NO HELL NO!!! BIG MISTAKE JUST A DISTRACTION FROM IMPEACHMENT
rumitoid wrote:
Would you have approved of k*****g, without trial, anyone accused of murder or plotting to commit it? Bundy, for instance. Screw our laws and Constitution? It seems so. Abandon the structure of our Republic, that has secured our nation for over 200 years, To carry out an illegal vendetta?
Our Laws and Constitution do not apply to Iraq or Iran or terrorists who foment aggression on our Embassy which is considered being the United States just like Washington DC. Mike
drlarrygino wrote:
Here's the difference. If someone starts some shi$ and wants to take you down and then breaks into your house to do just that, they are a terrorist. If you as an innocent party oppose someone murdering you and breaking into your house and you fight back, you are a freedom fighter. Hope you see the difference. ISIS is out to destroy, rob, maim and murder anyone who stands in their way so as to enforce sharia law on us. They are terrorists. On the other hand, most people want to be free and don't want to be forced to bow down to islam or Madhammad. These are freedom fighters. Do you need any more examples??
Here's the difference. If someone starts some shi$... (
show quote)
War is war. Itâs never about âfighting fairâ. Itâs war.
If you are at war, enemy combatants may well break down your door etc.. Your soldiers will likely do the same to their people.
Take for example: The war for American independence from England. The founding fathers were rebelling against the established authority of England. Englandâs claim on the colonies was recognized throughout the world. France allied with us primarily as an opportunity to deprive England of the resources they were getting from the colonies.
We didnât fight fair. We confiscated property from English sympathizers. We were definitely stirring up shi$. We broke down doors. We hung a number of people who were resisting the revolution.
Had the revolution failed they would have been hung and their property confiscated. All of which would have been perfectly acceptable under international agreement. They were rebels. We were âterroristsâ from the perspective of the English Crown
and under your definition.
Of course, the story we tell fully justifies our behavior. According to us we were âfreedom fightersâ.
There is no question about the fact that we are at war against the Islamists. Just remember, war is war. Both sides have their âjustificationâ. Both sides condemn the other. Both sides call the other âterroristsâ and/or âoppressorsâ. Both sides have their propaganda.
Of course, Iâm on Americaâs side. I just donât swallow the BS.
drlarrygino wrote:
Here's the difference. If someone starts some shi$ and wants to take you down and then breaks into your house to do just that, they are a terrorist. If you as an innocent party oppose someone murdering you and breaking into your house and you fight back, you are a freedom fighter. Hope you see the difference. ISIS is out to destroy, rob, maim and murder anyone who stands in their way so as to enforce sharia law on us. They are terrorists. On the other hand, most people want to be free and don't want to be forced to bow down to islam or Madhammad. These are freedom fighters. Do you need any more examples??
Here's the difference. If someone starts some shi$... (
show quote)
That is essentially correct,but as per "YOU PEOPLES"quintessentialness,you are generally over in some one else's land
(un-welcomely so,) claiming self defense,when the primary reasons are so far from imminent personal bodily harm,or your sovereignty,or freedom being threatened it can measured with the scale one would use to measure this >
EmilyD wrote:
I was responding to dtucker300! Try to catch up. And telling someone to deal with the topic at hand is very arrogant. Threads change topics several times - depending on the length of the thread. It's what happens on public forums.
Sometimes we end up talking about goats đ
rumitoid wrote:
How about a known child molester: do you k**l him?
Only in my dreams đ with some extensive and unpleasant preliminaries.
I believe it should be a capital crime.
drlarrygino wrote:
All the l*****ts on this site have become manic and are getting worse. This is causing us to have to slap them back twice as hard. It might be time to limit their discourse on this site as it is causing unwanted civil and mental disturbances and radical l*****ts to go out of control.
Same type of radicals on both sides.
Saspatz007 wrote:
Only in my dreams đ with some extensive and unpleasant preliminaries.
I believe it should be a capital crime.
I would say to this so called Christian Right nation of people."VENGEANCE IS MINE SAYETH THE LORD". but they are so confused as to the fact that they are secular.It wouldn't fall on ears like these>
drlarrygino wrote:
You fools are making such a big deal of our k*****g of an evil islamic terrorist man but yet say nothing of the i*****l a***ns who break into our country, rape, steal and murder our American citizens and then get the privilege to v**e. You l*****t dems are real sickos.
Whoa. Seriously? Get an anger management therapist stat.
dongreen76 wrote:
That is essentially correct,but as per "YOU PEOPLES"quintessentialness,you are generally over in some one else's land
(un-welcomely so,) claiming self defense,when the primary reasons are so far from imminent personal bodily harm,or your sovereignty,or freedom being threatened it can measured with the scale one would use to measure this >
In all countries, an embassy is considered foreign soil so if our embassies in SAUDI were to be attacked it would be seen as an attack on American soil and WE can and will defend it as such just as would any other country
dongreen76 wrote:
I would say to this so called Christian Right nation of people."VENGEANCE IS MINE SAYETH THE LORD". but they are so confused as to the fact that they are secular.It wouldn't fall on ears like these>
Then there should be no prisons? No fines? No legal consequences?
All of these measures are forms of vengeance. Please donât try to sell me the ârehabilitationâ line. The recidivism rate is evidence that prisons donât rehabilitate.
rumitoid wrote:
Wake the f*** up. There is a need for due process, Do you find the Constitution an affliction?
Christian??? Language?????
Saspatz007 wrote:
Then there should be no prisons? No fines? No legal consequences?
All of these measures are forms of vengeance. Please donât try to sell me the ârehabilitationâ line. The recidivism rate is evidence that prisons donât rehabilitate.
Why do you think that is? Germany has made some progress in rehabilitation.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.