the FBI
Kurt N. Schwartz, Massachusetts undersecretary for homeland security, added that “at no time were we told about the brothers.”
The false assumption is that every gun is in the hand of the criminal . That is not true... not even close to true.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:10 AM. |