Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

[chevysoldier]

yes I do

Really? Anyone not muslim is an infidel to them. So swearing on the BIBLE, not the Koran, won't do shit. You think the Bible means anything to them? You'd have better luck swearing them in on a piece of TP.

Oh, yes, I'm sure that would solve the problem right there.

You can't combat an idea by reinforcing it in the minds of the people likely to believe it.

Lets let him live in NYC for awhile, he can get a job, tax free of course. Get educational assistance, for free of course, free heathcare through Obama's plan, we could even pay him as an incentive to change his way. I mean we did kind of ruin his life by throwing him in jail. It's the least we could do.

It's not like no one knows our rules. Commit an act of war and we catch you, you will be tried my military tribunal. So why now is he getting the right to a trial in NYC? Everyone know if you drink and drive and get caught, you will get points/lose your DL. Come in illegaly from Mexico and they can get healthcare and education. Maybe if we stopped doing that, they'd either stop coming here or do it the right way. My grandmother came from Germany with her family. They got jobs, paid taxes, went through the process. We are so intent on making everyone happy and being "fair that we have gone to the extreme and alienated those that do stuff the right way and given way for those who don't abide by the laws of the land to walk all over everyone else. It's bull and if you can't see that you're as blind as a bat. It's not that difficult to understand.

[cmoosego]

Really? Anyone not muslim is an infidel to them. So swearing on the BIBLE, not the Koran, won't do shit. You think the Bible means anything to them? You'd have better luck swearing them in on a piece of TP.

Lets let him live in NYC for awhile, he can get a job, tax free of course. Get educational assistance, for free of course, free heathcare through Obama's plan, we could even pay him as an incentive to change his way. I mean we did kind of ruin his life by throwing him in jail. It's the least we could do.

It's not like no one knows our rules. Commit an act of war and we catch you, you will be tried my military tribunal. So why now is he getting the right to a trial in NYC? Everyone know if you drink and drive and get caught, you will get points/lose your DL. Come in illegaly from Mexico and they can get healthcare and education. Maybe if we stopped doing that, they'd either stop coming here or do it the right way. My grandmother came from Germany with her family. They got jobs, paid taxes, went through the process. We are so intent on making everyone happy and being "fair that we have gone to the extreme and alienated those that do stuff the right way and given way for those who don't abide by the laws of the land to walk all over everyone else. It's bull and if you can't see that you're as blind as a bat. It's not that difficult to understand.

but if you go to mcdonalds you'd better order in spanish... or you'll get mc nuggets when you asked for a big mac.... rules don't apply to people with no sense of freedom or fairness... Edited November 14, 2009 by cmoosego

[chevysoldier]

but if you go to mcdonalds you'd better order in spanish... or you'll get mc nuggets when you asked for a big mac.... rules don't apply to people with no sense of freedom or fairness...

Exactly.

[jporter12]

but if you go to mcdonalds you'd better order in spanish... or you'll get mc nuggets when you asked for a big mac.... rules don't apply to people with no sense of freedom or fairness...

Nah, you go to McDonalds and you're going to get anything but what you ordered, no matter what!!! It's Ronald's way!

While you're at it, order the "add to my spare tire meal" (just saw a Subway commercial...)

[chevysoldier]

Really ?????

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqtortures.html

Wow. For one thing right off the bat, the pic at the top was from some dumb soldiers that thought it would be funny to take pics. They werent trying to get info at that moment. Those "dont enlist" and dont marry a soldier" parts. If it wasn't for those soldiers and families that died you wouldn't be allowed to say whatever you wanted.

From your link:

"If you are an American soldier, and you are wondering why am requesting that everyone spit on you, read this essay to understand why"

"Today’s soldier kills mostly defenseless civilians and most of them children. He excuses his brutality as collateral damage."

Uhh, no not really. We advoid areas of prayer at all cost so as to minimize the civilians. I'm sure they cared about the innocents in the WTC. They were only trying to take down the buildings.

"In this war, Americans openly use banned weapons such as land mines, napalm, white phosphorus and cluster bombs and they use them on children. In WW II, even Hitler avoided the use of such weapons"

Hitler lined people up in showers and gased them, children and all!

Get your facts straight. Why don't you jion and take up arms to defend your right to find useless shit like this.

[ReconRat]

Actions that support the USA, are of value only when that information can reach the populations in question. In many places that just isn't allowed. Punishable by death, of course.

Several cases come to mind. NATO rescuing an entire nation of Muslims from genocide in Kosovo. USA and multinational (including Muslim countries) forcing Iraq out of Kuwait. Our continuous aid and support of Indonesia, the largest Muslim population in the world. (Australia is also a strong supporter.) The freedom of speech and religion that allows and encourages Muslims to be part of America or any other free country.

Anyway, this move to a New York City trial isn't about whether it was a criminal act or an act of war. It's about New York City deciding the punishment for the crime done in their city. It does portray the individuals and the group movement as criminal, instead of jihad and act of war. Which is probably the best idea. Even though I don't think it should be that way. Have to keep the big picture in mind.

And bear in mind that a fair trial isn't much of an issue, for an individual that freely admits the crime. Only their sanity is at question.

[Kosmo]

Why don't you jion and take up arms to defend your right to find useless shit like this.

I am from the land of Gandhi so I will do it better with pen paper and brain !!!

[chevysoldier]

I am from the land of Gandhi so I will do it better with pen paper and brain !!!

let me know how that works out for you.

[Kosmo]

so far it worked perfectly for me and justin (jrmmiii).....I guess

if somebody checks my wife out in a bar, I buy him a drink rather than a fight.....so far worked perfectly for my 17 years of drinking life......even in ghetto Bronx gangsta bars........somebody told me "dude you have some nerves and bought me a drink back " who wins......???

[chevysoldier]

so far it worked perfectly for me and justin (jrmmiii).....I guess

if somebody checks my wife out in a bar, I buy him a drink rather than a fight.....so far worked perfectly for my 17 years of drinking life......even in ghetto Bronx gangsta bars........somebody told me "dude you have some nerves and bought me a drink back " who wins......???

so checking out your wife compares to the 9/11 attacks. And your saying we should have been able to talk our way out of the war on terrorism?

Obama: "Please North Korea. Don't fire your missiles."

NK- "Uh yeah right"

Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom

Yep, talking works great. Didn't Clinton try that method too?

[kawi kid]

Yep, talking works great. Didn't Clinton try that method too?

the checking out of wifes part? prob

[Kosmo]

so checking out your wife compares to the 9/11 attacks.

no it's the attitude of the people, which makes up the country.......i learned about analogy in first grade.....

[jporter12]

the checking out of wifes part? prob

Except he wouldn't just check her out!

[ReconRat]

I am from the land of Gandhi so I will do it better with pen paper and brain !!!

lol, wait... that only worked with the British, who were so darn logical and honorable. It didn't work on the Japanese, Pakistan, Bangledesh, Kashmir, China, Sri Lanka, etc.

By all accounts, The USA is quite peaceful compared to the quantities of warfare in India. Just sayin'...

First Indo-Pakistan War (1948-1949)

Liberation of Hyderabad (1948)

Naga Rebellion (1954?-Present)

Liberation of Goa (1961)

Sino-Indian War (1962)

United Nations Offensive Operations in the Congo (1961-1964)

Second Indo-Pakistan War (1965)

Sino-Indian Skirmish (1967)

Third Indo-Pakistan War/Bengali War of Independence (1971)

Assam-Nagaland border dispute (1979?-Present?)

Punjab Insurgency (1984-1989)

Siachen Operations (1984-Present)

Indian Intervention in Sri Lankan Civil War (1987-1990)

Indian Intervention in the Maldives (1988)

Kashmir Revolt (1990-Present)

Indian-Bangladesh Border Conflict (2001)--

Edited November 15, 2009 by ReconRat

[alab32]

I think the idea is that we would rather not turn this into another recruitment poster for the other side. If they see us railroad him into a military tribunal and swift execution, it might make us feel better, but it gives our enemies someone they can point to and say, "See? Look what America did! No fair trial, they just killed him because they wanna kill all of us!" Then, they gain a useful tool for recruiting and promoting their agenda.

If, on the other hand, we settle for a fair, open, legitimate trial, we remove their ability to use it in that way. Part of winning this kind of fight is going out of your way to be seen as the 'good guys', even if it means being more fair than our enemies would. If we become what we're fighting, what was the point of fighting? While we certainly can't change some people's minds, we can definitely present ourselves in such a way that they'll have a harder time convincing people that we're all evil. If one angry teenager over there sees us behaving honorably and decides he doesn't really need to attack us or our troops, it's a step in the right direction.

And anyway, let's be real-- it's not like he's going to be acquitted.

Um... we also make a martyr by publicizing the crap out of this. That makes no sense. And he isnt a "normal" criminal, he shouldnt be in a "normal" court room.

Edited November 15, 2009 by alab32

[alab32]

A long court process and details can bring up lots of overlooked info and names which still may be a threat.......a quick trial and execution will not help that.....he will get it anyway......but are you guys worried that he is physically in NYC........come on fear mongers

Soooo.... WHERE did I say ANYTHING about being afraid of him being in NYC??? Right there tells me the CRAP you come up with in your mind. The rest of your posts on here... Wow... I dont even know what to say. However, some of it has been said already so i guess it doesnt matter. Not that anything I say will change anything anyways... You will still pay for everyone elses mistakes and healthcare and school and babies and......... People like this guy will still have "rights" even though he afforded NONE to the people he planned to kill. This long court process is going to come out of OUR pockets. There is going to be MANY facts that WONT be brought into the courtroom due to the sensitivity or it all. This makes NO sense at all to have the trial here... RETARDED!

[alab32]

Wow. For one thing right off the bat, the pic at the top was from some dumb soldiers that thought it would be funny to take pics. They werent trying to get info at that moment. Those "dont enlist" and dont marry a soldier" parts. If it wasn't for those soldiers and families that died you wouldn't be allowed to say whatever you wanted.

From your link:

"If you are an American soldier, and you are wondering why am requesting that everyone spit on you, read this essay to understand why"

"Today’s soldier kills mostly defenseless civilians and most of them children. He excuses his brutality as collateral damage."

Uhh, no not really. We advoid areas of prayer at all cost so as to minimize the civilians. I'm sure they cared about the innocents in the WTC. They were only trying to take down the buildings.

"In this war, Americans openly use banned weapons such as land mines, napalm, white phosphorus and cluster bombs and they use them on children. In WW II, even Hitler avoided the use of such weapons"

Hitler lined people up in showers and gased them, children and all!

Get your facts straight. Why don't you jion and take up arms to defend your right to find useless shit like this.

Thank you! Hmmmmm....

Or in this case, we will end up drunk. Because buying your "adversary" beer is the way to win wars!

[Cheech]

What we're really asking is what is the definition of "Act of War". It's for the people, our people, US citizens, through our representatives in Congress, to decide what an act of war is defined as. We haven't actually done that lately, redefine what an act of war truly can be. We tend to take it on a case by case basis. By responding to a possible act of war with a "Declaration of War" in return, the question is bypassed. Tradition is that "we will recognize it when we see it". This becomes difficult when a "non-state" commits the act.

What is disturbing, is that by switching from a military tribunal, to a public trial, either the citizens and/or the representatives have declared "It is not a War".

War can be defined as a brutal act of aggression on an international or internally civil level. In all wars, all confirmed acts of violence outside bounds of propriety, as defined by rational humans, are tried by tribunal, found guilty, and executed. That applies to both sides that are fighting. We can and do execute our own troops as necessary.

By refusing a military tribunal in favor of a civil trial, the USA has basically said that it was not a act of violence outside the bounds of propriety committed as an international act of aggression.

The exception shall be, if the civil trial decides that is should be defined that way, and returns the accused to the military tribunal.

Traditions have their place in society. To break tradition and do something different, has consequences for the future. It is not meant to be a case by case basis, it's meant to apply forever.

In the modern age of Weapons of Mass Destruction, a single person with a single weapon, can declare war and win. All our definitions and traditions of the past, apparently do not apply. Confused yet?

It's like the villain in a comic book. They don't really exist in real life, or do they?

The world will probably have to recognize the fact, that a rogue agent (individual), without a state (country), can commit war acts. A proper venue is probably the United Nations. Which has rules for non-state actors. It's called Maritime Law. It's for use against rogue pirates on the high seas. As well as who can do what, outside of international boundaries. But it can apply to any actor outside of international boundaries. It's probably what we would use if attacked by aliens from space.

But this act of aggression on 9/11, was not on the "high seas", it was within the boundaries of our own country, and the United Nations apparently has nothing to say about it. It would be similar in tradition, of a pirate ship firing cannons at a city along the coastline. Traditionally the response is for the country attacked, to hunt them down, on the high seas, and kill them. (Or capture and execute them.)

An interesting fact in Maritime Law, is that hiring mercenaries (or another country or even other pirates) to track down and kill the pirates, is an appropriate and legal response.

Bingo. Obviously maritime law really wouldn't apply here (even on principle) given that it wasn't carried out in international territory.

Personally, I'm torn. I'm not hung up about the venue, the mere fact he's in NYC. The US is in a difficult situation: on one hand the guy is clearly not a US citizen, and shouldn't be afforded the rights under the Constitution as a citizen would. That part is easy. On the other hand, having a military tribunal would be seen as a "kangaroo court", ESPECIALLY given the fact that WE have committed war crimes (waterboarding, remember that?) on him and quite a few others.

At the end of the day, we are a nation of laws. Until a definitive "act of war" is set and, most importantly, enforced, we'll be in this limbo.

[psyco1]

It's only right the people of NYC decide what to do with the POS that fucked up their city, on top of that, treating him like a common criminal instead of a war criminal takes away a lot of that jihad BS.

[Vulcan_Rider]

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqtortures.html

wow that whole site is a joke.

Just a few gems I found:

The Canadian commercial seal hunt is a barbaric bloodlust ritual where baby seals are beaten to death with spiked clubs and also skinned alive, all for no economic benefit. Its motive is simple sadism.

So beaten to death and then skinned alive? Oh and there is nothing in the world made out of seal akin either.

The US Navy is using low frequency sounds millions of times louder than considered safe for human divers. These are tormenting whales driving them to suicide

But some how all the human on the boat or in the sub are ok.

The Jews are the ones with the money and the power. They are the ones running the show. If anything is going to change, it has to come from the Jewish camp.

The Jews are the ones with the nutty religious claim to other people’s land. It is an insane and intensely evil delusion. It must be disparaged in no uncertain terms. Only once it is given up will Jews be able to negotiate rationally over land. My fellow North American seem to share in the folly.

Israel shames the entire Jewish people because Isrealis have behaved like their Nazi oppressors.

Have a bit of a problem with Israel do we?

The existing set of commandments focus on trivia and miss the major sins.

For example we all know how trivial it is to kill someone or steal or cheat on your spouse.

Why I think Bush planned the 2001-09-11 World Trade attacks

Why I think the Bush crime family murdered Senators Wellstone and Carnahan and many others for their opposition to asbestos and for opposition to the Bush family generally.

Patriotism is nothing to be proud of.

This site isn't biased at all!

[Aerik]

Lets let him live in NYC for awhile, he can get a job, tax free of course. Get educational assistance, for free of course, free heathcare through Obama's plan, we could even pay him as an incentive to change his way. I mean we did kind of ruin his life by throwing him in jail. It's the least we could do.

You know perfectly well that's not what I was saying; I don't put words in your mouth, I'd appreciate the same courtesy. The post you quoted was in response to your saying that they'd think twice about messing with us if we mutilated their corpses and dragged them through the street.

I haven't heard anyone on here advocating any of the things you posted in the above quote. All I was saying is that publicly mutilating and humiliating the corpses of the people we call 'the bad guys' wouldn't really serve any of our long-term ends.

Saying I want to give this asshole a job and an education is like me saying that you're advocating slaughtering every last man, woman, and child in the region. It's hyperbole and adds nothing useful to the debate.

As I've said before, I simply think that having a trial which is as objectively fair and transparent as possible will portray us in the best possible light, while minimizing the propaganda value the enemy might derive from any proceedings.

Part of being the good guys means holding ourselves to higher standards than the people we're trying to fight. Being more fair, more humane in our treatment of a defeated enemy, is not a sign of weakness. Knee-jerk brutality most certainly is. Even though the immediate primate reaction might make us feel better short-term, we'll be better served by living what we claim to be fighting for in the first place.

Of course, I'm only speaking of matters off the battlefield, when we're dealing with unarmed prisoners. If they're shooting at you, kill 'em graveyard dead.

[fusion]

Kind of takes away from the meaning of war when any douche bag of a terrorist can declare it on us.

[jagr]

Waterboarding is a war crime? I got WB'd in a school. It was the coolest.

Back to terists and their evil strategery.

[Cheech]

Waterboarding is a war crime? I got WB'd in a school. It was the coolest.

Back to terists and their evil strategery.

Waterboarding = torture = violation of the Geneva Convention = war crime. If not a full blown war crime, then it's at least something that investigable (?) by the Hague.

[chevysoldier]

You know perfectly well that's not what I was saying; I don't put words in your mouth, I'd appreciate the same courtesy. The post you quoted was in response to your saying that they'd think twice about messing with us if we mutilated their corpses and dragged them through the street.

I haven't heard anyone on here advocating any of the things you posted in the above quote. All I was saying is that publicly mutilating and humiliating the corpses of the people we call 'the bad guys' wouldn't really serve any of our long-term ends.

Saying I want to give this asshole a job and an education is like me saying that you're advocating slaughtering every last man, woman, and child in the region. It's hyperbole and adds nothing useful to the debate.

As I've said before, I simply think that having a trial which is as objectively fair and transparent as possible will portray us in the best possible light, while minimizing the propaganda value the enemy might derive from any proceedings.

Part of being the good guys means holding ourselves to higher standards than the people we're trying to fight. Being more fair, more humane in our treatment of a defeated enemy, is not a sign of weakness. Knee-jerk brutality most certainly is. Even though the immediate primate reaction might make us feel better short-term, we'll be better served by living what we claim to be fighting for in the first place.

Of course, I'm only speaking of matters off the battlefield, when we're dealing with unarmed prisoners. If they're shooting at you, kill 'em graveyard dead.

We extend prisoners a whole lot more humane treatment than they do for us. We don't drag them through the streets. We don't publicly parade around abusing POW's. Those soldier's that took pictures if the Abu Graib detainee's being abused were wrong and I do not advocate what they did and were punished accordingly. We don't put out propaganda saying "All middle eastern people are the devil, they are infidels and must die. God is great." If a enemy combatant stand before us with a weapon, we shoot to kill. If he drops that weapon he is no longer a threat and we cannot shoot. We are one of only a handful of nations that follow (for the most part, yeah yeah) the Geneva Convention, ROE.

I don't think the trial should be take place in NYC because this isn't just about NYC. What about Flight 77 or Flight 93? What about all the people evacuated in DC? Los Angeles International Airport being evacuated? Or all the terrorized poeple in those areas? This wasn't a crime against the WTC, or NYC, or NY. This was a crime against the USA and should be treated as such. They came into our country's front door, the WTC. This was a crime against our way of life. You want to talk about being fair then it should be held in D.C. since D.C. is kind of no where, it's own entity. Or in D.C, NYC and PA, best out of three sorta way. Military tribunal's don't take years to sort out. How long was Saddam on trial? I don't think it was very long. We put him in D.C, how far are we going to let him drag it out. How many more rights are we willing to afford him. He isn't an American citizen and should not be treated as such.

/End

Edited November 15, 2009 by chevysoldier