General Discussion

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)

57. Anyone who accepts accusation as guilt or by extension targeting as guilt is

Sun Mar 18, 2012, 11:43 AM

Mar 2012

thoughtless, simple, and literally a traitor against western civilization aka a Dark Ager.

If this is your train of thought you are a danger to the existence of a free people and a pawn of those who have fought progress for hundreds of years at every plausible step.

You will make us all government property and destroy every damn thing we are supposed to represent and are as myopic, dangerous, and toxic as any possible terrorist.

A "war" against a stateless entity in global battlefield is not even describably similar to bombing Japan, for instance, and the effort to conflate the two is an effort to play off the most simplistic of thought patterns and ignorance.
If you think targeting a member of the SS and an "enemy combatant" or even more so an "insurgent" are even close then you are fucking goofy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

231 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If the U.S. military fires upon someone, is that all the proof needed that the target was guilty? [View all] Zalatix Mar 2012 OP

Not the fact in itself. MrSlayer Mar 2012 #1

No trial? We gave Saddam Hussein as much and he supposedly had nukes aimed at us, or whatever. Zalatix Mar 2012 #3

We didn't give Saddam a trial. MrSlayer Mar 2012 #5

why would Anyone hand themselves into people that openly torture Sea-Dog Mar 2012 #13

It depends upon the rules of engagement ChunderingTruth Mar 2012 #2

My opinion is post #52 just two down from my post you linked to. denbot Mar 2012 #4

And I will say again, I do not blindly trust anyone. Show me the evidence. Zalatix Mar 2012 #8

Way back when, I had the occasion to share a fighting hole with a variety of grunts. 11 Bravo Mar 2012 #127

Are you actually suggesting... USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #6

We're killing people who did not fire upon US troops at all. Zalatix Mar 2012 #7

Yes, that's what you do in a war. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #9

Since when do you execute a kill on sight order on someone who hasn't opened fire on you? Zalatix Mar 2012 #10

Do you think literally everyone in the Nazi army USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #11

Was al-Banna armed? Zalatix Mar 2012 #12

I don't know, was he? USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #14

Wait, you are asking me for specific evidence of innocence? What country do you think you're in? Zalatix Mar 2012 #17

No. You said he wasn't armed. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #18

I base it upon lack of evidence. If you have any, please show it. Zalatix Mar 2012 #19

Once again... USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #41

I take it you have no proof, once again, that al-Banna deserved to die? Zalatix Mar 2012 #43

Not one from a court of law, no. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #49

LOL at your attempt to declare victory. Zalatix Mar 2012 #50

Thank you for proving my point USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #53

You have repeatedly dodged my questions, and have hidden behind irrelevant responses Zalatix Mar 2012 #76

WRONG USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #78

A trial isn't required for all strikes against enemy combatants. However we've no evidence al-Banna Zalatix Mar 2012 #80

How do you know there was no evidence? USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #83

How do you know there was evidence? Zalatix Mar 2012 #87

I don't. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #90

WRONG. He SHOULD have had a trial. And you admit you have no evidence. Zalatix Mar 2012 #92

Flip flopper! USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #94

But he's NOT A COMBATANT. So your argument doesn't even apply. Zalatix Mar 2012 #96

How do you know he's not? USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #97

You've shot at people you didn't know were hostile? Zalatix Mar 2012 #98

Complete and total strawman. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #99

Actually, since you keep trying to distract the issue with your non-points Zalatix Mar 2012 #100

LOL USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #101

Your argument has been "Reasons? I don't need no stinkin' reasons!" Zalatix Mar 2012 #103

No, that hasn't been my argument. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #105

"We don't need no stinkin' REASONS" is 100% EXACTLY what you said. Zalatix Mar 2012 #107

No, it's not. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #110

"Because we said so" is NOT a reason. Zalatix Mar 2012 #111

"Because he's an al-Qaeda operative" USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #112

YOU are the one dodging. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #215

#l. I don't know that the people targeted at Normandy were really enemy Combatants. AnotherDreamWeaver Mar 2012 #208

What point are you making. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #213

I thought I stated it very clearly AnotherDreamWeaver Mar 2012 #221

We get it. You don't trust the government. randome Mar 2012 #15

I bet you believed Saddam had WMD's. Or that the Gulf of Tonkin was not a hoax. Zalatix Mar 2012 #16

If someone is a criminal USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #20

What part of "show me proof" do you not understand? Zalatix Mar 2012 #23

Please spare me the drama queen BS USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #30

Then spare me the knuckle-dragging "kill em, proof or not" BS Zalatix Mar 2012 #32

No. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #36

Show me the proof. Zalatix Mar 2012 #38

Do you demand the same proof USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #39

Show me the proof. Zalatix Mar 2012 #40

Don't worry. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #44

I told you, I want proof that al-Banna deserved to die. I stand pat on that. Zalatix Mar 2012 #46

And I made a counterpoint USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #61

Counterpoint? Uh, no, what you did was offer no proof at all that al-Banna did ANYTHING wrong Zalatix Mar 2012 #65

ALL criminals are innocent until proven guilty USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #67

How was Awlaki an 'enemy force'? This case is only special because no one knows why sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #159

He was a member of an enemy force USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #163

But we do not know that. He was a preacher, where is the evidence he was a member of sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #168

I see. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #169

Of course I demanded that. Bush was the president, I never believed a word he said. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #172

OK, so just so I'm understanding you correctly... USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #173

When a country is lied into war, I do not generally support that war and question every sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #176

Got it. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #178

I have not quit my day job, but thanks for the advice. I was right just to remind you, about sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #184

Enemy forces who surrendered? USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #185

You know the strange thing, well there are many strange things, but sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #190

Yes, so strange USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #191

Probably because he was not an Al Queda leader. Not to mention the fact that the people sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #192

I see. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #193

Why do you keep talking about the legitimacy of war? randome Mar 2012 #179

Yemen is not a war zone. Do we have troops in Yemen? Are we at war with Yemen? sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #188

You know what I call people who fought in Iraq, Suckers bahrbearian Mar 2012 #35

Let the record show USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #55

Blatant insults? For demanding proof that al-Banna did anything to deserve a drone strike? Zalatix Mar 2012 #58

He was talking to me. bahrbearian Mar 2012 #62

LOL gotcha. Gotta check the attributes. Zalatix Mar 2012 #66

No genius. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #63

Oh, the Drama, can I get you some Vapors. bahrbearian Mar 2012 #59

Noticeably absent from your post USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #64

He should have just repeated post #57. Zalatix Mar 2012 #68

If you are gulible enough to think invading an a country that never attacked us is honorable? bahrbearian Mar 2012 #69

You're not worth my time. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #72

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #74

Are you in the military? randome Mar 2012 #75

I was drafted #11 1970, was 1A , refused to go to Nam bahrbearian Mar 2012 #81

+1 million for resisting the Draft. Zalatix Mar 2012 #84

Your choice does not entitle you to mock those who thought differently. randome Mar 2012 #86

He wasn't dishonoring anyone. Zalatix Mar 2012 #88

The fuck s/he wasn't. n/t PavePusher Mar 2012 #121

Point taken. Bahrbearian wasn't bowing down to the almighty soldier Zalatix Mar 2012 #123

Far cry from "not bowing down" to blatent hyperbolic blanket stereotyping insults. PavePusher Mar 2012 #131

Sorry, I decline to drink the kool-aid. Zalatix Mar 2012 #133

Don't waste your time on him. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #85

Why is that such a problem, arresting people in a war zone? We have prisons all over sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #161

Do you think World War II should have been fought with arrests instead of munitions? randome Mar 2012 #165

American lives are worth no more nor no less than the lives of anyone else. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #170

I didn't know this was a debate about the legitmacy of a war. randome Mar 2012 #174

Good god, your ignorance of history is astonishing. girl gone mad Mar 2012 #201

Up until the moment they surrendered, the US army was trying as hard as they could to kill them. hack89 Mar 2012 #220

Few of these people we're going after can be compared to soldiers in WW-II Zalatix Mar 2012 #203

I think your asshat post sucked too. era veteran Mar 2012 #207

Let the record show that the most chilling insults toward our troops Kaleko Mar 2012 #197

Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor. He actually wrote that? Wow. Zalatix Mar 2012 #205

Yep. Kaleko Mar 2012 #211

Yes, indeed that is true. Our leaders do treat our troops like suckers. Zalatix Mar 2012 #212

That's no worse than I've seen on "Democratic" sites USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #217

Your outrage is understandable. Kaleko Mar 2012 #223

Well, your name certainly explains your vile comment. n/t PavePusher Mar 2012 #120

You know what I call people who insult military volunteers? MADem Mar 2012 #186

You know what I wonder? Does anyone care what you call anyone? MineralMan Mar 2012 #189

This message was self-deleted by its author cliffordu Mar 2012 #194

YEP, I'll bet you do - cliffordu Mar 2012 #196

I have a name for you, too. Nt DevonRex Mar 2012 #199

Saddam and WMDs? Be real. randome Mar 2012 #21

Killing someone without proof? Get real. Zalatix Mar 2012 #25

+1 L0oniX Mar 2012 #141

Many thanks! Zalatix Mar 2012 #147

You are being hyperbolic. No one has said 'our President is out to kill us'. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #156

That's not how it works at all. bluedigger Mar 2012 #26

You seem to have no proof that al-Banna deserved to die. Zalatix Mar 2012 #29

So are you suggesting USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #33

Another who is completely ignorant of history. girl gone mad Mar 2012 #202

Keep beating that toy drum! bluedigger Mar 2012 #34

Then you keep on not thinking for yourself. Zalatix Mar 2012 #37

Dude, you're not being very fair to those who disagree with you. randome Mar 2012 #42

Hey, I didn't start the toy drum comment crap. What makes you think that was any nicer? Zalatix Mar 2012 #45

I see no reason to support wrongheaded insanity because it is acting consistently TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #229

Since 1942 OPOS Mar 2012 #154

Are you MK Ultra? joy to the world Mar 2012 #93

Who or what is MK Ultra? USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #95

Guilt is not a relevant concept in armed conflict. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #22

Welcome to the funhouse gratuitous Mar 2012 #24

Cindy Sheehan was right. Zalatix Mar 2012 #27

+ KG Mar 2012 #28

+1 L0oniX Mar 2012 #143

What may be causing the confusion here is some don't know the definition of a "free fire zone?" NNN0LHI Mar 2012 #31

Kinda like, "If the police arrested him, he must be guilty." excuse not to write Mar 2012 #47

Exactly. Like when they shot Randy Weaver's wife while she held a baby in her arms. Zalatix Mar 2012 #48

Randy Weaver and his family were racists excuse not to write Mar 2012 #54

But his wife was unarmed! Holding a baby! And she got shot by a sniper! Zalatix Mar 2012 #56

Well that's entirely different. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #71

And it's okay to shoot a woman with a baby in her arms if she and her husband are racists. Zalatix Mar 2012 #102

I never knew racism was punishable by death from afar... cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #114

So what's your plan? jeff47 Mar 2012 #51

al-Banna attacked US forces? Where? If he did, then who and where? Zalatix Mar 2012 #52

You're the one who generalized this. jeff47 Mar 2012 #70

How about we just leave the fucker alone? If he's not armed or carrying bombs Zalatix Mar 2012 #73

Well, let's wander into overused Nazi analogies jeff47 Mar 2012 #79

How about a more recent example... Saddam Hussein. Zalatix Mar 2012 #82

You can't possibly be serious. jeff47 Mar 2012 #106

WTF Hahahahahah my evidence for a lack of proof? Did you really say that? Zalatix Mar 2012 #109

Again, you continue to confuse military action with a courtroom jeff47 Mar 2012 #115

"And your evidence for the lack of proof is"... hahahahaha LOL. I'm dying here. Zalatix Mar 2012 #116

AUF after 9/11 jeff47 Mar 2012 #119

Derision? No, I'm just re-quoting what you said. Zalatix Mar 2012 #122

Boy, you sure are working hard with that shovel. jeff47 Mar 2012 #124

It'll take more than 30 posts to dig down to your version of reality. Zalatix Mar 2012 #134

No, it'll take 30 posts for you to actually start reading what people write. jeff47 Mar 2012 #198

I'm wondering why you can't understand the words that you write. Zalatix Mar 2012 #200

'EastAsia'? randome Mar 2012 #125

Your problem is you refuse to open your eyes. This is EXACTLY what George Orwell warned about. Zalatix Mar 2012 #135

No, my 'problem' is that I don't spend my life being afraid of what COULD happen. randome Mar 2012 #136

LOL so your argument here is "just stick your head in the sand and it'll be all okay". Gotcha. Zalatix Mar 2012 #137

Arguably, killing civilians far from any battlefield is not "military action" EFerrari Mar 2012 #128

Members of al-Qaeda are civilians? USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #182

The proper question is "what's a civilian"? jeff47 Mar 2012 #195

Actually, that gray area stuff was a line promoted by BushCo's lawyers. EFerrari Mar 2012 #219

No, they really don't. jeff47 Mar 2012 #225

That's incorrect. They are available on line EFerrari Mar 2012 #226

Then it would have been trivial for you to demonstrate I'm wrong, instead of just claiming it (nt) jeff47 Mar 2012 #227

You can go look at the term "unlawful conbatant" at Wikipedia. EFerrari Mar 2012 #228

Here's something none of these fine folks can answer Zalatix Mar 2012 #210

The answer is: nothing. randome Mar 2012 #216

Seriously? You still don't get it? Zalatix Mar 2012 #222

Anyone who accepts accusation as guilt or by extension targeting as guilt is TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #57

Actually I am saying that such an argument is BS. Zalatix Mar 2012 #60

Oh...I know. I regularly suffer from poor deployment of the rhetorical "you" TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #230

So, the 90% of Americans who supported killing bin Laden geek tragedy Mar 2012 #104

I bet close to 90% supported the start of the Iraq invasion, too. Zalatix Mar 2012 #108

No. But the 10% who cried because we were unfair to Osama geek tragedy Mar 2012 #139

That 10% questioned the claim about Saddam's WMDs Zalatix Mar 2012 #145

Since the doctrine is not only no limited to bin Laden or any particular describable people TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #231

Not necessarily. MineralMan Mar 2012 #77

It depends largely on the president's political party. n/t hughee99 Mar 2012 #89

No, and this case with the soldier joy to the world Mar 2012 #91

Guilt is irrelevant. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #113

So if you are identified as a threat to America and a drone is called in on you Zalatix Mar 2012 #118

Not worried about that. geek tragedy Mar 2012 #126

While simultaneously being struck by lightening, and winning the lottery. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #140

Obviously then it would suck to be you, if you were such a threat Bodhi BloodWave Mar 2012 #130

Being identified as a threat is not the same as actually being a threat. Zalatix Mar 2012 #132

if somebody is wanted internationally and locally(within yemen) Bodhi BloodWave Mar 2012 #171

Yup, just like everyone and their dog KNEW Saddam had WMD's. Zalatix Mar 2012 #175

I was against invading Iraq. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #181

you are still avoiding my questions tho Bodhi BloodWave Mar 2012 #183

Not just a "threat" ... but a "military threat". JoePhilly Mar 2012 #138

And how do you avoid becoming perceived as a military threat? Zalatix Mar 2012 #142

If you haven't figured out how to not be perceived as a military threat, I doubt I can help you. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #150

This is not an argument. You would have to be MAKING an argument first, and you are not. Zalatix Mar 2012 #151

Yes, the Republicans will hit my home with a drone strike. JoePhilly Mar 2012 #177

Sure it is. Just check out My-Lai, Sand Creek, Dresden, Hiroshima, and other places. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #117

No, but that is the argument made by Bush. sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #129

+1 L0oniX Mar 2012 #144

Sabrina, you will be here to say "I told you so" when the Republicans get control of the drones. Zalatix Mar 2012 #148

...I'm hungry L0oniX Mar 2012 #146

It is NOW. Defensible too. cherokeeprogressive Mar 2012 #149

Say the right words and wait for the drones. Exactly. Zalatix Mar 2012 #152

Not only are that fear mongering not going to work... USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #153

Living in militant denial is what doesn't work. Zalatix Mar 2012 #155

Yes, because we just NOW started killing al-Qaeda and Taliban members? USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #157

But he's NOT A COMBATANT. So your argument STILL does not even apply. Zalatix Mar 2012 #158

How do you know that he's not? USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #160

You already admitted you have no evidence that he is. Zalatix Mar 2012 #162

And you admitted other military strikes do NOT require a trial. USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #164

Prove he's a combatant and that will actually MEAN something. Zalatix Mar 2012 #166

Repeating the same nonsense I already addressed USArmyParatrooper Mar 2012 #167

and again...What would you consider as valid proof/evidence Bodhi BloodWave Mar 2012 #187

Charges should have been filed. Why were they not? Charges were filed against Bin Laden sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #204

Ayup, and what's to stop them from deciding ANYONE AT RANDOM needs to die? Zalatix Mar 2012 #206

As opposed to YOU deciding who gets to die? randome Mar 2012 #214

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am against the DP, regardless of the crime, so sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #224

Yes, that's conclusive... kenny blankenship Mar 2012 #180

No, the trial of the Mylai massacre proved that. See my post 208 AnotherDreamWeaver Mar 2012 #209

The Marines used that defense during the trial of the Haditha massacre... Blue_Tires Mar 2012 #218