Jump to content

Traitor


Tyrn
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Notion: We are killing innocent civilians in our war on terrorism.


Of course USA is killing some innocents. When a bomb fall it has no friends. But that would be forgetting that since WW2 civils are not any more considered as legitimate targets by western governments. At least as few as possible will die, even if it is a low reconfort for the dead.

quote:

Notion 2: It is impossible to win the war on Terrorism.

Reality: Think logically for a minute. Yes, bombing Afganistan to hell will not end the war on terrorism, neither will bombing Iraq, or any other Middile Eastern Country. That's why we are setting up a new government in Afganistan, and probably will in any other terrorist harboring country. I doubt the United States will make the same mistake twice, in this specific instance. After the terrorist harboring countries' governments are replaced, it will become much harder for terrorist groups to operate. Yes, terrorism won't be eliminated, but it will likely be lower than pre 9/11 levels, because they will be unable to operate in the open because of governments crushing them.


It will never work. UK with thousands of soldiers was not able to eliminate IRA, France has not been able to eliminate Corsican terrorists and even Spanish dictator Franco was not able to erradicate ETA(not to mention nowadays) when his police had very few civil rights to respect. Just because all these organisations had popular support at some extents. The only example of terrorists whose organisation was erradicated (in france) was les brigades rouges, but they were a small (even if ruthless) group operating without any popular support. So if you want to eliminate a terrorist group, you have to deal also with its popular support. If not, you will just kill some terrorists just to have some new ones emerging a few moments later. Then here we go for the everlasting war.....

quote:

Notion 3: We are acting like terrorists by bombing Afganistan.


Humm.. Did not read this one before, I find it a bit difficult to support. Even if it is Christ's teaching to forgive, well... Sometimes peace can be worse than war (anybody remember Munich ?)

quote:

Notion 4: We are doing what the terrorists want.

Reality: Bin Laden doesn't want his top military and terror advisors dead. That's like Bin Laden saying that he wants us to chop off his hands and legs so he'll be more effective against us.


Captain Dread's reality seems to me very "American", not Arab. The way WTC was bombed shows that we have in front of us some very intelligent people. I cannot imagine that they did not include the possibility that they could be wipped out clean by the retaliations, which I hope will be the case. I would guess that if they are killed, their bet is that they will be martyrs, thus showing the way to others. Please remember that these murderers do not care about their own lives. How can we treatten people to kill them when they are eagier to commit suicide just to kill you ?

quote:

The terrorists are mad. The only way to make them happy is the destruction of America, and/or the withdrawl of support for Israel (which would cause them to declare their nuclear status and start a Middle Eastern Arms race, not much fun when a bunch of "kill the non-islam fanatics" have nukes) The only option is to disable the person's ability to punch you AKA, destroy terrorists and their supporting countries. Anyone who is "pro-peace, anti-war" is saying, "let them keep punching us". If that's not pro-Taliban, nothing is.


To the point, a nuclear suicide attack is my worst fear. And restrict help to the only democracy of this area would lead to another genocide. But what to do with Egypt ? Most of its population is furiously against USA. It won't matter how much billion of US dollars go to the country, as long as root of their hate is not treated.

quote:

The destruction of Terrorist supporting countries will highly limit the capabilities and activities of terrorist groups, and in the end protect American security.


You are dreaming, as shown in Europe. In fact to win the war is only the first step. The second step is to win the peace. A poor peace will lead to other wars (remember WW1 ?).

quote:

fighting is wrong


Of course it is wrong ! Only terrorists of madmen can imagine it's not !

Problem is not if fighting is wrong or not, but what will happen if it is avoided ? If it was alway avoided France would probably have been "freed" by soviets troops in WW2.

All fighting was avoided in Cambodgia. Then Pol-Pot killed millions of his own people.

As a whole I think Captain Dread is missing the point : the most important thing will not be to win the short term war but to win the long term peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise

Have you played civ3 yet. That game can set a very good example of the current state of the world. Even if the US laid down all of it's arms the majority of the muslim world would still think we were attacking them. It's our culture that they hate and fear. The kind of peace it seems that you advocate would requir us to lay down all of our arms. It would also require us to give up all interests in the middle east. It would require new laws that would control the spread of our culture. Even then that would not stop some middle eastern country from attacking us just because we are infedels. We need those things you would have us give up to secure our way of life and our place on this planet. You seems to have a lot to say but now real answers. I don't claim to have all the answers either. Unfortunately the only way to ensure real peace is through force. I'm not saying we should kill all of our enemies. But that would be the only way to secure real peace. It takes 2 sides to fight. Completely elimate one side, problem solved. Before one side loses though it usually gives in and we have peace for a little while at least. Two have a semblence of peace one side always has to lose. That's how it's always been and probably always will be.

Ravonaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Your opinion that it wasn't taking up arms since it was not an offensive action puzzles me, but I'm sure you'll correct it after learning more.


Correct it?? Hmmph. You're right though. I am still learning. Some more of my own reading and some of your quotes.

Outright treason to me would be for him to have decided before hand that he was going to go join the Taliban. But now....

quote:

CNN and MSNBC actually quoted the guy as praising September 11,

I remember "supported" in another story so I beleive you.

quote:

but his father said that after all he had been through fighting for the Taliban that it is natural and to understand why he felt that way

That is a crock. The father's statement that is. Not your quote. I take it to mean that John Walker supported them right after they happened and not after being imprisoned. Not after being captured which is what John Walker's father seems to be saying.

Like I said above I think he was mentally disturbed to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this out today, this is on American Passports.

mojopassport.Par.0007.ImageFile.MDExMjA2

Serving in the Armed forces of a foreign government results in immediate loss of citienship.

String him up.

[AFTER EDIT]

The image won't work but it basically outlines 4 ways to lose your citizenship. The fourth is to serve in the Armed Forces of a foreign country. SO John Walker is fit for a tribunal.

[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise

"Prove it."

What's to prove? It's common knowledge.

"Peace itself requires that both sides lay down their arms. I am not advocating surrender."

And how do you suggest this happen? Do we go first or them? It will NEVER happen.

"That's not necessarily true. Remember that Bin Laden and the Taliban are only extreme versions of what the people actually want. The vast majority of people do not regard westerners as infidels. If they did, the Taliban would have much stronger military support."

It's absolutely true. Terrorists and non-terrorists alike want us out. Not everyone. But as long as there are a few there will always be terrorists. That's one of there biggest demands. They don't like the influence our culture has.

"Rubbish. Peace through force is not peace at all. It's oppression."

Rubbish? Again. Name any peace that did not come about after war. The fact of the matter is the Terrorists will not stop until they are all dead. That's a fact. No matter how much you refuse to accept it. You can't change it. We have to learn to live with it.

(I had to edit the post. Started to sound too much like a flame )

Ravonaf

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Ravonaf ]

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Ravonaf ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Menchise, youre views on peace, commendable though they may be, are another case of wishful thinking. I would say "it's not gonna happen" and you will quote that and answer "how come?"

It's clear to anyone who has studied the subject matter, and clear to you as well, that there will be no peace in the Middle East until there is no more Israel.

Bin Laden has said that Israel is nothing more than an American outpost, and he want's the "infidels" driven from the Middle East. In order to do that, he would have to destroy Israel, but knows it is not possible while we support Israel.

What kind of peace is there when everyone has the ability to attack everyone else? It makes for forced treaties and "my arsenal is bigger than yours" agreements. True stability and peace could only be brought about through force, until that one magical day when everyone becomes "tolerant" and "understanding".

Leftists are so well-intentioned that they don't look beyond the well-intentions and see the folly of the programs they wish to initiate.

For instance,

Left wing nut: "I just saw a man get shot in the street. If the bad man had not had a gun, he wouldn't have shot anyone! The gun obviously made him do it! I must seek to ban all gun ownership.

So let's say dumbass in the example above succeeded.

Well, no one is shooting anyone else any more (except those criminals who still own guns), yet it seems like everone has started either stabbing or strangling each other... and those who are of small physical stature can't defend themselves, because the new ways of self-defense are beyond their ability. So all the former legal gun owners become victims instead of defenders of justice.

Then look for the left wing moron to try banning knives, clubs, cars, bats, rings, string, yo yo's, and anything else that could be possibly used as a weapon, not realizing that the weapons enable defense, and that people are responsible for their own actions.

Taking away someone's right to self defense is immoral, yet the leftist in America sees it as their sacred duty. If only they would wake up out of the "wouldn't it be great if" fantasy land, they would realize what they are doing is misguided.

I believe - for the record, that liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, whatever - are the same people who hide from the reality of life in a selfish dreamworld, wanting to do something great for humanity, but wanting others to expend the effort.

Oh the homeless! Oh the disadvantaged! Oh the disenfranchised!

Left Wing Nut: "I must raise money to help these poor people. But where should I get it from? Charities are obviously right-wing establishments and would only serve to give aid to the judeo christian dictatorship that is a stranglehold to our society, and not like those white male racists would give money anyway. WAIT! I know, I will ask congress and several groups to raise taxes so those greedy people will HAVE to pay! They make too much money anyway, and those people doing without deserve more, even though they haven't worked for it. But WHO is to say they should work for it? They have their dignity, and it would obviously contribute to the racial divide and the years of terrorism these people have had to deal with if they had to work. THose poor poor disadvantaged. I want to take care of them and feel better about myself!"

But Menchise, of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to help people. But this "means to an end" nonsense is wrong. But any excuse that get's in the way of the liberal mind is either declared as (outdated, racist, greedy, etc.)

How can those who claim to represent minority rights want to force labor on the smallest minority of all, the working individual?

The liberal mind is full of hypocrisy and what is perfectly logical to them in one case is obviously racist in another.

To your credit Menchise you haven't tried whipping out the race card really. But the liberalistic "save the world by blindly moving towards an end regardless of means" idea is still pervading your thoughts.

The peace you want - everyone lives happily ever after and no one attacks anyone.

The means? Forcible seizure of guns? Victimization of the majority? Forcing a one world government?

Your noble intentions can't win arguments without describing exactly how you would bring about such an anti-realistic change in society.

It sounds good to you to say nice things and blow sunshine up people @$$, but at the same time let's be realistic - it can't happen.

To save you the trouble I could probably fill in your argument for you.

Menchise : "why not?"

Me: "Because at no point in history and no time of human nature that conflict has not existed"

Menchise: "But it could change"

Me: "How?"

Menchise:"There could be peace!"

Me:"How?"

Menchise:"People could stop fighting and everyone could form a big utopia and sing kumbaya!"

Me:"And how would you get them to do this?"

Menchise"The promise of peace!"

Me:"And what if they don't believe the promise and fight anyway?"

Menchise"But they wouldn't..."

And we could go on and on like that, just like in our continuing the debate thread.

I'm aimed at convincing you to doubt that little self-guilt laced voice in your mind, so just bear with me and understand, that when you get a job, children, a family, and start paying taxes : you will understand where I'm coming from.

I don't have the money available to dick around and save the world like liberals want to. I barely have enough money to get by and have enough left over to throw into my computer, and even then haven't you noticed how I've sold off most of my PC games, my PS2, etc. just to make ends meet? That's one of the things that influenced me to the military is LESS tax.But big government liberals will only want to raise taxes higher and higher and higher until only a small majority is forced to work to support those that don't.

Correct me if I'm wrong - but wasn't slavery people working to support those that didn't?

There's a pattern happening here, and good intentions through the acts of liberals are going to raise taxes and oppress the working class of this country until we do have a revolution - but it's not going to be the communist one they want, it's going to be an American revolution to throw off the oppressive hands of tyranny. That's what liberalism is today - tyranny. It's forcing one class of citizens to support another. It's wrong, and immoral. But all that liberals see is the light at the end of the tunnel. They don't realize, that liberalism never makes it that far down the tunnel.

And all the good intentions in the world, no matter how successfully leftists blind themselves to the facts of what they are doing, reality is going to sneak up and it's going to bite them in the ass. Mark my words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this. Yes I am quoting portions of the Koran, but I am in no means advocating Islam. I am simply doing this to provide support for my point.

Ok, What DO the islamic fundamentalists such as Bin Laden want? Their primary desire is NOT less American intervention.

First lets look at what the Koran or Qur'an has to say about unbelievers.

" 4.101: And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy."

"2.98: Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. "

"48.29: Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another."

Now we know that unbelievers are to Islam enemies, but WHO are the unbelievers.

"5.51: Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship will become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers."

What is to be done to these unbelievers, the enemies of Islam? According to the Koran, this is the correct actions of a believer.

"9.73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."

"9.29: Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued."

"2.:190: Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there;"

No matter what you think, western civilization was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. They are a part of our culture and because of these principles to the Islamics we are unbelievers worthy only of war and death. Islam will not be satisfied with the status quo, it will rest only when it has completely destroyed western culture and replaced it with its own. The only reason it has not been overtly aggressive is that militarily and technalogically, the west is supperior to them and that they would never survive open conflict. That is why they resort to terror.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK before this actually gets out of hand.

I did not start this thread to have it devolve into a political debate nor a religious debate, which is obviously where it's headed and treading. Now I know you guys are quite good about keeping things civil but this thread is too near the edge, that fine line between standing for one's beliefs and bashing another for holding a different belief, for my peace of mind. If you really feel that you must continue in the current vein, take it to email or private message.

If, OTOH, you want to comment about the traitor, John Walker (you do remember the topic of this thread right?) then please do so.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Tyrn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay some of the responses have been incredibly dumb (no offense) , and some of you are still trynig to debate with Silk he' right. First off he is guilty of treason, which can be conisdered a military matter, so what if he had dual citizenship he still took up arms against ONE of his countries, his punishment most likely will be death by a firing squad since he is a traitor and yes, guilty of treason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for Menchise to start his thread on whatever he wants to debate. I deleted one post and hope Tyrn continues.

As for John Walker himself I have a problem with treason. He did not set out (least I don't think so. it must be proven) to overthrow the US gov't. The Webster definition of treason. Maybe there are other nuances I am not aware of but I have a problem with calling it treason.

I also have a problem with murder. Sure he was part of the prison uprising but did he actually pull the trigger or was he actually part of the group that killed the CIA agent? Dunno.

The third charge that can be applied is supporting terrorists. That he most certainly did.

Those three charges are the ones I saw tonight on the news that might be applied to John Walker's situation. They also say that he will probably be handed over to the Justice dept.

$ilk's point about the passport rule was interesting. Maybe they will apply that rule. Then they can take him before a military tribunal.

Whatever they do John Walker is toast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was watching some political show this morning. Sam Donaldson, George Stephanopolis (sp?), and two others. Of course John Walker came up.

Turns out that treason is the only crime defined by the constitution. Part of the definition is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So I was wrong. Treason can be applied.

It's just not the cold war spying giving away gov't secrets type of treason I am used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Charles Lindsey:

I'm waiting for Menchise to start his thread on whatever he wants to debate. I deleted one post and hope Tyrn continues.

Aye, I've my eye on it.

I still can't, for the life of me, wrap my mind around what he's done.

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Tyrn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...