Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
The War on Terror Is Not a Crime
    #8329651 - 04/26/08 06:58 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

The War on Terror Is Not a Crime
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. and LEE A. CASEY
April 25, 2008; Page A15


Lynching lawyers, as Shakespeare once suggested, has never appealed much to the legal profession itself – literally or figuratively. But an exception apparently will be made for a group of attorneys who advised President Bush and his national security staff in the aftermath of 9/11. They've been subject to an increasingly determined campaign of public obloquy by law professors, activist lawyers and pundits.

Their legal competence and ethics have been questioned. Suggestions have even been made that they can and should be held criminally responsible for "war crimes," because their legal advice supposedly led to detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

The targets of this witch hunt include some of the country's finest legal minds – such as law Prof. John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley, Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and William J. (Jim) Haynes II, former Pentagon general counsel. Others frequently mentioned include former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.

Many positions taken by these attorneys, laying the fundamental legal architecture of the war on terror, outrage international activists and legal specialists. Nevertheless, in a series of cases beginning with Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld many of their key positions: that the country is engaged in an armed conflict; that captured enemy combatants can be detained without criminal trial during these hostilities; and that (when the time comes) they may be punished through the military, rather than the civilian, justice system.

The Court has also required that detainees be given an administrative hearing to challenge their enemy-combatant classification, ruled that Congress (not the president alone) must establish any military commission system, and made clear that it will in the future exercise some level of judicial scrutiny over the treatment of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay – although the extent of this role is still being litigated. Overall, the administration has won the critical points necessary to continue the war against al Qaeda.

Most controversial, of course, was the Bush administration's insistence that the Geneva Conventions have limited, if any, application to al Qaeda and its allies (who themselves reject the "Western" concepts behind those treaties); and the administration's authorization of aggressive interrogation methods, including, in at least three cases, waterboarding or simulated drowning.

Several legal memoranda, particularly 2002 and 2003 opinions written by Mr. Yoo as deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, considered whether such methods can lawfully be used. These memoranda, some of which remain classified, explore the limits imposed on the United States by statute, treaties, and customary international law. The goal clearly was to find a legal means to give U.S. interrogators the maximum flexibility, while defining the point at which lawful interrogation ended and unlawful torture began.

Behind this inquiry is a stark fact. In this war on terror, the U.S. must not only attack and defeat enemy forces. It must also anticipate and prevent their deliberate attacks on its civilian population – al Qaeda's preferred target. International law gives the civilian population an indisputable right to that protection.

Lawyers can and do disagree over the administration's conclusions. However, it's now being claimed that the administration's legal advisers can be held responsible for detainee abuses.

This is madness. The lawyers were not in any chain of command, and had no theoretical or practical authority to direct the actions of anyone who engaged in abusive conduct. Those who mouth this argument are engaged in a kind of free association which, if applied across the board, would make legal counsel infinitely culpable.

In truth, the critics' fundamental complaint is that the Bush administration's lawyers measured international law against the U.S. Constitution and domestic statutes. They interpreted the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Convention forbidding torture, and customary international law, in ways that were often at odds with the prevailing view of international law professors and various activist groups. In doing so, however, they did no more than assert the right of this nation – as is the right of any sovereign nation – to interpret its own international obligations.

But that right is exactly what is denied by many international lawyers inside and outside the academy.

To the extent that international law can be made, it is made through actual state practice – whether in the form of custom, or in the manner states implement treaty obligations. In the areas relevant to the war on terror, there is precious little state practice against the U.S. position, but a very great deal of academic orthodoxy.

For more than 40 years, as part of the post World War II decolonization process, a legal orthodoxy has arisen that supports limiting the ability of nations to use robust armed force against irregular or guerilla fighters. It has also attempted to privilege such guerillas with the rights traditionally reserved to sovereign states. The U.S. has always been skeptical of these notions, and at critical points has flatly refused to be bound by these new rules. Most especially, it refused to join the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions, involving the treatment of guerillas, from which many of the "norms" the U.S. has supposedly violated, are drawn.

The Bush administration acted on this skepticism – insisting on the right of a sovereign nation to determine for itself what international law means. This is at bottom the sin for which its legal advisers will never be forgiven. To the extent they can be punished – or at least harassed – perhaps their successors in government office will be deterred from again challenging the prevailing view, even at the cost of the national interest.

That is why these administration attorneys have become the particular subjects of attack.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and were members of the United Nations Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights from 2004-2007.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120908451409543573.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Edited by Luddite (04/26/08 07:04 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 7 months, 11 days
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Luddite]
    #8329669 - 04/26/08 07:07 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Interesting read, thanks.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Luddite]
    #8329802 - 04/26/08 08:24 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

That was a thoughtful article. Thanks for providing it.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Luddite]
    #8330524 - 04/26/08 01:07 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/14/21 07:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 7 months, 11 days
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8330718 - 04/26/08 02:11 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Listening to you calling someone else's ramblings "propaganda" is like some Bizzarro World version of the truth.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAScannerDarkly
On StrangerTides
Male


Registered: 04/13/08
Posts: 445
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8330943 - 04/26/08 03:02 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

When its against your own views, its called propaganda, when its identical to your views, its called an opinion. A fascist is anybody that disagrees with you
A freedom fighter is anybody in the world who kills American soldiers (or civilians too). Wise men are old potheads, and anybody with a masters degree is an elitist.


--------------------
[quote]Voido said:
[quote]drken said:
Dont get me wrong he is a funny guy, just not a great actor. Smoke some bud and watch the movie, weed helps me pick out shitty acting. [/quote]

no your just stoned. stop smoking pot [/quote]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8330990 - 04/26/08 03:14 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/14/21 07:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: AScannerDarkly]
    #8330999 - 04/26/08 03:17 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/14/21 07:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8331006 - 04/26/08 03:21 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
I'm not familiar with 'Bizarro World' (sounds like a TV show), but I am of the belief (which is a majority belief around the world) that the U.S.-initiated "War On Terrorism" is flowery rhetoric to give a positive spin to what is a campaign for U.S. political & economic interests throughout the world, having nothing at all to do with combating 'terrorism' in any objective or critical understanding of the term, as the "War on Terrorism" is itself an immense form of terrorism; terrorism that has far exceeded in quantity & scope the events of 9-11 that it (the "War on Terror") purports to be avenging.




Wow. I couldn't write this as a parody. You are your own weakest evidence. You do understand that the phrase "War on Terror" is a metaphor, don't you? And that many other nations seem to actually have otherly named (or unnamed) programs to, you know, prevent violent crime and arrest violent criminals both before and after the act. Why do you hate t3h metaphor so much? Were you confused by one in grade school?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 7 months, 11 days
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8331037 - 04/26/08 03:27 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

EntheogenicPeace said:
I don't know who you are caricaturing, but it is not anybody on this forum (or anybody anywhere that I am familiar with).




No, it's quite clearly you.


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8331053 - 04/26/08 03:31 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/14/21 07:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8331072 - 04/26/08 03:43 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/14/21 07:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDaishi
Prime Mover
Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 89
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8331085 - 04/26/08 03:46 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations.

Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.

Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West's property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible. The first country to nationurl=http://www.aynralize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran. The rest, observing our frightened silence, hurried to grab their piece of the newly available loot.

The cause of the U.S. silence was not practical, but philosophical. The Mideast's dictators were denouncing wealthy egotistical capitalism. They were crying that their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew their viewpoint was true by means of otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer that Americans, properly, were motivated by the selfish desire to achieve personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.

The Muslim countries embodied in an extreme form every idea--selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group--which our universities, our churches, and our own political Establishment had long been upholding as virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent side wins.

After property came liberty. "The Muslim fundamentalist movement," writes Yale historian Lamin Sanneh, "began in 1979 with the Iranian [theocratic] revolution . . ." (NYT, 9/23/01). During his first year as its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, urging a Jihad against "the Great Satan," kidnapped 52 U.S. diplomatic personnel and held them hostage; Carter's reaction was fumbling paralysis. About a decade later, Iran topped this evil. Khomeini issued his infamous Fatwa aimed at censoring, even outside his borders, any ideas uncongenial to Muslim sensibility. This was the meaning of his threat to kill British author Rushdie and to destroy his American publisher; their crime was the exercise of their right to express an unpopular intellectual viewpoint. The Fatwa was Iran's attempt, reaffirmed after Khomeini's death, to stifle, anywhere in the world, the very process of thought. Bush Sr. looked the other way.

After liberty came American life itself. The first killers were the Palestinian hijackers of the late 1960s. But the killing spree which has now shattered our soaring landmarks, our daily routine, and our souls, began in earnest only after the license granted by Carter and Bush Sr.

Many nations work to fill our body bags. But Iran, according to a State Department report of 1999, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," training and arming groups from all over the Mideast, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Nor is Iran's government now "moderating." Five months ago, the world's leading terrorist groups resolved to unite in a holy war against the U.S., which they called "a second Israel"; their meeting was held in Teheran. (Fox News, 9/16/01)

What has been the U.S. response to the above? In 1996, nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed in their barracks in Saudi Arabia. According to a front-page story in The New York Times (6/21/98): "Evidence suggesting that Iran sponsored the attack has further complicated the investigation, because the United States and Saudi Arabia have recently sought to improve relations with a new, relatively moderate Government in Teheran." In other words, Clinton evaded Iran's role because he wanted what he called "a genuine reconciliation." In public, of course, he continued to vow that he would find and punish the guilty. This inaction of Clinton's is comparable to his action after bin Laden's attack on U.S. embassies in East Africa; his action was the gingerly bombing of two meaningless targets.

Conservatives are equally responsible for today's crisis, as Reagan's record attests. Reagan not only failed to retaliate after 241 U.S. marines in Lebanon were slaughtered; he did worse. Holding that Islamic guerrillas were our ideological allies because of their fight against the atheistic Soviets, he methodically poured money and expertise into Afghanistan. This put the U.S. wholesale into the business of creating terrorists. Most of them regarded fighting the Soviets as only the beginning; our turn soon came.

For over a decade, there was another guarantee of American impotence: the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions, and that each, therefore, must be tried as an individual before a court of law. This viewpoint, thankfully, is fading; most people now understand that terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of a government.

We need not prove the identity of any of these creatures, because terrorism is not an issue of personalities. It cannot be stopped by destroying bin Laden and the al-Qaeda army, or even by destroying the destroyers everywhere. If that is all we do, a new army of militants will soon rise up to replace the old one.

The behavior of such militants is that of the regimes which make them possible. Their atrocities are not crimes, but acts of war. The proper response, as the public now understands, is a war in self-defense. In the excellent words of Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, we must "end states who sponsor terrorism."

A proper war in self-defense is one fought without self-crippling restrictions placed on our commanders in the field. It must be fought with the most effective weapons we possess (a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld refused, correctly, to rule out nuclear weapons). And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire. These innocents suffer and die because of the action of their own government in sponsoring the initiation of force against America. Their fate, therefore, is their government's moral responsibility. There is no way for our bullets to be aimed only at evil men.

The public understandably demands retaliation against Afghanistan. But in the wider context Afghanistan is insignificant. It is too devastated even to breed many fanatics. Since it is no more these days than a place to hide, its elimination would do little to end terrorism.

Terrorism is a specific disease, which can be treated only by a specific antidote. The nature of the disease (though not of its antidote) has been suggested by Serge Schmemann (NYT, 9/16/01). Our struggle now, he writes, is "not a struggle against a conventional guerrilla force, whose yearning for a national homeland or the satisfaction of some grievance could be satisfied or denied. The terrorists [on Tuesday] . . . issued no demands, no ultimatums. They did it solely out of grievance and hatred--hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage, but abhorred by religious fundamentalists (and not only Muslim fundamentalists) as licentiousness, corruption, greed and apostasy."

Every word of this is true. The obvious implication is that the struggle against terrorism is not a struggle over Palestine. It is a clash of cultures, and thus a struggle of ideas, which can be dealt with, ultimately, only by intellectual means. But this fact does not depreciate the crucial role of our armed forces. On the contrary, it increases their effectiveness, by pointing them to the right target.

Most of the Mideast is ruled by thugs who would be paralyzed by an American victory over any of their neighbors. Iran, by contrast, is the only major country there ruled by zealots dedicated not to material gain (such as more wealth or territory), but to the triumph by any means, however violent, of the Muslim fundamentalist movement they brought to life. That is why Iran manufactures the most terrorists.

If one were under a Nazi aerial bombardment, it would be senseless to restrict oneself to combatting Nazi satellites while ignoring Germany and the ideological plague it was working to spread. What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad-mongers only by taking out Iran.

Eliminating Iran's terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. But nothing less will "end the state" that most cries out to be ended.

The greatest obstacle to U.S. victory is not Iran and its allies, but our own intellectuals. Even now, they are advocating the same ideas that caused our historical paralysis. They are asking a reeling nation to show neighbor-love by shunning "vengeance." The multiculturalists--rejecting the concept of objectivity--are urging us to "understand" the Arabs and avoid "racism" (i.e., any condemnation of any group's culture). The friends of "peace" are reminding us, ever more loudly, to "remember Hiroshima" and beware the sin of pride.

These are the kinds of voices being heard in the universities, the churches, and the media as the country recovers from its first shock, and the professoriate et al. feel emboldened to resume business as usual. These voices are a siren song luring us to untroubled sleep while the fanatics proceed to gut America.

Tragically, Mr. Bush is attempting a compromise between the people's demand for a decisive war and the intellectuals' demand for appeasement.

It is likely that the Bush administration will soon launch an attack on bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan and possibly even attack the Taliban. Despite this, however, every sign indicates that Mr. Bush will repeat the mistakes made by his father in Iraq. As of October 1, the Taliban leadership appears not to be a target. Even worse, the administration refuses to target Iran, or any of the other countries identified by the State Department as terrorist regimes. On the contrary, Powell is seeking to add to the current coalition these very states--which is the equivalent of going into partnership with the Soviet Union in order to fight Communism (under the pretext, say, of proving that we are not anti-Russian). By seeking such a coalition, our President is asserting that he needs the support of terrorist nations in order to fight them. He is stating publicly that the world's only superpower does not have enough self-confidence or moral courage to act unilaterally in its own defense.

For some days now, Mr. Bush has been downplaying the role of our military, while praising the same policies (mainly negotiation and economic pressure) that have failed so spectacularly and for so long. Instead of attacking the roots of global terrorism, he seems to be settling for a "guerrilla war" against al-Qaeda, and a policy of unseating the Taliban passively, by aiding a motley coalition of native tribes. Our battle, he stresses, will be a "lengthy" one.

Mr. Bush's compromise will leave the primary creators of terrorism whole--and unafraid. His approach might satisfy our short-term desire for retribution, but it will guarantee catastrophe in the long term.

As yet, however, no overall policy has been solidified; the administration still seems to be groping. And an angry public still expects our government not merely to hobble terrorism for a while, but to eradicate it. The only hope left is that Mr. Bush will listen to the public, not to the professors and their progeny.

When should we act, if not now? If our appeasement has led to an escalation of disasters in the past, can it do otherwise in the future? Do we wait until our enemies master nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare?

The survival of America is at stake. The risk of a U.S. overreaction, therefore, is negligible. The only risk is underreaction.

Mr. Bush must reverse course. He must send our missiles and troops, in force, where they belong. And he must justify this action by declaring with righteous conviction that we have discarded the clichés of our paper-tiger past and that the U.S. now places America first.

There is still time to demonstrate that we take the war against terrorism seriously--as a sacred obligation to our Founding Fathers, to every victim of the men who hate this country, and to ourselves. There is still time to make the world understand that we will take up arms, anywhere and on principle, to secure an American's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on earth.

The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. Our Commander-In-Chief must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who conspire to kill them.




http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207&news_iv_ctrl=1021


--------------------
Man has to be man--by choice; he has to hold his life as a value--by choice; he has to learn to sustain it--by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—-by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Daishi]
    #8331188 - 04/26/08 04:17 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/14/21 07:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesatyr
אתה בעצמך יודע


Registered: 11/13/07
Posts: 3,396
Loc: Alpha Canis Majoris
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: EntheogenicPeace]
    #8331564 - 04/26/08 05:56 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations.




These people are sooo brilliant at preaching their propaganda. So basically what they are saying is...If we dont fly our skillfully trained death dealing army into the middle east and kill every man, woman and child, then they may perform another act of "terrorism"? Yeah, just like 911.
(If only the major population knew who is really responsible for that act) Fuck that, the war on terrorism is a crime against fucking Humanity. Since when is MURDER lawful?


--------------------
Looking for Astrophytum asterias specimens; have cacti for trade :pm:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 7 months, 11 days
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: satyr]
    #8331784 - 04/26/08 07:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

satyr said:So basically what they are saying is...If we dont fly our skillfully trained death dealing army into the middle east and kill every man, woman and child, then they may perform another act of "terrorism"? Yeah, just like 911.




:lol:

Do you really think this is what they're trying to do?

You think a few hundred a day is the most Iraqi's they can kill?

Really?


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesatyr
אתה בעצמך יודע


Registered: 11/13/07
Posts: 3,396
Loc: Alpha Canis Majoris
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8331834 - 04/26/08 07:29 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Ha, do you actually believe that they are there to stop "terrorism"? Im not saying that the actual goal is to wipe out an entire nation, but It is damn sure not about stopping terrorism. Do you know how many fucking innocent iraqis have died in this supposed "war"? Have you seen the footage of Marines needlessly and mercilessly slaughtering unarmed people in iraq? What about Blackwater? Have you heard of this fucking mercenary army that is taking the lives of innocent civilians just for fun? Cmon man, America is becoming a fascist dictatorship, and anyone who doesnt see that is a fucking lunatic.


--------------------
Looking for Astrophytum asterias specimens; have cacti for trade :pm:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 7 months, 11 days
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: satyr]
    #8331837 - 04/26/08 07:31 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I didn't say any of those words that you just put into my mouth.

You, on the other hand did say...

Quote:

satyr said:So basically what they are saying is...If we dont fly our skillfully trained death dealing army into the middle east and kill every man, woman and child, then they may perform another act of "terrorism"? Yeah, just like 911.




But when you say something like that it's not propaganda, right?


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesatyr
אתה בעצמך יודע


Registered: 11/13/07
Posts: 3,396
Loc: Alpha Canis Majoris
Last seen: 11 years, 6 months
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8331854 - 04/26/08 07:34 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Um, no. There is quite a bit difference between propaganda and the truth. What the TV and Dubya will tell you about the war is propaganda. The fact that our military is over there taking innocent lives is the truth.


--------------------
Looking for Astrophytum asterias specimens; have cacti for trade :pm:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 7 months, 11 days
Re: The War on Terror Is Not a Crime [Re: satyr]
    #8331896 - 04/26/08 07:42 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

So the propaganda in this "war" is entirely one sided?

There is none being put out by your side?

Because if saying we're trying to kill every person in Iraq isn't propaganda, I need to check my definitions...


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* War people, why do you support the war?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
rhizo 10,224 145 07/05/06 09:56 AM
by Phred
* The Case Against War EchoVortex 1,138 3 10/31/02 06:24 PM
by Anonymous
* Rumsfeld to provoke terrorist attacks
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 3,754 32 11/06/02 04:01 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Arm yourself with info- 60 reasons we shouldnt be at war
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PsiloKitten 11,194 93 11/02/13 08:08 PM
by Yogi1
* Porous Mexican Border as a Terrorist Entry Point
( 1 2 all )
Autonomous 4,118 36 01/05/04 11:19 AM
by Xlea321
* The War on Drugs is Lost wingnutx 2,492 19 08/25/02 06:51 PM
by Murex
* The war on drugs HarveyWalbanger 1,086 9 02/24/03 11:08 AM
by Meph
* The ultimate act of terrorism
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 1,553 23 08/19/03 12:29 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,356 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 13 queries.