http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security

This is gonna be one jacked up trial.

Don't see how its going to be "jacked up" but Obama definitely is speaking on a level that most Americans are at when it comes to the 9/11 mastermind. Plus Obama isn't exactly a judge so he can't determine this case; which is relatively shut and close anyway.

Give him death. More than deserves it.

I hate the American 'justice' system and how it handles this stuff.
I hate the 11/9 terrorists, for the horrendous crime they've committed.

Fair trial, then execution. Works just fine in this case.

If i was the judge i wouldnt give him any sentence he would be set free on the streets of new york.

garret wrote:If i was the judge i wouldnt give him any sentence he would be set free on the streets of new york.

Another deeply thoughtful, very high-quality post from garret. I wish I could slap people over the internet.

What wrong with good ol' fashion street justice?

Because when you let people take the law into their own hands, it gets... well, out-of-hand.

What if they are the law?


Seriously though. The defendant wants to plead in front of military tribunal so it can probably be spun as the American military dispensing justice, so obviously they're not going to do that for such a high profile case. I would think the AG wants to move away from the whole "you're not an American citizen, so you have no rights" mindset that was prevalent with the last administration.

As for Obama's comment, I could care less. It's some trivial gak the media always picks out to sensationalize actual news, like bowing to the Emperor or whether he was checking out some french girl's ass.

avantgarde wrote:whether he was checking out some french girl's ass.

LOL i just saw that yesterday. Funny as hell. I wonder if his wife saw it.

I want the man to be sentenced to vivisection on Pay Per View. At $55.99 we should make a bundle back to pay for the costs of his trial.

Cruel and unusual? How common exactly is it to do what he did? I say its Precedent!

I think I'd be rather bored watching that. I saw we put them in a gladiatorial style combat.

More fun, more blood, more violence.

I'd even throw a party (byob of course).

The question we need to ask our selves is "what is cruel and unusual punishment? " I mean cant locking a guy away from civilization can be considered cruel.

Not in our society. I think anyone locked away is being done a huge favor.

I say we just shoot him in the back of the head execution style.

I would like to take it to a bigger level then that. We stab him for each life lost in 9/11.

Yep, sure is a good job that barbaric terrorist is being brought to justice.

Making him suffer won't bring back the 11/9 victims.

America has done pretty horrendous things too.

Y'know cheese you really dont have the right to say anthing about this. You dont know the feeling we felt when the towers fell. so be quiet OK.

I'm sure you didn't know the feeling that the Japanese felt when you killed over 200,000 civilians with the atomic bombs.

Before you jump out with the 'it was necessary' argument, don't you think the 11/9 bombers felt the same way?

@Garrett - Underneath your avatar it says you're in california, correct? Then you watched it on TV like the rest of us.
Plus you're what? Sixteen? Seventeen? In 2001 you would have been 8 or 9 years old.

So be quiet, ok?

Ya know Garret, I actually agree with Cheese on this one. No one but those who were directly affected by the 9/11 tragedy have the right to tell others to be quiet about this. I'm sure that at some point, every American who saw the towers fall felt something. It could have been hate, sorrow, fear, or a multitude of other emotions.

I remember watching the towers fall on television. I remember being afraid of what was going to happen next.

What do you remember? What do you remember feeling when that morning happened?

Don't go jumping on someone else because they express their opinion. Street justice is not what we need for this guy. We need a fair and just trial for him, so that we can show the world that we are above such barbaric measures.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'm sure you didn't know the feeling that the Japanese felt when you killed over 200,000 civilians with the atomic bombs.

Before you jump out with the 'it was necessary' argument, don't you think the 11/9 bombers felt the same way?

You're still young, Cheese, so I won't jump all over that comment. Think about this, however, the Japanese at the time never went to bat for us at the time of Hiroshima the way we did for the Muslims being "cleansed" by the Serbians at close to the same time as 9/11.

The civilian trial is little more than PR gesture. The conditions will not especially differ from those in a military court room in terms of the hostility of process.

dogma wrote:The civilian trial is little more than PR gesture. The conditions will not especially differ from those in a military court room in terms of the hostility of process.

I've read some other comments about the upcoming trial and wonder what evidence will be allowed and whether Obama's ill chosen comment will be played upon.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I hate the American 'justice' system and how it handles this stuff.
I hate the 11/9 terrorists, for the horrendous crime they've committed.

Fair trial, then execution. Works just fine in this case.

Your being a bit self conflicting here. You hate the accused, and the system under which they are being tried. Specifically because of an elected representative with no control over said trials words in an out of hand context. Do you hate the magna carta? Do you hate that people can speak about trials publically?

Before you jump out with the 'it was necessary' argument, don't you think the 11/9 bombers felt the same way?

We didn't kill 200 thousand members of the 9/11 hijackers people, they were part of an international organization with a mandate based around instituting sharia law through terrorist action and guerilla military action. They are neither a civilian body, nor do they try and represent one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I hate the American 'justice' system and how it handles this stuff.
I hate the 11/9 terrorists, for the horrendous crime they've committed.

Fair trial, then execution. Works just fine in this case.

You should probably get off your high horse when you get the date wrong. Just saying, you look like kind of an ass.

It's the way they do dates over there. The day is used before the month.

Anybody as the right to comment how they feel in America. If you take away that right to Cheese Elemental, you prove everything the terrorist say about us is right. Fair trial, fair execution. Obama (and me) wants these murderers brought to justice, finally. In the place where they commited the crime. We must protect the rights of America and the rule of law. That includes the right to say what you want, and the right to a fair trial, With a fair uncruel punishment. Anything else makes us the monsters half the world thinks we are.


Oh and Obama was helping somebody on the stairs, watch the video....but you won't.

Relapse wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I hate the American 'justice' system and how it handles this stuff.
I hate the 11/9 terrorists, for the horrendous crime they've committed.

Fair trial, then execution. Works just fine in this case.

You should probably get off your high horse when you get the date wrong. Just saying, you look like kind of an ass.

It's the way they do dates over there. The day is used before the month.

Yeah, I realized that before you posted and edited in that very question. My bad, I'll edit my post.

^^ you look even more like an ass, Australian dating goes day/month

youbedead wrote:^^ you look even more like an ass, Australian dating goes day/month

We have almost four times your combined populations. I also live in this country. Please excuse my ignorance. Do you know how china organizes it's dates?

Relapse wrote:
You're still young, Cheese, so I won't jump all over that comment. Think about this, however, the Japanese at the time never went to bat for us the way we did for the Muslims being "cleansed" by the Serbians at close to the same time as 9/11.

We went to bat for the Muslims? I thought we went to bat in the interests of increasing our influence within the former Soviet sphere, while simultaneously working to secure territory for a potential petroleum pipeline.

Anyway, I'm sure the Muslim population of Kosovo was the prime concern of a terrorist group lead by Egyptian ex patriot veterans of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Clearly the latter were biting the hand that feeds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
I've read some other comments about the upcoming trial and wonder what evidence will be allowed and whether Obama's ill chosen comment will be played upon.

It may be, but what jury (In Manhattan no less) will not deliver a conviction? If the prosecutor is even remotely competent I can't imagine this being anything short of a formality.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You're still young, Cheese, so I won't jump all over that comment. Think about this, however, the Japanese at the time never went to bat for us the way we did for the Muslims being "cleansed" by the Serbians at close to the same time as 9/11.

We went to bat for the Muslims? I thought we went to bat in the interests of increasing our influence within the former Soviet sphere, while simultaneously working to secure territory for a potential petroleum pipeline.

Anyway, I'm sure the Muslim population of Kosovo was the prime concern of a terrorist group lead by Egyptian ex patriot veterans of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Clearly the latter were biting the hand that feeds.

A lot of people supported taking action to stop the genicide that was going over there. I remember it well because my father was dying at the time and I remember thinking how lucky we were that he could die in honor with his family gathered around instead of being dragged to a ditch and shot like a dog.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I've read some other comments about the upcoming trial and wonder what evidence will be allowed and whether Obama's ill chosen comment will be played upon.

It may be, but what jury (In Manhattan no less) will not deliver a conviction? If the prosecutor is even remotely competent I can't imagine this being anything short of a formality.

But that makes the trial no better than what we rail against happening in other countries.

Unless the President is the judge, or one of the jury, nothing he says will have any more water than every other person in the USA that has said the same thing.

By formality, dogma means and open and shut case, if you will.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Before you jump out with the 'it was necessary' argument, don't you think the 11/9 bombers felt the same way?

I've come up with four possible interpretations of this statement:

A. Hitler wasn't evil, because he thought he was doing the right thing, and that's enough.

B. Doing the right thing is evil, because Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, and it was still evil.

C. Evil doesn't exist, even though I just said America has done horrendous things, which should be an impossibility.

D. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but grr, atomic bombs bad (even though a lot more civilians died from conventional bombing by the allies), and since I can't make a good case for the dropping of them not having been necessary I'll try and get everyone else to ignore this vital flaw in my analogy.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Making him suffer won't bring back the 11/9 victims.

America has done pretty horrendous things too.

Yeah, let's not point fingers there mate, noone's hands are clean; just ask the aborigines.

I'm not saying Australia hasn't done awful things too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
D. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but grr, atomic bombs bad (even though a lot more civilians died from conventional bombing by the allies), and since I can't make a good case for the dropping of them not having been necessary I'll try and get everyone else to ignore this vital flaw in my analogy.

Well, yes, dropping big bombs bad, simply put. I'm going to back out of this now because it's only a matter of time before Frazzled comes in and yells at me for not loving America, and I'd rather not start anymore shitstorms.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'm sure you didn't know the feeling that the Japanese felt when you killed over 200,000 civilians with the atomic bombs.

Before you jump out with the 'it was necessary' argument, don't you think the 11/9 bombers felt the same way?

I think I've figured out that you're just being argumentative here but a little research into history may be in order.
1. the fire bombing of tokyo killed more people per square kilometer than both atomic bombs so if you want to make a point, at least make a valid one.
2. The Japanese were equally brutal..bataan death march (more than 20,000), rape of nanjing (300,000 people killed), "black christmas" in hong kong (rape of 30,000 women), colonization of Korea. Ever heard of comfort women? And the top of all tops, Operation Sanko which resulted in the murder of an estimated 2.7 million noncombatants in China.

Yeah, you're right; America's evil.

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:

What do you remember? What do you remember feeling when that morning happened?

I remember
Fear. That they may hit near me.
Oh and dontget mad at me for expressing my opinion either.

But that makes the trial no better than what we rail against happening in other countries.

No, it just means that we've had 8 years of evidence gathering and multiple tribunals and special inquiries already. We aren't cutting his hands off for stealing, he's a foreign enemy national who, if convicted, is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. Exactly what is your deal here? Do you take issue with the fact that the public isn't totally absent any sort of emotion over the issue until after the verdict is given? The trial hasn't even started yet.

What do you remember? What do you remember feeling when that morning happened?

I was mostly unaffected. Classes were canceled afterwords which I was happy about, and I distinctly remember thinking the kids that laughed at the big buildings going down were being a bit insensitive and stupid. Otherwise I felt then as I do now. It happened, I wasn't in the buildings, get the feth over it. Maybe I'm cold but more people die from car accidents every year and there's no national memorial to the ford dead.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'm not saying Australia hasn't done awful things too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
D. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but grr, atomic bombs bad (even though a lot more civilians died from conventional bombing by the allies), and since I can't make a good case for the dropping of them not having been necessary I'll try and get everyone else to ignore this vital flaw in my analogy.

Well, yes, dropping big bombs bad, simply put. I'm going to back out of this now because it's only a matter of time before Frazzled comes in and yells at me for not loving America, and I'd rather not start anymore shitstorms.

America has done some bad things, but simply put the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not one of them. I mean, you could use the Japanese internment in the same war, or one of the many autocratic dictators we supported, or the treatment of blacks and natives by the government earlier on, or the bombing of Dresden, or our dubious reasons for going to war with Spain, or a dozen other things as examples of America having done wrong. None of these examples would put us close to Al Qaeda, so I'm not sure how relevant those things really are, but they would underscore the concept at least.

The atomic bombings are not on that list. It was either that or continue with a war that would have resulted in massive starvation, mounting casualties in China and the other parts of Asia where Japan still had forces, brutal treatment of the Japanese wherever they fought the USSR, or a brutal mainland attack (Operation Downfall) that would have had ten times as many casualties. As I said, the atomic bombings really weren’t a new chapter in casualties inflicted, or in pain caused by the war. We killed more with conventional carpet bombing. There was massive starvation coming to surface in Japan that matched anything radiation can do. Most of the Japanese army was killed by disease and hunger, not by Allied fighting, and a lot more would have died as then war continued.

Read my post below I have no idea what happened.

Cane wrote:Don't see how its going to be "jacked up" but Obama definitely is speaking on a level that most Americans are at when it comes to the 9/11 mastermind. Plus Obama isn't exactly a judge so he can't determine this case; which is relatively shut and close anyway.

Give him death. More than deserves it.

Political interference should be neither present nor seen to be present. It's a dangerous path to move down, when the President starts giving opinions on the verdicts of future trials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The civilian trial is little more than PR gesture. The conditions will not especially differ from those in a military court room in terms of the hostility of process.

Yeah, this. Especially considering Obama's words on the subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:Unless the President is the judge, or one of the jury, nothing he says will have any more water than every other person in the USA that has said the same thing.

Powerful political figures have a long history of influencing trials through soft power. Not saying that's happening here, but Obama has taken a step down a dangerous path.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:I remember
Fear. That they may hit near me.

I remember when the Bali bombing occurred, my first thought was for my uncle, on the coaching staff of a football team holidaying in Bali at the time. While he had withdrawn from the trip at the last minute, it later turned out a significant portion of the team was in the bar that night. Seven of their players died that night.

I later found out the brother of a good friend of mine had left the bar minutes before the explosion, and entered the burning building to drag wounded out. I believe he still struggles with PTSD to this day.

Despite that, terrorism remains a civilian crime, and needs to be dealt with through the criminal justice system. No matter how afraid you personally are.

Sorry bout the weird post i have no idea what happened

America has done some bad things, but simply put the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not one of them. I mean, you could use the Japanese internment in the same war, or one of the many autocratic dictators we supported, or the treatment of blacks and natives by the government earlier on, or the bombing of Dresden, or our dubious reasons for going to war with Spain, or a dozen other things as examples of America having done wrong. None of these examples would put us close to Al Qaeda, so I'm not sure how relevant those things really are, but they would underscore the concept at least

Hmm I guess hase done some cruddy things. maybe i should reconsider my view points


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:I remember
Fear. That they may hit near me.

I remember when the Bali bombing occurred, my first thought was for my uncle, on the coaching staff of a football team holidaying in Bali at the time. While he had withdrawn from the trip at the last minute, it later turned out a significant portion of the team was in the bar that night. Seven of their players died that night.

I later found out the brother of a good friend of mine had left the bar minutes before the explosion, and entered the burning building to drag wounded out. I believe he still struggles with PTSD to this day.

Despite that, terrorism remains a civilian crime, and needs to be dealt with through the criminal justice system. No matter how afraid you personally are.

Hmm i guess my complaint does pale in comparision towards that. I have no idead what came over me. 9/11 just fires me up for some reason.

Im sorry dakka.

Aun O' Bama stole the show by vocally closing Gitmo in his first week of office (IIRC its still open for business) now with his problems mounting he has a nice distraction for his electorate. A show trial mounted within a symbolic distance of the 9/11 outrages.

I say show trial because the rhetoric behind the event pre-ordains a guilty verdict. 'We are going to give a fair trial and then hang'? Really. Just stop and think for a moment what that means, the quote I got was that 'we have no intention to incarcerate'. Already worldwide this smacks of a Sovietesque show trial, with the sentencing pre-established, long before there is jury selection or even a conviction which is required as no more than a parade to give dramatic timing to the inevitable bloodletting.

Then the case can run into three further problems. First it is unlikely at best for anyone accused of the 9/11 massacres to get an unbiased jury in New York, and the fact that the trial will go ahead despite the blatant reality of the fact will not go unnoticed.

Second it can be not unreasonably suggested that much of the evidence against the accused was likely obtained though questionable methods normally not admissible in court, including torture. Also intelligence witnesses might bot be available for cross-examination. Such evidence would normally pose problems in the US legal system and the usual opportunities for the defence council to call for a mistrial will be notably absent.

Third and most poiniently the sentencing, as predescribed, is no deterent. To locals it might feel like a measure of 'justice', but experience teaches us that terrorists fear incarceration more than death. The death penalty turns a terrorist into a martyr, and in the case of an islamic fundamentalist the verdict is even welcomed. Inlamic terrorists have in the past requested the death penalty so that they can go to Allah as martyrs. This court will either have to record this mans expected martyrdom speech - which will inspire many others, or 'gag' his response to prevent him such opportunity - which will also be noticed and thus also inspire.

Previous trials of 9/11 suspects were conducted quietly away from pubicity and ended in incarceration without parole or outside contact, thus preventing a martyrs death and entombing the convicted party within a stern justic system as a labelled common murderer as opposed to a political opponent. This sends the correct message.

We know this to be true from experiences with terrorists from Northern Ireland and elsewhere, imprisonment was a far better deterent than death and trials were not to be held in the region that the offences took place in order not to seed a jury unfairly.

All this means not a jot to Obama, who needs this circus to dazzle the populace and distract the masses from their daily problems. After all they have already been promised a juicy execution in the spoiler, they can't wait for the 'trial'.

I disagree.

By executing them publicly, you make them martyrs. That's exactly what they, and their terrorist organization, wants.

Better to do the trial, sentence them to life imprisonment, then lock em up in the most foul prison they can throw em. No more public media news covering them, no more inquiries, just straight throw em away and let the public and the world forget about them.

They'll be targets in prison anyway and that's where the punishment will begin.....hopefully for years and years.


These guys want death and they want the world to see them. Better to deny them the things they want.

Exactly.

I say we set 'em free, let them report back to Osama.

And then we detonate the nuclear device cleverly hidden in their stomachs.

Kaboom! A few thousand birds with one massive, radioactive, mushroom clouded stone!

Doombot001 wrote:I disagree.

By executing them publicly, you make them martyrs. That's exactly what they, and their terrorist organization, wants.

How is this disagreeing?

Orlanth wrote:

Doombot001 wrote:I disagree.

By executing them publicly, you make them martyrs. That's exactly what they, and their terrorist organization, wants.

How is this disagreeing?

Most people are advocating for their deaths publicly. I disagree on that point. Sentence to life imprisonment, let the public forget about them. The other inmates in the prison will love to have them as cellies.

Did you read the post directly above to which you replied 'I disagree'?

Orlanth wrote:Did you read the post directly above to which you replied 'I disagree'?

Honestly, no. I was disagreeing with what appears to be the general consensus of the thread. After posting, I read your article and it is very insightful.

I agree with your post, not with the general consensus.

But maybe when he dies he will get his 72 virgins but they will all be a bunch of male nerds playing video gamel.

Relapse wrote:
A lot of people supported taking action to stop the genicide that was going over there. I remember it well because my father was dying at the time and I remember thinking how lucky we were that he could die in honor with his family gathered around instead of being dragged to a ditch and shot like a dog.

True enough, but that's not usually a motivating factor for a politician looking to open hostilities with another nation. It can be a means of justifying a strategic choice, but that's usually as far as it goes.

Relapse wrote:
But that makes the trial no better than what we rail against happening in other countries.

True, but its still considerably better than having the same case made in a military tribunal (from the standpoint of professed ideals). At some point it isn't about justice as an ideal, but justice as a realistic process. I'm sure, given the profile of the case, that special attention will be paid to at least the appearance of a fair hearing.

In general, I support the notion that accusations of terrorism should be made in civilian courts. However, I don't think the judgment should be left to a jury, as the 'of peers' clause is most certainly impossible to fulfill. But that's a matter of legislative discussion not necessarily relevant to this specific case.

Also, I agree with Orlanth in concluding that this case should have been handled more quietly, though its still possible (but highly unlikely) that the judge will limit the sentence to life without parole. Ideally, I would have liked to see the case postponed until a proper system of prosecution could have been developed, but the healthcare fiasco pretty well prevented that from happening.

garret wrote:Y'know cheese you really dont have the right to say anthing about this. You dont know the feeling we felt when the towers fell. so be quiet OK.

"Freedom of speech, that's some mother fething bs."

garret wrote:If i was the judge i wouldnt give him any sentence he would be set free on the streets of new york.

I'd be down with that actually.
Inform the populace he will be dropped off in Time Square.
Place a barrel of hot tar on one corner, a bag of feathers in another, and a rope on a third.
New Yorkers will know what to do.

Its all a distraction anyway so that the citizenry are distracted from 10.2% unemployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Making him suffer won't bring back the 11/9 victims.

America has done pretty horrendous things too.

(Self edited by Frazzled to avoid banning himself)
1. You just compared the US military to a terrorist killing thousands of people. Your ability to judge reality from unreality is now seriously in question.
2. You're a foreigner. This happened here. You really should be quiet now. See someone die before you open the hole in your face. See the uncensored video of people jumping because they'd rather die that way then burn to death. Have you no shame?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Political interference should be neither present nor seen to be present. It's a dangerous path to move down, when the President starts giving opinions on the verdicts of future trials.

Agreed. If you're going to do a trial it has to be fair and open.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I wish I could slap people over the internet.

no you don't.

and, no, you wouldn't.

Frazzled wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Making him suffer won't bring back the 11/9 victims.

America has done pretty horrendous things too.

(Self edited by Frazzled to avoid banning himself)
1. You just compared the US military to a terrorist killing thousands of people. Your ability to judge reality from unreality is now seriously in question...

He said all that?

What he said was invalid only from the position that impassioned individuals and groups cannot justifiably do horrific things, whereas the 'US military' can. I don't think that either can justify the examples given, nor do I think that you can, other than by way of viewing alternative opinions as 'unreality'.

The fate of this guy is pretty obvious. I've no personal opinion on the death penalty, but if it's a card to be played, it's certainly going to be put down this time.

Thats nuts.
US military in a war. Running planes into buildings to kill civilians for no reason is a crime against humanity. Your inability to separate the two is breathtaking.

At the very least, it would be appropriate to cite an example that can actually be compared... and being that there really isn't one... yeah... pretty epic shamelessness.

Not meaning to make this any worse, but I'm pretty sure they had a reason.

I agree with Osbad though- better to incarcerate yer man for life.

Da Boss wrote:Not meaning to make this any worse, but I'm pretty sure they had a reason.

I agree with Osbad though- better to incarcerate yer man for life.

Thats nonsensical. Serial killers have reasons.

I'm not saying I agree with their reason, anything even close- they're scum! But anyone who decides to crash a plane into a building killing himself and lots more, must be mad about something, right?
Again, I realise this is a touchy subject and am not trying to cause offense.

Agreed, they have reasons. But they are insane reasons so I take no account of them.

Insanity is a point of view, not an absolute.

It used to be common sense that you sacrificed someone to ensure that the sun rose in the morning...

And I think that any defence lawyer who is not actually dead will probably be able to get this thrown out on the grounds that there is no jury they can possibly get in who will not be in some way biased, there is no court or judge who would rule without bias, and that the defendant has been tortured (and possibly into confessing). Not to mention that the leader of the country itself has apparently expressed the desire to see defendent hung (or at least sent down).

I myself am not a lawyer, or trained in law (much less US law), but I am pretty sure that the above points would be against the written law somewhere and unless the American court system ignores most of it's own integral rules on fair trials, it will be impossible to put this man on trial.

Edit: Possibly the only way they could get them on trial is to hold an international trial, to try and limit the bias that would be part of the American system based on what this man is accused of doing, as well as remove him as far as possible from anyones ability to "rig" the trial in any way shape or form.

SilverMK2 wrote:Insanity is a point of view, not an absolute.

It used to be common sense that you sacrificed someone to ensure that the sun rose in the morning...

And I think that any defence lawyer who is not actually dead will probably be able to get this thrown out on the grounds that there is no jury they can possibly get in who will not be in some way biased, there is no court or judge who would rule without bias, and that the defendant has been tortured (and possibly into confessing). Not to mention that the leader of the country itself has apparently expressed the desire to see defendent hung (or at least sent down).

I myself am not a lawyer, or trained in law (much less US law), but I am pretty sure that the above points would be against the written law somewhere and unless the American court system ignores most of it's own integral rules on fair trials, it will be impossible to put this man on trial.

Not Hardly.
*All juries are biased. Its a misnomer that the legal system looks for an unbiased jury.
*They'll note evidence prior to capture. No fruit of the old poisoned tree. But there is a concerna wackjob NY judge will get in there and be wackjob. there's a bigger concern that, just like last time, the names of secret will be given to the defendant attorney and then passed to Al Qaeda.
*Presidenent and prosecutors can express the desire to see the defenadant drawn, quartered, cooked, and used for dog food. That;s not relevant to the proceedings. They SHOULD state their belief he's guilty and desire for capital punishment, else they would be stating they are effectively performing malicious prosecution.

I will defer to your knowledge on the subject, as I said, I know very little about the US justice system.

Just throwing my concerns out there.

Frazzled wrote:
US military in a war. Running planes into buildings to kill civilians for no reason is a crime against humanity. Your inability to separate the two is breathtaking.

The 9/11 attackers had reasons. You don't execute lengthy plans for a terrorist attack without them. You might not like their reasons, or consider them legitimate, but they are there.

In terms of comparability: broadly the military and Al-Qaeda are groups of people engaged in violence against a perceived enemy. The difference lies in tactical methodology, and definition of the enemy. We hate terrorists, they hate Americans, both are broad categories with roughly equivalent legitimacy.

And before you go off on a tirade about the difference between violence, and a way of life, let me remind you of your favorite quote: "Your freedom ends at my nose." If our way of life has a noticeable impact on theirs, and it absolutely does, then there is a sense in which both considerations are broadly comparable.

Frazzled wrote:Agreed, they have reasons. But they are insane reasons so I take no account of them.

Is it so much more honorable to kill people "Because you were ordered too" than it is "Because you believe they deserve to die"? I would seriously call into question the validity of an argument that unfavorably compares the motivations between a nationalistic military and a guerilla terrorist force. When you make the act of killing a job for pay it's not much better (Before you say something about the good intentions of our troops and their mission I would like you to inform me why exactly we went to Iraq again?).

Don't dismiss the motivations of your enemy. Otherwise you are totally unable to deal with them at the basic level. Think with reason not with hamstrung near decade old emotion.

Hmm, ship him up here to northern Mn. We'd deal with him. All we'd ask for is a years supply of steaks and beer and a few cases of ammo.

They'd never find his body and it could be done nice and quiet like.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Agreed, they have reasons. But they are insane reasons so I take no account of them.

Is it so much more honorable to kill people "Because you were ordered too" than it is "Because you believe they deserve to die"? I would seriously call into question the validity of an argument that unfavorably compares the motivations between a nationalistic military and a guerilla terrorist force. When you make the act of killing a job for pay it's not much better (Before you say something about the good intentions of our troops and their mission I would like you to inform me why exactly we went to Iraq again?).

Don't dismiss the motivations of your enemy. Otherwise you are totally unable to deal with them at the basic level. Think with reason not with hamstrung near decade old emotion.

Oh I don't dismiss them. They are just in the realm of the insane (the troopers, the actual guys in charge have a much more earthly agenda).

Yeah because killing terrorists is as awful as said terrorist ramming a plane into a building and forcing people to jump to their death to avoid a fiery inferno.

Wtf do you people smoke? Banana peels laced with anaconda gak or something?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Agreed, they have reasons. But they are insane reasons so I take no account of them.

Is it so much more honorable to kill people "Because you were ordered too" than it is "Because you believe they deserve to die"? I would seriously call into question the validity of an argument that unfavorably compares the motivations between a nationalistic military and a guerilla terrorist force. When you make the act of killing a job for pay it's not much better (Before you say something about the good intentions of our troops and their mission I would like you to inform me why exactly we went to Iraq again?).

Don't dismiss the motivations of your enemy. Otherwise you are totally unable to deal with them at the basic level. Think with reason not with hamstrung near decade old emotion.

Oh I don't dismiss them. They are just in the realm of the insane (the troopers, the actual guys in charge have a much more earthly agenda).

They're hardly in the realm of the insane. They're just foreign to you. Religious fanaticism and extreme economic and social desperation is something you did not grow up around. That segment of the world has very, very, real problems. It is led by some very evil people (evil in this instance is a very western opinion, but I'll let it stand, screw the saudis). Many of which we both supported and put into power. Simple logic dictates that the breaking point for militant action is right around that of social unrest and economic collapse. Thats where they have been for decades, little formal education, repeatedly destroyed infrastructure, large western business interests, and historic religious tensions will give you these motives near every time such things come together. These are the acts of the desperate and the hateful, but no motive founded in such ways are insane. An insane motive requires an insane mind, to say that they are simply gathering the insane into a big group is a stretch. When you treat them as such you only empower their vision and gives them strength.

Yeah because killing terrorists is as awful as said terrorist ramming a plane into a building and forcing people to jump to their death to avoid a fiery inferno.

Wtf do you people smoke? Banana peels laced with anaconda gak or something?

I'm going to have to ask you to read the threads you post in from now on. Kay?

Frazzled wrote:
Inform the populace he will be dropped off in Time Square.
Place a barrel of hot tar on one corner, a bag of feathers in another, and a rope on a third.
New Yorkers will know what to do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Making him suffer won't bring back the 11/9 victims.

America has done pretty horrendous things too.

(Self edited by Frazzled to avoid banning himself)
1. You just compared the US military to a terrorist killing thousands of people. Your ability to judge reality from unreality is now seriously in question.
2. You're a foreigner. This happened here. You really should be quiet now. See someone die before you open the hole in your face. See the uncensored video of people jumping because they'd rather die that way then burn to death. Have you no shame?

welcome to the U.S.A 1900 style, brutallity doesn't make you look civilised no matter what the reason, excecuting someone who who beleives they will go to a wonderful heaven for what the have done isn't a punishment, its a prize. life imprisionment in solitary confinment is a far more terrifing and real punishment.

in responce to your points:
1. the government of the U.S.A. (note, not the U.S. military) has done many wrong, immoral and questionable actions inside and outside its borders since it formed as a country. if your idea of justice is allowed everyone in the world will think even less of America and you will just fuel the fires of hate, you can't say you are bringing democracy to the middle east when you don't have it at home
2. nearly ever european and colonial country has suffered from terrorism, i was to young to remember the IRA but i do remember the 7th of july 2005, the bombing of london public transport, i live in london. EVERYONE in Britain, Europe, and the 'Western World'
has seen the footage, we watched the news as it happened, just because he doesn't live in America doesn't mean he hasn't seen it, oh seen death for that matter.

You're a foreigner. This happened here. You really should be quiet now. See someone die before you open the hole in your face. See the uncensored video of people jumping because they'd rather die that way then burn to death. Have you no shame?

Brits also died in the WTC, along with people of different nationalities.
I'll also echo what bluntman said: We have had terrorist attacks for years here. I AM old enough to remember Northern Ireland with the threat of IRA violence - one of my earliest memories is being walked to the shops near our house, whilst a British Serviceman in full battledress followed us.

Hey americans, read this article please:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm

Terrorism is a complex issue - reductionist points of view like 'they're all insane', 'they had no reason to attack us' - are unhelpful.

Fateweaver wrote:
Wtf do you people smoke? Banana peels laced with anaconda gak or something?

No thats completely different...er...look over there!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

You're a foreigner. This happened here. You really should be quiet now. See someone die before you open the hole in your face. See the uncensored video of people jumping because they'd rather die that way then burn to death. Have you no shame?

Brits alo died in the WTC, along with people of different nationalities.
I'll also echo what bluntman said: We have had terrorist attacks for years here. I AM old enough to remember Northern Ireland with the threat of IRA violence - one of my earliest memories is being walked to the shops near our house, whilst a British Serviceman in full battledress followed us.

So what? Its our business. Butt the feth out.
I don't tell the English how to handle the IRA.
I don't tell the Australians how to handle the aborigines.
So I restate. This is our affair. Butt the feth out.

So what? Its our business. Butt the feth out.

Screw you, I live in this country too, stop acting like a god damn child and pretending like you have some sort of special angst about 9/11 because you knew everyone that died there. You didn't. You know how many people have died in Iraq since we invaded? Over one million. You think your tiny little World Trade Center stubbed toe is important? You have no idea what it's like to take losses, just like the rest of the giant crybaby superpower that is America. Shape up. Your own countrymen don't even sympathize with you any more, be an adult.

So I restate. This is our affair. Butt the feth out.

Than take it up with me. 9/11 was a sham, it was a bad deed done by some bad people 8 years ago, but it was nothing. 2000 dead. Who cares. We lose more than that annually to the flu, car accidents, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, drugs, and quite a few other things that we put a thousandth the time and money for.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So what? Its our business. Butt the feth out.

Screw you, I live in this country too, stop acting like a god damn child and pretending like you have some sort of special angst about 9/11 because you knew everyone that died there. You didn't. You know how many people have died in Iraq since we invaded? Over one million. You think your tiny little World Trade Center stubbed toe is important? You have no idea what it's like to take losses, just like the rest of the giant crybaby superpower that is America. Shape up. Your own countrymen don't even sympathize with you any more, be an adult.

So I restate. This is our affair. Butt the feth out.

Than take it up with me. 9/11 was a sham, it was a bad deed done by some bad people 8 years ago, but it was nothing. 2000 dead. Who cares. We lose more than that annually to the flu, car accidents, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, drugs, and quite a few other things that we put a thousandth the time and money for.

No one's talking to you Shuma. Your ability to set up starw man points continues. If you, as you say, read the posts you'll see this was directed at those not of this country.
And if you think that 2000 dead is "nothing" (it was more than that FYI) then you don't have a clue. Fateweaver's phrase is accurate. What godawful banana peel hemp are you smoking?

::Sigh::

We're all human being, the loss of human life is just as sickening for the rest of the world as it was for America. Though I understand why America has alot more to be angry and sad about.

Comments like this:

Frazzled wrote:So what? Its our business. Butt the feth out.

This is silly and is trolling.

Lord-Loss wrote:::Sigh::

We're all human being, the loss of human life is just as sickening for the rest of the world as it was for America. Though I understand why America has alot more to be angry and sad about.

Comments like this:

Frazzled wrote:So what? Its our business. Butt the feth out.

This is silly and is trolling.

No its reality. Butt out.

No.

You have no right to demand people "butt out"

No one's talking to you Shuma. Your ability to set up starw man points continues.

It wasn't a strawman, it was directed entirely at you and your mistaken impression that America somehow owns this pain and angst. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, either way its totally irrelevant and using it like you seem to want to do, as a catalyst for immoral action and a carte blanche for militaristic and reactionary thinking is both wrong and self destructive. Cope with it, and get over it. Otherwise you're just acting like a spoiled brat, but on a wholly global stage.

If you, as you say, read the posts you'll see this was directed at those not of this country.
And if you think that 2000 dead is "nothing" (it was more than that FYI) then you don't have a clue. Fateweaver's phrase is accurate. What godawful banana peel hemp are you smoking?

You said we. You kept saying we. Who is we? America? I'm an american, and I sure as hell don't want to be lumped in as acting the way you do about it. Your comment was directed at me every bit as much as it was them.

And if you think that 2000 dead is "nothing" (it was more than that FYI) then you don't have a clue.

2995 including the hijackers. Because of it we've lost twice that in Iraq and afghanistan and we're directly responsible for the deaths of millions. I don't have a clue? Why don't you learn to count.

ateweaver's phrase is accurate. What godawful banana peel hemp are you smoking?

Nothing. I use impartial logic. Why don't you two take off the diapers, put on some big boy pants, and learn to act your damn ages. Take off your little 9/11 victim pins, it doesn't work for the terrorists when they cry about their motives and it doesn't work for you. It's illogical, reactionary, emotional, and stupid. It's also old. It's not fresh any more. The wound would of closed a long time ago if you would stop picking at it.

ShumaGorath wrote:Screw you, I live in this country too, stop acting like a god damn child and pretending like you have some sort of special angst about 9/11 because you knew everyone that died there. You didn't. You know how many people have died in Iraq since we invaded? Over one million. You think your tiny little World Trade Center stubbed toe is important? You have no idea what it's like to take losses, just like the rest of the giant crybaby superpower that is America. Shape up. Your own countrymen don't even sympathize with you any more, be an adult.

He wasn't referring to you Shuma, so calm down. And no, your statistics are dead wrong. According to documented evidence, at most 104,000 have died. While that is still quite a few deaths, that is nowhere near the outrageous claims you made. And besides, how many have been killed by terrorists vs American armed forces? I guarantee the ratio is way lopsided, and not in favor of the terrorists.

ShumaGorath wrote:Than take it up with me. 9/11 was a sham, it was a bad deed done by some bad people 8 years ago, but it was nothing. 2000 dead. Who cares. We lose more than that annually to the flu, car accidents, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, drugs, and quite a few other things that we put a thousandth the time and money for.

Wow, I don't even know what to say to this. Sometimes you post the most ridiculous, offensive crap....

Live and let live guys... though I suppose if national powers would have learnt this lesson we would probably not be having this debate in the first place.

I think that everyone needs to take a walk outside for a few minutes.

ShumaGorath wrote:2995 including the hijackers. Because of it we've lost twice that in Iraq and afghanistan and we're directly responsible for the deaths of millions. I don't have a clue? Why don't you learn to count.

And you need to do your own damn research before you make stupid claims like this. Millions have NOT died. Anyone with half a brain knows that....

I think that everyone needs to take a walk outside for a few minutes.

Im not taking a walk outside, Lie to Me is on in fifteen minutes

(Great show, I recommend it to all)

I joined the Royal Marines in November 1999. I was doing a training course at Lympstone commando on September 11th 2001. I rember it very clearly because I was 21, and we were all sat watching it thinking "ok, we bext get packed, cos were off to war" and shortly afterwards, i was on the deck in Afghanistan.


Garret, i happily served in Afghanistan twice, and Iraq twice, i agreed entirely with the invasion of "Ganners".

I didnt think we had anywhere near as strong a case for Iraq, and i started to think "ok.. this might be more about one weird Christian dudes own personal agenda... " but i thought "ah well, were allies, who gives a gak, lets knack the Iraqis too, why not"

But let me say, you cant tell people they "dont have a right to comment" just because they arent American. Thats not the world we live in today. It affects us all. And any right minded civilised person is disgusted by terrorism. Cheese has just as much right to discuss this as you.

And everyone is entitled to their opinion. Thats the freedom of speech we fight to preserve.

My two cents?

I think i should be able to kill them on national Television with a hammer. Id do it for free too. Save the state some money.

Thanks Shuma, I do read the threads before I post. I am reading that it's wrong that some of us Americans want to execute the leader of the attack on the WTC, that doing so makes us no better than the terrorist we are wanting to execute.

How the HELL does that make any sense at all, to you, as an American? If an American man or woman flew a plane into an Iraqi office building and killed even just ONE person that person/persons would be executed with NO trial.

I'm not saying he'll get an unbiased trial ANYWHERE in the world so even an international tribunal like some posters propose won't lead to an unbiased trial either. Maybe life in solitary is more torturous for him or maybe he just won't care if he lives or dies.

If you murder someone in the first degree in most states you get executed. Why the hell should a known terrorist who not only killed 1'000's of people and caused billions in collateral damage, not to mention knocking down a building that for probably most people in NY and the rest of the US was considered a monument not deserving of the same outcome?

I'm of the mind if you aren't a legal US citizen you shouldn't get a trial at all if the country you are from doesn't want you extradited back to them. I still say he should be sent to Mn. My friends and I would deal with him and it would cost Obamanation a years supply of beer and steaks for me and my 5 closest buddies and 3 cases of ammo for the 6 of us. Nobody would even have to know it was being done.

I say we give him a sex change, wrap him in pigskin and send him back to his own country....heh, martyr indeed...

He wasn't referring to you Shuma, so calm down. And no, your statistics are dead wrong. According to documented evidence, at most 104,000 have died. While that is still quite a few deaths, that is nowhere near the outrageous claims you made. And besides, how many have been killed by terrorists vs American armed forces? I guarantee the ratio is way lopsided, and not in favor of the terrorists.

--

Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,033,000 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. The range given was 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths. A nationally representative sample of approximately 2000 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."[14][15][16][17][18]

2006 Excess Mortality Study
Main article: Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties
The October 2006 Lancet study[20][21] estimated total excess deaths up to July 2006. Total deaths (civilian and non-civilian) include all additional deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc.. The survey estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war. The 2006 study involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006. More households were surveyed than during the 2004 study, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. The result was disputed by President Bush based both on the number of deaths and the methodology.[86]
Although the British Government initially tried to dispute the accuracy of the Lancet survey, the UK Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser later said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust"[87]. An October 12, 2006 San Francisco Chronicle article[88] reported: "Asked at the news conference what he thinks the number is now, Bush said: 'I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life.' At a separate Pentagon briefing, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that the [Lancet] figure 'seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I've not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don't give it that much credibility at all

The Associated Press stated that more than 110,600 Iraqis had been killed since the start of the war to April 2009. This number is per the Health Ministry tally of 87,215 covering January 1, 2005 to February 28, 2009 combined with counts of casualties for 2003-2004, and after February 29, 2009 from hospital sources and media reports.[5] For more info see farther down at Associated Press and Health Ministry. More information.

Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (beginning with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and continuing with the ensuing occupation of Iraq coalition presence, as well as the activities of the various armed groups operating in the country) have come in many forms, and the accuracy of the information available on different types of Iraq War casualties varies greatly. In December 2007, the Iraqi government reported that there were 5 million orphans in Iraq - almost half of the country's children.[1][2]

Don't tell me to do my damn research. Not everyone dies in a bomb and the excess mortality study in 2006 is an accurate and telling study of the lives lost because of the conflict, rather than caused directly by coalition or insurgent forces. We've had another three years since then. You think bullets are all that kill people? What about what happens when you destroy a nation infrastructure, denying it clean water, medical aid, a police and fire agency, food, and electricity for coming on seven years? Do you think that Iraq was just a bunch of mud hutts in a desert before we went in?

Wow, I don't even know what to say to this. Sometimes you post the most ridiculous, offensive crap....

No, you just got a stubbed toe and now you pretend like it still has relevance. I don't see a memorial to those that die in car accidents. I don't see a flu memorial. What I do see is two wars, numerous laws intruding on rights and privacy, and a hell of a lot of money spent on nothing. All the while our economy crumbles, we become isolated from the world, and we help recruit thousands of new terrorists.

Although, here is an oddity, being a military man im all for shooting the 9/11 lot, but Frazzled, your attitude really stinks sometimes.

I agree with alot of what you say, but you come across as some sort of, crazed right wing nut when you start slagging off "foreigners" for voicing their opinions on a subject that does NOT only involve Americans.

Brits (and many many other nationalities) died there. Brits died in Afghanistan and continue to do so. You might think you have some sort of emotional monopoly on the situation, but you certainly dont.

mattyrm wrote:Although, here is an oddity, being a military man im all for shooting the 9/11 lot, but Frazzled, your attitude really stinks sometimes.

I agree with alot of what you say, but you come across as some sort of, crazed right wing nut when you start slagging off "foreigners" for voicing their opinions on a subject that does NOT only involve Americans.

Brits (and many many other nationalities) died there. Brits died in Afghanistan and continue to do so. You might think you have some sort of emotional monopoly on the situation, but you certainly dont.

Well said.

JEB_Stuart wrote:He wasn't referring to you Shuma, so calm down. And no, your statistics are dead wrong. According to documented evidence, at most 104,000 have died. While that is still quite a few deaths, that is nowhere near the outrageous claims you made. And besides, how many have been killed by terrorists vs American armed forces? I guarantee the ratio is way lopsided, and not in favor of the terrorists.

The distinction between death by terrorist (a poor term at best in this instance) action, and death by the actions of US force is irrelevant in this instance. We started the war, and instigated the conflicts between the various political sects within the country.

Incidentally, while Shuma's numbers were on the high end of the estimates of the Iraq death toll, yours are simply from the opposite extreme. Lancet puts the numbers around 650,000, and the WHO places them near 151,000 (with 95% uncertainty). If we take the average of the various surveys taken, the number come out close to 300,000.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Wow, I don't even know what to say to this. Sometimes you post the most ridiculous, offensive crap....

Its offensive for any given person to state that the death of 2000 people is irrelevant to their daily life? I mean, based on the number of people that die on a daily basis, even simply accounting for those who go due to human artifice, I'd say that for most people massive amounts of death are frequently dismissed every day. Death itself isn't something people care about, what makes you mad is the way in which certain deaths violate your notions of what it means to be civil, or proper.

@Shuma: I love how you use the Lancet report. That piece of Gak has been criticized and discarded by the UN, the AP, and many more. Every other major study on the subject puts the number at around 110,000, with the UN being the only exception and that is still only at 150,000. Don't use craptastic studies, just because they support your outrageous claims, when there are much more reliable and consistent studies.

JEB_Stuart wrote:And you need to do your own damn research before you make stupid claims like this. Millions have NOT died. Anyone with half a brain knows that....

Its certainly possible, the margins of error are very high in the case of all available information. Its unlikely for sure, but so is the notion that casualties have amounted to 100,000.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Shuma: I love how you use the Lancet report. That piece of Gak has been criticized and discarded by the UN, the AP, and many more. Every other major study on the subject puts the number at around 110,000, with the UN being the only exception and that is still only at 150,000. Don't use craptastic studies, just because they support your outrageous claims, when there are much more reliable and consistent studies.

Of course it has, those same bodies continued to contend that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for years. It's amazing how easy it is to dismiss things in light of actual evidence when you want to.

dogma wrote:The distinction between death by terrorist (a poor term at best in this instance) action, and death by the actions of US force is irrelevant in this instance. We started the war, and instigated the conflicts between the various political sects within the country.

True enough, but his numbers are still way off.

dogma wrote:Incidentally, while Shuma's numbers were on the high end of the estimates of the Iraq death toll, yours are simply from the opposite extreme. Lancet puts the numbers around 650,000, and the WHO places them near 151,000 (with 95% uncertainty). If we take the average of the various surveys taken, the number come out close to 300,000.

The WHO, www.Iraqbodycount.org, the UN, the AP, the Brookings Institution, and the New England Journal of Medicine all place the numbers in the 100,000 range, with none of them exceeding 155,00. That is way lower and more consistent then the Lancet study, which all of the aforementioned studies ignore or criticize.

dogma wrote:Its offensive for any given person to state that the death of 2000 people is irrelevant to their daily life? I mean, based on the number of people that die on a daily basis, even simply accounting for those who go due to human artifice, I'd say that for most people massive amounts of death are frequently dismissed every day. Death itself isn't something people care about, what makes you mad is the way in which certain deaths violate your notions of what it means to be civil, or proper.

Well considering that what is and isn't offensive is an opinion, yes it is. You can't decide what is and isn't offensive to me or anyone else, so anyone can make their own opinions on any subject.

The WHO, www.Iraqbodycount.org, the UN, the AP, the Brookings Institution, and the New England Journal of Medicine all place the numbers in the 100,000 range, with none of them exceeding 155,00. That is way lower and more consistent then the Lancet study, which all of the aforementioned studies ignore or criticize.

Those studies do not take into account death by sickness, malnourishment, water poisoning, and more standard injuries that during Iraqs period before the war could have easily been dealt with.

I'm just baffled as to the dismissal of 2000+ people dead as "something that occurs daily due to accidents and homicides and suicides".

Who said homicides and suicides? Thats actually inaccurate.

I think most people are missing the point. It's not the fact 2000+ died in the WTC, it's how and why they died.

No serial killer on this planet would get away with just life in prison for killing 2000+ people over lets say the course of 10 years (unless he is tried in a state with no DP of course but I believe NY has the DP).

So again, I am reading that one side doesn't think it's fair a terrorist, who I might add is not a citizen so technically a fair trial doesn't apply to him, should not be executed and the other side says "kill him, it's better than he deserves".

I'm just baffled as to the dismissal of 2000+ people dead as "something that occurs daily due to accidents and homicides and suicides".

I'm beginning to think the lot of you protested the execution of Tim McVey and his death toll was in the 100's, not 1000's. Sheesh.

JEB_Stuart wrote:The WHO, www.Iraqbodycount.org, the UN, the AP, the Brookings Institution, and the New England Journal of Medicine all place the numbers in the 100,000 range, with none of them exceeding 155,00. That is way lower and more consistent then the Lancet study, which all of the aforementioned studies ignore or criticize.

They all also have margins of uncertainty exceeding 90%. Meaning the actual death toll could be 90% higher, or lower, than the given number.

Incidentally, while all the various studies have criticized the Lancet methodology none of the criticisms have been particularly damning. They range from "that number is really high", which means nothing, to "there may have been a conflict of interests with respect to the nationality of the interviewers" which is valid, but not crippling.

The most popular criticism seems to be one of repercussions: that there were anywhere from 200,000-700,000 deaths without any official notification seeming unlikely. Until you realize that we're talking about Iraq, a nation which lacked a government for a significant period of time, and not England or the US. This is the line of reasoning favored by the Iraq Body Count Project, and it points out a significant flaw in their own methodology as much as that of Lancet, and ORB.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Well considering that what is and isn't offensive is an opinion, yes it is. You can't decide what is and isn't offensive to me or anyone else, so anyone can make their own opinions on any subject.

No, but I can criticize the fact that you've taken offense, which is what I did.

Lord-Loss wrote:

I think that everyone needs to take a walk outside for a few minutes.

Im not taking a walk outside, Lie to Me is on in fifteen minutes

(Great show, I recommend it to all)

Lie to me? What is that?
I'm taking momdog aka the tiger, for walk after work before the rain comes in.

Lie to Me is a TV show. A crime TV show and the break has ended and its back on.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I say we give him a sex change, wrap him in pigskin and send him back to his own country....heh, martyr indeed...

Now thats a more appropriate and humane punishment I can get behind.

I critcize dogma for criticizing Jeb for taking offense.

Hell, I'm offended by a lot of the reactions here.

"Oh poor terrorist, he isn't going to get a fair trial because the President made a comment about him being hung".

feth that damn terrorist. He masterminded the deaths of 1'000's of people without remorse. He doesn't even deserve a trial.


I

Fateweaver wrote:I critcize dogma for criticizing Jeb for taking offense.

I

I criticize myself for not drinking enough before reading that. My head!

Giving him a trial is important. It shows EXACTLY why America is great, and the culture/ideology he's espousing is crap. That's also why whatever punishment is meted out should be humane and as far as possible, dignified. If he got executed, I wouldn't mind at all. However, I think locking him up makes more sense, because then you're not giving his side a martyr.

My point about motives is that American foreign policies do anger a lot of people. Whether that is justified isn't my point (I certainly don't condone any sort of violent action over it, let me be clear). Understanding that anger is important, as it can help America to deal with it. Dismissing it is not smart, I think.

Fateweaver wrote:
Hell, I'm offended by a lot of the reactions here.

"Oh poor terrorist, he isn't going to get a fair trial because the President made a comment about him being hung".

feth that damn terrorist. He masterminded the deaths of 1'000's of people without remorse. He doesn't even deserve a trial.

You realize that the appearance of a fair trial is one of the central elements of this little publicity stunt, right?

We are not angry, we just don't let people walk all over us.

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Hell, I'm offended by a lot of the reactions here.

"Oh poor terrorist, he isn't going to get a fair trial because the President made a comment about him being hung".

feth that damn terrorist. He masterminded the deaths of 1'000's of people without remorse. He doesn't even deserve a trial.

You realize that the appearance of a fair trial is one of the central elements of this little publicity stunt, right?

Others would say its just a distraction for that whole unemployment thing...

Da Boss wrote:Giving him a trial is important. It shows EXACTLY why America is great, and the culture/ideology he's espousing is crap. That's also why whatever punishment is meted out should be humane and as far as possible, dignified. If he got executed, I wouldn't mind at all. However, I think locking him up makes more sense, because then you're not giving his side a martyr.

My point about motives is that American foreign policies do anger a lot of people. Whether that is justified isn't my point (I certainly don't condone any sort of violent action over it, let me be clear). Understanding that anger is important, as it can help America to deal with it. Dismissing it is not smart, I think.

Then they better suck it the hell up.

This isn't foreign policy. He was arrested by American agents, he's being tried on American soil.

If he were being tried in Iraq and Obama was threatening to withdraw all funding for rebuilding the country or blocking all trade/aid to the country until they delivered a guilty verdict?

Then that would be foreign policy.

Our Overlord works in mysterious ways. I still say he is a pawn of Tzeentch (or perhaps Tzeentch itself).

Kanluwen wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Giving him a trial is important. It shows EXACTLY why America is great, and the culture/ideology he's espousing is crap. That's also why whatever punishment is meted out should be humane and as far as possible, dignified. If he got executed, I wouldn't mind at all. However, I think locking him up makes more sense, because then you're not giving his side a martyr.

My point about motives is that American foreign policies do anger a lot of people. Whether that is justified isn't my point (I certainly don't condone any sort of violent action over it, let me be clear). Understanding that anger is important, as it can help America to deal with it. Dismissing it is not smart, I think.

Then they better suck it the hell up.

This isn't foreign policy. He was arrested by American agents, he's being tried on American soil.

If he were being tried in Iraq and Obama was threatening to withdraw all funding for rebuilding the country or blocking all trade/aid to the country until they delivered a guilty verdict?

Then that would be foreign policy.

You're misunderstanding my post. The motives I was talking about were the motives for the original attack.

Except the "foreign policy motivations" doesn't hold up.

What was done to get Al Qaeda forces involved in Somalia?
Nothing.
What was done to get the original WTC bombing planned?
Nothing that I can think of off the top of my head.

The attack had been planned for a decade, at least. The earlier attempt was bungled, but still did damage.

But saying American foreign policy brought it about?
That's moronic.

That's not what I was saying. The people who enacted the crime brought it about. No one else. But they had reasons, and they probably thought they were pretty damn good ones.
But if you think those reasons had nothing to do with for example, america's support of Israel, which is widely hated throughout the arab world, I'd say you're taking a fairly narrow view. Perhaps I'm wrong, of course.

It's not just foreign policy of course, there's also the effect of american culture on other cultures, the way it seems to "swallow up" traditional values and so on, which really drives certain people nuts.

Note, I'm not saying this as an attack on america, or saying those policies are wrong, or that they somehow lessen the guilt of the perpetrators. That's not my point at all. I'm simply saying dismissing them as completely insane is closing yourself off to the reasons.

Oh no, I'm not dismissing them as completely insane.

I'm dismissing them as moronic, traditionalist views held by weathered old dinosaurs who refuse to let the last vestiges of their power that they gathered to them by lying through their teeth to a population that set its moral compass by religion exclusively and preferred isolationism(except when it makes the upper portion of the population--the clerics, the ministers, etc filthy rich) to actually advancing themselves while retaining their own culture.

Yeah, western civilization does seem to "swallow up" traditional values. But only because most of the areas where you get such extreme culture shock go from being completely isolated to being drenched in a brand new experience. It's called culture shock. It's the same as if you were to take a pothead from Texas to Amsterdam--they'd go nuts in their newfound freedom.

Okay, so you understand my post. I think you were thinking that I thought this made their actions in some way defensible? I don't, but I think understanding why is important.

Frazzled wrote:
Others would say its just a distraction for that whole unemployment thing...

I might do the same if this hadn't been a Democratic issue long before the financial crisis. I'd call it fortuitous coincidence more than anything else.

Besides, it isn't as though this will change the opinion of anyone paying attention to politics. Its neither significant enough to distract, nor unexpected enough to pull support from the moderate right who are more likely, on the whole, to support military trials for suspected terrorists.

It is something he'll claim as an accomplishment in the next election, that's for sure.

BluntmanDC wrote:welcome to the U.S.A 1900 style, brutallity doesn't make you look civilised no matter what the reason, excecuting someone who who beleives they will go to a wonderful heaven for what the have done isn't a punishment, its a prize. life imprisionment in solitary confinment is a far more terrifing and real punishment.

How can one punishment simultaneously be more "brutal" than another while being preferred by the person being punished?

Aesthetics?

Fateweaver wrote:Our Overlord works in mysterious ways. I still say he is a pawn of Tzeentch (or perhaps Tzeentch itself).

Why don't you ask him?

Kanluwen wrote:
But saying American foreign policy brought it about?
That's moronic.

It really isn't. Its to be expected that reprisal would come out of the continued support of regimes like the one in Egypt, and the presence of military assets in a largely hostile (in the popular sense) Saudi Arabia. I mean really, if these states need our help to stay in power why should we expect that the attitude of the populace reflects that of their government?

There's a difference between considering the terrorist attacks the deserved response to our actions, and calling them the natural result of our foreign policy. The latter is true, the former is not.

Except those "largely hostile" areas aren't.

The average Saudi Arabian doesn't have issues with America. Nor does the average Egyptian.

The issue is that those countries have large, open religious communities with outspoken hardliners who aren't even FROM the country in question who help drive public opinion.

Kanluwen wrote:Except those "largely hostile" areas aren't.

The average Saudi Arabian doesn't have issues with America.

The Saudis cooperate with us because we buy large chunks of their oil, and because we shielded them from Saddam. They can get away with this because they sit at the top of a royalist, rentier state. And because we overlook the cultural mores which they depend on for power, even if we consider them reprehensible.

Also, keep in mind that Saudi Arabia is by far the leading financial supporter of Islamic terrorism, though not through official state channels.

Kanluwen wrote:
Nor does the average Egyptian.

You should do some research into the last 50 years of Egyptian history before you say that; particularly Mubarak's government, and its involvement with the US. The upper tiers of Egyptian society tend to sympathize with the US, or at least regard it with indifference. But the lower classes generally view the West with hostility due to America's support of Mubarak, and its involvement in brokering peace with Israel.

Not everyone adapts to change. Just look at how much fire and brimstone is attached to the word socialism in the US.

Kanluwen wrote:
The issue is that those countries have large, open religious communities with outspoken hardliners who aren't even FROM the country in question who help drive public opinion.

You do realize that the majority of Al-Qaeda's leadership is made up of Egyptian nationals, correct? The outspoken hardliners often tend to cross borders, but there are certain nations which tend to be develop more at home. Egypt and Saudi Arabia being two of the most significant ones.

The notion that all hardliners are not nationals of the state in which they work is largely misguided. It isn't as though these people all grow up in one nation, and then without fail move to another.

hurp a durp, Dogma comes up with largely false statements espoused over and over and over again by French intelligence agencies.

You do realize that the majority of Al-Qaeda's leadership is made up of ANY FANATIC WHO COMES IN WANTING TO DOWN THE WEST?

You do, also, realize that the "hardliners" of each nation are, without fail, people who have suddenly appeared in the country after rabblerousing in another, yes?

Or does that fact conveniently stay out of your way while making up garbage?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/us/19detain.html?_r=1&bl

Somebody explain again to me why this is being taken from the military and being put before a civilian court?
I really love Holders statement that, "Failure is not an option."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think this guy has it nailed:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6725916.html

I'm not really sure. Maybe to appease the masses that say it should be a civilian criminal court matter.

I'm baffled by it as well.

You do realize that the majority of Al-Qaeda's leadership is made up of ANY FANATIC WHO COMES IN WANTING TO DOWN THE WEST?

No. The most complicated terrorist network on the planet does not have such lose controls over what constitutes its leadership. Thats just wrong. You are wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:I'm not really sure. Maybe to appease the masses that say it should be a civilian criminal court matter.

I'm baffled by it as well.

Maybe because terrorists are international criminals and not members of a foreign military or government, under which circumstances they are to be charged within the civilian court system? I mean, it's the law in America. Thats how it works. The fact that thats not how it was working before is what you should be confused about. Unless you don't care when your leaders break the laws they are supposed to protect and enforce, which as conservatives that wouldn't surprise me.

Maybe......

Ugh, I sort of agreed with Shuma. Time to go flog myself and repent to my lord and master Tzeentch.

Fateweaver wrote:Maybe......

Ugh, I sort of agreed with Shuma. Time to go flog myself and repent to my lord and master Tzeentch.

I worship Khorne.

You do, also, realize that the "hardliners" of each nation are, without fail, people who have suddenly appeared in the country after rabblerousing in another, yes?

Apart from the July 7th Bombers - most (if not all, one of them was from Jamaica but converted to Islam in England) of whom were born and raised in the UK. They were all 'clean', i.e. where not under suspicion for terrorist activity or connections to Al Qaida.

I suppose it depends how you define 'hardliner'.

Kanluwen wrote:hurp a durp, Dogma comes up with largely false statements espoused over and over and over again by French intelligence agencies.

I don't know what you think French intelligence agencies have said, but there is broad agreement in the information which is publicly available, from multiple sources, supporting everything I claimed; especially about the Saudi role in financing terrorism.

Kanluwen wrote:
You do realize that the majority of Al-Qaeda's leadership is made up of ANY FANATIC WHO COMES IN WANTING TO DOWN THE WEST?

Are you actually attempting to put this forward as a legitimate point, or did you just decide to give the caps lock button a test?

Yes, Al Qaeda will accept any prospective member, regardless of nationality, provided they display loyalty to their cause. No, their leadership is not especially diverse. The most senior members of the organization are Egyptian, as significant components of the early organization were all Egyptian in origin (bin Laden himself, as well as the Islamic Jihad).

To me you sound like some guy who wants to justify his xenophobic, and overly simplistic, assumptions about America's enemies; only to become irate when they are questioned, or proven incorrect.

Kanluwen wrote:
You do, also, realize that the "hardliners" of each nation are, without fail, people who have suddenly appeared in the country after rabblerousing in another, yes?

Yes, there's a lot of travel in the larger movement. But these people came from somewhere, and most of them don't leave their country of origin. We pay more attention to the ones that do, because they tend to have a greater public presence in terms of radio broadcast time, or physical publication.

Are you under the impression that extremists simply appear out of thin air? Did Al Qaeda magically appear on the island after a disagreement between bin Laden and Tupac lead to the former being exhiled to the wastes of 50 Cent and The Game?

Kanluwen wrote:
Or does that fact conveniently stay out of your way while making up garbage?

You've demonstrated several times when discussing these matters that you know very little. I suspect you're in your first or second year of BS program; with a significant chip on your shoulder because you've read a few books about terrorism. I was the same way when I was a Freshman in college, and I got my teeth kicked in by people who knew more about the subject.

The information you're describing is generally the stuff they feed you early on in strategic studies, or counter terrorism, program so that you can see the failings of overly simplistic positions.

French intelligence agencies are the ones who claimed repeatedly that they had no knowledge whatsoever of how Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan got their hands on French military grade hardware--only to have it discovered that the French were selling the stuff to the Iraqis while Iraq was still under an embargo in return for oil.

The fact that you stated that Bin Laden was Egyptian just nullifies any argument you make from this moment forth.

I'm not xenophobic. I like my Tyranid army.

As to all other xenos....kill them all.

Um, err. Wrong thread....maybe.

Are you under the impression that extremists simply appear out of thin air? Did Al Qaeda magically appear on the island after a disagreement between bin Laden and Tupac lead to the former being exhiled to the wastes of 50 Cent and The Game?

You just blew my fething mind.

(bin Laden himself, as well as the Islamic Jihad).

Bin Laden was Saudi Brosky. Islamic Jihad was egyptian but they have his records in Saudi Arabia as a child. That said the vast majority of their leadership is Egyptian in nature as it stems from the earlier islamic jihad organization.

The fact that you stated that Bin Laden was Egyptian just nullifies any argument you make from this moment forth.

I don't think that how you want these things to work. Otherwise your arguments have been null and void for months.

Sorry, but that's precisely not how it works Shuma.

When you tout yourself as an expert nonstop, and then make a statement as ridiculous as "bin Laden is Egyptian"...

Whooooooooooooooooooooooops.

And as for the "Islamic Jihad".

al-Jihad, aka Egyptian Islamic Jihad, aka Islamic Jihad, aka Jihad Group had no real ties to bin Ladin until 2001. Any "first year counterterrorism student" knows this, as it's a fairly common fact.

The problem is, stating just "Islamic Jihad" doesn't say anything. There's dozens of groups that translate as "Islamic Jihad". Hizballah also goes by the name Islamic Jihad, then you've got the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc.

Sorry, but that's precisely not how it works Shuma.

When you tout yourself as an expert nonstop, and then make a statement as ridiculous as "bin Laden is Egyptian"...

Not much different from mashing your face onto the caps lock button and saying that their leadership stems predominantly from any crazy that walks up to their door. Just sayin'.

al-Jihad, aka Egyptian Islamic Jihad, aka Islamic Jihad, aka Jihad Group had no real ties to bin Ladin until 2001. Any "first year counterterrorism student" knows this, as it's a fairly common fact.

Wikipedia says that it started in the late 80's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Islamic_Jihad

Though I suppose I then have to find where Looming Towers got the information to check further down the line of sources.

Actually, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad got its start in the late 70s(if "Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime:Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigation" is a trustworthy source). It MERGED with Bin Ladin's Al-Qaeda organization in June 2001.

That doesn't mean that from the day they got their start, Bin Ladin was giving them the great big thumbs up. Heck, he definitely wasn't when in 1981 they assassinated Anwar Sadat.

Relapse wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/us/19detain.html?_r=1&bl

Somebody explain again to me why this is being taken from the military and being put before a civilian court?

Because a civilian that commits a civilian crime should be tried and punished under civilian law...

It really isn't complicated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think this guy has it nailed:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6725916.html

Yeah, umm, don't read Jonah Goldberg. He's an idiot.

It's more of a rhetorical question since the way the trial is being set up seems designed to trot the boy through on the way to execution.
Don't get me wrong, I can think of a hundred ways I'd like to see this guy dropped, but it seems like any attempt to hold this trial up as a showpiece of justice is a farce.

Kanluwen wrote:French intelligence agencies are the ones who claimed repeatedly that they had no knowledge whatsoever of how Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan got their hands on French military grade hardware--only to have it discovered that the French were selling the stuff to the Iraqis while Iraq was still under an embargo in return for oil.

And? A foreign intelligence agency lied. This shouldn't shock you at all. In fact you should expect it. However, the fact that an agency is willing to lie about one thing, does not mean they lie about everything. Choosing what to believe is far more important than choosing whom to believe. That's why information is only considered valid after independent verification.

Kanluwen wrote:
The fact that you stated that Bin Laden was Egyptian just nullifies any argument you make from this moment forth.

Hmmm, it seems I forgot to include 'or Saudi' in that post. After the correction my second post is consistent with my original point.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad got its start in the late 70s(if "Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime:Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigation" is a trustworthy source). It MERGED with Bin Ladin's Al-Qaeda organization in June 2001.

That's incorrect. Al Qaeda was founded in 1988, in Pakistan, when Bin Laden held a meeting with senior members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The Egyptian Jihad then ceased to exist. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad which merged (they didn't fully merge, they simply accept funding, as do most of Al Qaeda's clients) with Al Qaeda in 2001 was an organization tangentially associated with the original Jihad; taking the same name and fighting for a similar cause.

Kanluwen wrote:
That doesn't mean that from the day they got their start, Bin Ladin was giving them the great big thumbs up. Heck, he definitely wasn't when in 1981 they assassinated Anwar Sadat.

Assuming bin Laden cared at all, he probably would have endorsed Sadat's assassination; especially when you consider his relationship with the Shah of Iran, and his role in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

dogma wrote:
Incidentally, while all the various studies have criticized the Lancet methodology none of the criticisms have been particularly damning. They range from "that number is really high", which means nothing, to "there may have been a conflict of interests with respect to the nationality of the interviewers" which is valid, but not crippling.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/04/a-little-more-t.html
Suggests the Lancet study featured insufficient sampling points (47 vs 2,000 used in UN studies).

http://www1.cedat.be/Documents/Working_Papers/CREDWPIraqMortalityJune2007.pdf
This paper goes into some good details about sampling methodology and addresses issues of oversampling violent areas and undersampling fairly peaceful ones. Covers multiple sources/estimates, not just Lancet BTW.

http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/014/Ethics%20and%20Data%20Integrity_8_09_08.pdf
50-page paper on possible ethical/integrity issues with the study, focused a bit on the refusal to release more details about their methods.

Relapse wrote:It's more of a rhetorical question since the way the trial is being set up seems designed to trot the boy through on the way to execution.
Don't get me wrong, I can think of a hundred ways I'd like to see this guy dropped, but it seems like any attempt to hold this trial up as a showpiece of justice is a farce.

And if he was tried in a military court you would complain obama isn't following the law, it just seem like your complaining for the sake of complaining

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:French intelligence agencies are the ones who claimed repeatedly that they had no knowledge whatsoever of how Taliban/Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan got their hands on French military grade hardware--only to have it discovered that the French were selling the stuff to the Iraqis while Iraq was still under an embargo in return for oil.

And? A foreign intelligence agency lied. This shouldn't shock you at all. In fact you should expect it. However, the fact that an agency is willing to lie about one thing, does not mean they lie about everything. Choosing what to believe is far more important than choosing whom to believe. That's why information is only considered valid after independent verification.

Kanluwen wrote:
The fact that you stated that Bin Laden was Egyptian just nullifies any argument you make from this moment forth.

Hmmm, it seems I forgot to include 'or Saudi' in that post. After the correction my second post is consistent with my original point.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad got its start in the late 70s(if "Terrorism and Organized Hate Crime:Intelligence Gathering, Analysis, and Investigation" is a trustworthy source). It MERGED with Bin Ladin's Al-Qaeda organization in June 2001.

That's incorrect. Al Qaeda was founded in 1988, in Pakistan, when Bin Laden held a meeting with senior members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The Egyptian Jihad then ceased to exist. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad which merged (they didn't fully merge, they simply accept funding, as do most of Al Qaeda's clients) with Al Qaeda in 2001 was an organization tangentially associated with the original Jihad; taking the same name and fighting for a similar cause.

Kanluwen wrote:
That doesn't mean that from the day they got their start, Bin Ladin was giving them the great big thumbs up. Heck, he definitely wasn't when in 1981 they assassinated Anwar Sadat.

Assuming bin Laden cared at all, he probably would have endorsed Sadat's assassination; especially when you consider his relationship with the Shah of Iran, and his role in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

The Egyptian Islamic Jihad is a big point of contention, then.

Everything I'm seeing about the Al-Jihad organization states that it was founded in late 1970s, and didn't have anything to really do with Al Qaeda until 2001.

But that's the problem with figuring out these organizations. There's too many with similar names for me to keep close tabs on them.

But eh. You live, you learn. Right?

Noble713 wrote:
http://www1.cedat.be/Documents/Working_Papers/CREDWPIraqMortalityJune2007.pdf
This paper goes into some good details about sampling methodology and addresses issues of oversampling violent areas and undersampling fairly peaceful ones. Covers multiple sources/estimates, not just Lancet BTW.

Of the three, this one interests me the most. I hadn't seen it before. Thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
The Egyptian Islamic Jihad is a big point of contention, then.

Everything I'm seeing about the Al-Jihad organization states that it was founded in late 1970s, and didn't have anything to really do with Al Qaeda until 2001.

But that's the problem with figuring out these organizations. There's too many with similar names for me to keep close tabs on them.

But eh. You live, you learn. Right?

Yeah, for sure.

They're really messy organizations on the whole because they behave a lot like social networks, or extended families. Often times the people themselves are far more important than the organizational titles they use. Its quite a bit like a reflection of Islam in that regard, which is interesting in itself.

weird double post

...

Relapse wrote:It's more of a rhetorical question since the way the trial is being set up seems designed to trot the boy through on the way to execution.
Don't get me wrong, I can think of a hundred ways I'd like to see this guy dropped, but it seems like any attempt to hold this trial up as a showpiece of justice is a farce.

I'm not really sure what people want when they're convinced of someone's guilt. If the evidence is overwhelming what else are you supposed to do but go through the motions and then convict? Ultimately any case where guilt is obvious will have elements of a show trial.

The alternatives are to have someone somewhere decide that a trial isn't needed (and who makes that call?) or to give everyone a chance of beating the charge, despite how guilty they (6+ save to be found innocent?).

There has to be a trial because it's the law.

Holding the trial under civilian jurisdiction is the right thing both for justice and because of world public opinion.

If the evidence is convincing it will stand up in court, the defendant will be convicted and sentenced according to the law.

If the evidence is not convincing, but the defendant is convicted by a biased jury, there will be an appeal.

It was wrong for Obama to say the defendant would be tried and executed. He realised that immediately and tried to correct the slip.

Kanluwen wrote:Except those "largely hostile" areas aren't.

The average Saudi Arabian doesn't have issues with America. Nor does the average Egyptian.

The issue is that those countries have large, open religious communities with outspoken hardliners who aren't even FROM the country in question who help drive public opinion.

-Exactly the stated claim for these terrorist attacks was because US troops were in Saudi Arabia, on Arab soil. So you kill men, women, and children because we had troops to repel one Arab nation from conquering another Arab nation? Its not sane.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Because a civilian that commits an act of terrorism should be interrogated then taken out back and hanged like all spies and saboteurs...

It really isn't complicated.

You right but in error. Fixed it for you.

Who decides who is a terrorist then frazzled?

As i said, im more right wing than left, but feth me. You cannot honestly say you want any civilised nation to have no rule of law, kangaroo courts and public hangings "out back"

Your talking about anarchy. We have the rule of law because cops and government agencies are notorious for fething things up! Have you seen the state of the CIA? They screw up almost as much as British intelligence!

(Ill happily hang them once convicted of course!)

mattyrm wrote:Who decides who is a terrorist then frazzled?

As i said, im more right wing than left, but feth me. You cannot honestly say you want any civilised nation to have no rule of law, kangaroo courts and public hangings "out back"

Your talking about anarchy. We have the rule of law because cops and government agencies are notorious for fething things up! Have you seen the state of the CIA? They screw up almost as much as British intelligence!

(Ill happily hang them once convicted of course!)

He already confessed, there is no guilt here. Treat him just like the German saboteurs we caught in WWII. This is a war, treat it as such. Cap him.

How did the US treat German saboteurs in WW2?

In the UK they were prosecuted under the Treachery Act 1940.

Kilkrazy wrote:How did the US treat German saboteurs in WW2?

In the UK they were prosecuted under the Treachery Act 1940.

They were caught, interrogated, had a short hearing, and then an even shorter rope. We have always treated saboteurs and spies in wartime in such manner, as most fo the world, including the UK (several German spies were turned after being threatened with execution, others were executed).

Well in the UK they were prosecuted under various Acts of Parliament, the 1940 one obviously covering WW2.

Kilkrazy wrote:Well in the UK they were prosecuted under various Acts of Parliament, the 1940 one obviously covering WW2.

They used the law yes. But the truth of that is that it was used as a weapon or done quickly. No city hall trial there.

Kanluwen wrote:Oh no, I'm not dismissing them as completely insane.

I'm dismissing them as moronic, traditionalist views held by weathered old dinosaurs who refuse to let the last vestiges of their power that they gathered to them by lying through their teeth to a population that set its moral compass by religion

sounds like the bush administration

America can't come into other peoples backyards spouting its to spread democracy and freedom, when your own population is made up of barbarians, wanting pay-per-view torture and murder.

BluntmanDC wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh no, I'm not dismissing them as completely insane.

I'm dismissing them as moronic, traditionalist views held by weathered old dinosaurs who refuse to let the last vestiges of their power that they gathered to them by lying through their teeth to a population that set its moral compass by religion

sounds like the bush administration

America can't come into other peoples backyards spouting its to spread democracy and freedom, when your own population is made up of barbarians, wanting pay-per-view torture and murder.

Very rarely is one sentence so wrong with nearly every word.
America? A continent? Which one?
Barbarians? I'll admit most people are not Greek, but thats kind of a problem for everyone outside of Greece isn't it?
Who wants pay per view torture an murder? guttertripe nonsense.
But you're right. Soon as "America" does that we'll let you know. Until then, keep trolling.

Frazzled wrote:
They used the law yes. But the truth of that is that it was used as a weapon or done quickly. No city hall trial there.

What do you think this trial is? Fair?

youbedead wrote:

Relapse wrote:It's more of a rhetorical question since the way the trial is being set up seems designed to trot the boy through on the way to execution.
Don't get me wrong, I can think of a hundred ways I'd like to see this guy dropped, but it seems like any attempt to hold this trial up as a showpiece of justice is a farce.

And if he was tried in a military court you would complain obama isn't following the law, it just seem like your complaining for the sake of complaining

I would not. I just think the whole deal is going to be a farce. Your cut and dried comment about what I'm thinking is right in line with Obama saying the civilian court is going to hang the guy.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
They used the law yes. But the truth of that is that it was used as a weapon or done quickly. No city hall trial there.

What do you think this trial is? Fair?

this:


or this:

BluntmanDC wrote:
America can't come into other peoples backyards spouting its to spread democracy and freedom, when your own population is made up of barbarians, wanting pay-per-view torture and murder.

Sure we can. Nothing you mentioned impacts either democracy, or freedom.

What we really need is this

You know, this brings a good point up.

The bleeding heart liberals and the kind of folk who say that the Palestinian suicide bombers are justified will say it's a "show trial", no matter what kind of trial it is.

The fact is, we've treated these animals far better than they deserve. But really. No matter how the trial goes, there will be constant yelling about it from one corner or the other.

But really, if these guys get off...then something's wrong.

Kanluwen wrote:You know, this brings a good point up.

The bleeding heart liberals and the kind of folk who say that the Palestinian suicide bombers are justified will say it's a "show trial", no matter what kind of trial it is.

The fact is, we've treated these animals far better than they deserve. But really. No matter how the trial goes, there will be constant yelling about it from one corner or the other.

But really, if these guys get off...then something's wrong.

You're right. If its going to be accused of being a show trial then I want a SHOW trial. Lets demonstrate our Vegas like uber dominance of kitschy.

We need:
*show girls
*an animal show
*pyrotechnics
*Pt Barnum including trapeze act and elephants
*An impromptu hockey/football/conga line needs to break out.
*We need celebrity guests including Sinbad, Lewis Black, Borat, and the ghost of Elvis
*An opening song by Shakira, and closing song by Hank Williams Jr.
*At close Carlos Mencia and Ron White can escort him to the electric chair. It will need to have a flashing neon sign atop it saying "USofA is Bestest ofA!"

I would watch CSPAN for that....

Frazzled wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Oh no, I'm not dismissing them as completely insane.

I'm dismissing them as moronic, traditionalist views held by weathered old dinosaurs who refuse to let the last vestiges of their power that they gathered to them by lying through their teeth to a population that set its moral compass by religion

sounds like the bush administration

America can't come into other peoples backyards spouting its to spread democracy and freedom, when your own population is made up of barbarians, wanting pay-per-view torture and murder.

Very rarely is one sentence so wrong with nearly every word.
America? A continent? Which one?
Barbarians? I'll admit most people are not Greek, but thats kind of a problem for everyone outside of Greece isn't it?
Who wants pay per view torture an murder? guttertripe nonsense.
But you're right. Soon as "America" does that we'll let you know. Until then, keep trolling.

sorry U.S.A. (although alot of the U.S. citizens call it America), i'm sorry i recall your idea was to tar and feather them which is barbaric (therefore you are a barbarian, words and there meanings evolve) there seems to be a lot of people on this thread that what barbaric vengence (note:not justice). I was not trolling, i was questioning the view he has of the middle east being controlled by religious nutters while the U.S.A. was lead by an equally nutty Bush (who said god told him to invade).

JEB_Stuart wrote:I would watch CSPAN for that....

I'll bring the popcorn.

Frazzled wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You know, this brings a good point up.

The bleeding heart liberals and the kind of folk who say that the Palestinian suicide bombers are justified will say it's a "show trial", no matter what kind of trial it is.

The fact is, we've treated these animals far better than they deserve. But really. No matter how the trial goes, there will be constant yelling about it from one corner or the other.

But really, if these guys get off...then something's wrong.

You're right. If its going to be accused of being a show trial then I want a SHOW trial. Lets demonstrate our Vegas like uber dominance of kitschy.

We need:
*show girls
*an animal show
*pyrotechnics
*Pt Barnum including trapeze act and elephants
*An impromptu hockey/football/conga line needs to break out.
*We need celebrity guests including Sinbad, Lewis Black, Borat, and the ghost of Elvis
*An opening song by Shakira, and closing song by Hank Williams Jr.
*At close Carlos Mencia and Ron White can escort him to the electric chair. It will need to have a flashing neon sign atop it saying "USofA is Bestest ofA!"

Only if the afterparty is Carlos Mencia getting put in the chair.

He might actually be funny then!

So if, in addition to evidently tbeing the scourage of mankind and the summation of all that is evil, we are Barbarians, are we this kind of Barbarian?




this kind?


or this kind?

BluntmanDC wrote:i recall your idea was to tar and feather them which is barbaric

What makes it barbaric?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:i recall your idea was to tar and feather them which is barbaric

What makes it barbaric?

Wasn't that traditionally a fatal practice? Both because hot tar was used and because it was horrific on the skin and pours?

Yeah, but if the guy wants to shave 20 years off of his martyrdom he shouldn't mind a little burning tar.

BluntmanDC wrote:
sorry U.S.A. (although alot of the U.S. citizens call it America), i'm sorry i recall your idea was to tar and feather them which is barbaric (therefore you are a barbarian, words and there meanings evolve)

One seemingly barbaric practice defines any given person, or group in this case, as barbarians? Wow, you are one hell of an absolutist.

I suppose that little grammatical error I highlighted also makes you illiterate?

BluntmanDC wrote:
there seems to be a lot of people on this thread that what barbaric vengence (note:not justice). I was not trolling, i was questioning the view he has of the middle east being controlled by religious nutters while the U.S.A. was lead by an equally nutty Bush (who said god told him to invade).

Its cute that you think you can find some kind of empirical standard of justice, while denying the notion that there can be a empirical standard for sanity.

I don't ever remember hearing Bush saying that "God told him to invade"...

Wow this turned into a thread about the trial and then into a thread about how barbaric american supposedly are.

I think this is the kind of barbarians we are.

garret wrote:Wow this turned into a thread about the trial and then into a thread about how barbaric american supposedly are.

What surprises me is that here was an easy chance to slam Obama and no-one has.

Kilkrazy wrote:

garret wrote:Wow this turned into a thread about the trial and then into a thread about how barbaric american supposedly are.

What surprises me is that here was an easy chance to slam Obama and no-one has.

I have a few pages up, but its too early for the majority to see whats up. when the trial date approaches more will notice and some in the press will make comments on those lines. the subject is not gathering much quality thought, but it will in time and then Obama will likely have egg on his face, ironically mostly in the eyes of those outside the US - where he is still popular, which will feedback within - where his appeal has already wanted for other reasons.

I can't believe nobody commented on Captain Caveman. One of my favorite cartoons when I was only knee high to a grasshopper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news the beginning of the end has begun.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

garret wrote:Wow this turned into a thread about the trial and then into a thread about how barbaric american supposedly are.

You thought it wouldn't?
God told me I needed to eat some chili, with crackers.

Kanluwen wrote:I don't ever remember hearing Bush saying that "God told him to invade"...

It was reported that he said something to that effect in a group interview with Mohamed Abbas in 2003. No idea if its true, as I've not seen the interview, or at least I don't recall having seen it.

Edit: It wasn't an interview with Abbas, but an interview with members of Abbas staff. Those staff members claimed that Bush had spoken of a God's instructions to him in their first meeting.

Link.

In other news the beginning of the end has begun.

The fact that you are choosing to deal with this in your usual, non-hysterical manner is fantastic - good for you, Fateweaver!