Guilty?
Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-04-25
In Reply to: And how would we know if they're guilty? (sm) - Just the big bad
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded and he was one of the key architects of the 9/11 attack. You don't think he is guilty? Are you kidding me?
This man plotted and planned an attack on American soil that killed thousands of Americans and you don't think he should have been waterboarded?
You tell me this.....how many detainees were actually subjected to waterboarding....other than Khalid Mohammed that is. Did we do it to every single detainee. Do you even realize that these detainees, a lot of them, were turned in by other people in their country or caught as a direct result of interrogating other detainees.
The last time I checked, Khalid Mohammed still has his head attached to his body....which is more than I can say for Jack Hensley, Nicholas Berg and any other American who had their head cut off. It wasn't a swift cutting off either. I don't know if anyone here has seen the video of one of the beheadings but I had the misfortune of seeing one on the internet and it is an image that haunts me to this day. They basically grabbed him by his head, took a big knife and cut all the way around his neck, and then literally had to start sawing at his neck to get his head the rest of the way off. It took quite a while to accomplish the whole thing. When it was done, they threw the guy's head on his body and started cheering.
I have no compassion for terrorists and I think it is sad that some of you people do. They are ruthless people whose only desire is to rid the world of infidels....that includes you, JTBB. Yes, you. They want you dead and you want them treated fairly. 
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
You need to look in the mirror sam, you are guilty of ...sm
exactly what you are accusing the Dems of. Can you not see it? Everything is black and white with you and it seems that you feel you will lose ground in the conflict if you admit anything but total agreement with the republican platform is wrong. Can you not see that? Nothing in life is ever just black or white, good or bad.
The problem is everyone's guilty,
he said, she said, dem said, pub said. What difference does it make? Fix the problem. I don't believe the dems are anymore at fault for this than the pubs. If anything, I blame Bush and not because he's a pub but because he was supposed to be our leader. If he thought this was an issue, why didn't he press it? Oh, because someone told him it wasn't. Since when does he listen to anyone, and especially the dems.
The ad isn't addressing whether or not he was guilty
but rather his poor judgment.
If everyone was guilty by association . . .
how many of us would be guilty? There are and have been plenty of Senators and congresssmen who have (or still do) links to the KKK -- if we knew the actual truth, we would be shocked. The point is, I don't have enough information to be able to make a judgment about Obama's choice of church? We all have at one time or another had a friend or loved one whose lifestyle or morals maybe we did not necessarily agree with, but maybe we knew another side of them that overshadowed the bad side. I don't respect or necessarily like my mother because she is a racist, but I still love her for doing the best she knew how.
If one is guilty by association, then let
any one of you who profess your own guiltlessness please step forward. I just wish you people would find something more constructive to do than continuously harp on a moot point. You're welcome to join your compadre who posted earlier about moving to Australia -- but then, I doubt you would have the funds to do that, since they require major $$ to be deposited into their banks in order to get a green card. And then you would find that they really do not care for Americans very much, and then YOU would be the one discriminated against. I would call that poetic justice.
am I know guilty of blasphemy?
s
The U.S. is guilty of doing the same thing
Our government has played one country against another, supplying gun power to invade/overthrow governments or those in power the US government does not want there, and then when THAT power we put in there becomes too big for their britches and starts using those very weapons to invade/attack other countries or territories THEY don't like, we then go after them, the very ones we put there in the first place.
Ron Paul is correct; we need to stay OUT of everyone's business and let countries govern themselves. Sometimes all we do by interfering is make things worse for the citizens of those countries where things from bad to worse....
We've got to get out of our heads that we have to save the world......not only is that impossible but financially we are bankrupt from doing so.
And how would we know if they're guilty? (sm)
Most haven't even been charged with a crime much less prosecuted. You might want to start listening to the people who were actually there -- our military personell -- who acknowledge that they didn't know who was guilty and who wasn't. They basically just rounded up any and everybody. That's why so many prosecutors walked off the job. Get your facts straight. You're starting to sound like Cheney, and all he's doing right now is trying to save his own butt.
From looking on both boards, both sides are guilty.
,
That's *innocent* until proven guilty...sm
I don't know which way it will go, but when you tell the truth your story never changes - his did over and over and over.
Moral Treason: Who's guilty?
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
Senator Robert A. Taft (also known as Mr. Republican), 1941 (after Pearl Harbor): I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government..... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy.... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.
Law school 101. Not indicted does not mean not guilty.
I think everyone knows that he had prescriptions from more than a couple of docs.
No one on your side of the fence has answered my question posed above. If MJF had aired an ad against stem cell research, would you have had the same reaction? Would Rush have had the same reaction? I think not. I think you would have applauded him for his courage and his willingness to do such a thing especially in light of the seriousness of his disease. Another question, what do you think about Nancy Reagan and her son Ron being pro stem cell research openly?
Rush will forever be guilty. sm
The amount of hatred the left holds for Rush shows how very powerful he is. He tells it like it is and they can't stand it.
If Bush, etc were not guilty, why do they need a War Crimes Act protection? sm
Why would you need to seek protection if your not ALREADY sure you are guilty?
They must be scared. Could charges be just around the corner? I am going to assume it isn't just about authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, this also about 911/false-flag ops, Wanta's fund and many other charges they are soon to face.
Hmmm...innocent until proven guilty....
you certainly don't think that about George Bush and Dick Cheney, do you? I don't see you asking fellow liberals not to make judgments until they are proven guilty by a jury of their peers...? LOL. Ahem. Think the hippocracy is showing there a little bit. I certainly don't think Kam is considering them innocent until proven guilty, nor are any of the rest of you by your posts. I believe she considers them guilty and impeachment a formality. So please stop with the noble innocent until proven guilty and that is the best system. You don't believe it across the board, so don't speechify. It rings hollow.
And what makes you think I have always voted a Republican ticket? I can tell you right now, I have not, especially in congressional races where I think the most difference is made.
There is nothing to say that Ron Paul would not be a great President. I threw his name out there because he is so radically different than any other Republican running and any Democrat running. Would not surprise me if he lost the Repub nomination and ran as an Independent, which would give disgusted folks such as myself and Kam a real alternative. But Kam is not disgusted with politics. She hates George Bush and she would not vote for a Republican no matter WHAT he or she said, she said as much. And that is what is wrong with politics today, as you have stated so many times and accused me of not wanting change because I said I would never vote for a Democrat. I said I would not vote for a pro abortion Democrat if I have an alternate choice, you are right. But, there are pro life Democrats and I have voted for some for congressional seats. And would continue to do so if I felt they were the most qualified person on the ticket. That is the reason I threw his name out. The only thing that goes against him being able to make any meaningful change is that Congress would hamstring him. If we really want change, we need an independent prez AND an independent congress. That won't happen this election cycle. That kind of change will take years. It could start with this one, and I think that is exactly what Pelosi is trying to avoid by not letting an impeachment go forward right now...too much might come out.
I am not victimized. If anyone is victimized it is poor Kam with that virulent hatred for George Bush. It sounds like it consumes every waking moment. Good grief. I go on about my daily life just like anyone else does, and in the grand scheme of things, WHOever is elected President has his/her work cut out for him/her, we all know that. If it is a Democrat, all I know for absolutely sure is my taxes are going to go up and social programs won't be reined in, they will just get money thrown at them, and if that doesn't fix them, we will get more programs. It has happened every time. And if there is anything in this country that needs to be fixed, that's it. That is another priority for me, and yes, my congresspeople could attest to that from the sheaves of paper they have received from me.
If it is a Republican, what happens depends upon which one it is. If it is Guiliani, I don't see much difference in he and most Democrats and I would have to weigh him against whatever Dem gets the nomination. If it is Romney, I think the man can balance the budget and get runaway spending under control, because say what you want about the man, he is a financial genius and the government is the biggest business there is, and frankly it needs to be run like one. So, if he is the nominee, most likely he will get my vote, because I think it is HIGH time that someone starts to run the government like a business and gets runaway spending under control, starting with social programs. That is so broken it screams to be fixed.
If nominee is Thompson, he will get my vote. For many reasons, the most important of which is putting power back in the states that the feds have stolen over the years. States have demonstrated time and time again they administer their affairs much better than when the Feds get into it. And states may be able to put enough pressure on their reps that Congress might actually do something about that, even if there is a Dem majority. One can only hope. Ron Paul believes that too, and I am in agreement with him on that. We certainly don't need as much centralized power in DC as we have right now. I will vote for the man (or woman) I feel most qualified and most closely follows my vision for the country, just like I would hope everyone else does.
Kam is disgusted, but it is more about her healthy hatred for the MAN George Bush, and the MAN Cheney which has nothing to do with politics and one need only read her posts about them to see that. Which is all well and good, and that is her right and I would argue for her right to say so. Her crusade is to punish George Bush and I don't really think that is going to cure what is wrong with politics in this country. If she thinks Obama is the answer, then I would think her time and energy would be better spent trying to get him the nomination and the election rather than crusading to punish someone on his way out anyway. But that is just me.
Yes, a lot of things about politics and about the way this country is going is disheartening. I do the best I can with my vote and working for whatever candidate I choose to support. Since I am not a rich person I sure can't throw much money at campaigns, but I do what I can.
As to the law is the law and innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers...fine. Does that mean if Bush is impeached and not convicted all would be forgiven on the basis of the law is the law? All of you who are calling for his head would go quietly away because he was judged innocent by his "peers?" ROFL. I don't THINK so.
I would agree with you that we the people of America need to change the way politics are played. But before THAT can happen, the minds of Americans have to change. And the way to do that is stop the bitterly partisan way of thinking (ANY party) and if these political boards, and all the political boards and blogs and sites on the internet are ANY indication, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
Does not mean I am not a happy person, does not mean I am going to slink into a closet and into a depression if Clinton or Obama become President or Paul or WHOEVER becomes President. Life will go on, the chips will fall, and we shall see what happens. Same thing if Guiliani or Romney or Thompson or whoever is elected. It is what it is. Noble ideas and good intentions are wonderful things. But if our Congress cannot drop partisanship long enough to do what is best for the country (if they even know what that is anymore, or care), then it doesn't matter who is President. And I don't know how we can really expect them to if we as rank and file Americans are unwilling to...what goes around comes around, and around, and around, and around....until someone gets off the merry-go-round and pulls the plug. Someone a lot more important, sadly, than kam, than me, or you, piglet. And for the right reasons. And therein lies the rub.
Remember that song, I Need A Hero? Well...America needs one right about now. :)
TARP, both sides are guilty, but O acts like he had nothing to do with it! nm
Then if Obama is not guilty by association, I guess McCain definitely isn't either sm
Racism goes both ways and you know that!
Conyers wife pleads guilty to bribery
Isn't surprising...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7938249&page=1
5 top Gitmo detainees plead guilty, seek martyrdom
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Gitmo_911_suspects_to_plead_guilty/UPI-68631228752620/
|
