fgalkin wrote:No, the Patriot Act is "taking people who have nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever and imprisoning them, which has no effect on terror"
Which is EXACTLY what you are talking about doing here you dense motherfucker. What part of the law already having provisions for arresting terrorists don't you understand? What you are suggesting is making the assumption that they are ALL GUILTY. Do you see the problem with this logic? Aparently not.
Oh, and enjoy the next beheading video when it comes out. I belive a Polish woman is the current hostage of note. Just keep in mind that it could have been prevented if we bothered to find the assholes' uncle, interrupt him from laying roadside mines, and take them into custody.
That's right because every beheader has an uncle that is a terrorist rather then a hardworking citizen that has always paid his taxes and goes to PTA meetings.
The new age idea of lumping everyone who lives in a certain area together and branding them as "terrorists" by mere geography smacks to me of contemporary racism. I'd really hoped we'd moved beyond this but aparently there are still morons like you that think everyone who lives in a country that is experiencing unrest is a terrorist and deserves to die.
fgalkin wrote:No, the Patriot Act is "taking people who have nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever and imprisoning them, which has no effect on terror"
why? people who are likely to plan terror can be locked up. that has an effect on terror.
and they´re also imprisoned even though not guilty.
the analogy is valid.
Oh, and enjoy the next beheading video when it comes out. I belive a Polish woman is the current hostage of note. Just keep in mind that it could have been prevented if we bothered to find the assholes' uncle, interrupt him from laying roadside mines, and take them into custody.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
ok, it works. nobody is arguing against that. now, for gods sake, provide reasons why it´s also moral.
fgalkin wrote:If a tragedy like Beslan could be avoided by picking up a few people and threatening to kill them, I'd do it. They hate us anyway, so its not like they'll hate us even more.
The problem being that threatening to kill them isn't enough. The threat has to be believable. The only way to achieve that is to actually kill them on several occasions. Around my part of the woods that is considered murder .
Also, you fal to understand the concept of a deterrent. If the terrorists know their families will die they will be less likely to do anything, thus removing the government's need to take the families in the first place.
The problems being that
a)as shown above, this doesn't work if you don't actually DO kill some of them (and if you agree with that you're quite simply vermin)
and
b)you basically admitted that the hostage takers have the RIGHT to take hostages. If the government has the right to take innocent people hostage to get what they want, why don't they? Don't give me 'they're the government so it's legal' crap.
This isn't idle speculation, either. This policy is the reason why there were no Soviet hostages.
So? I already admitted that it works. I'm waiting for a reason why innocent people should be allowed to be arrested (and killed) for crimes they didn't commit.
There is no need to kill them. Cutting of their ears and sending them to the terrorists should be enough (not that this is good by any stretch of the imagination).
So, you're not willing to kill one enemy to save hunderds of lives? I would not want you to be in charge anywhere near where I live.
I am not happy about the policy because I have a feeling its going to be used against dissidents more than against terrorists, but I have no problem with the idea itself.
fgalkin wrote:
There is no need to kill them. Cutting of their ears and sending them to the terrorists should be enough (not that this is good by any stretch of the imagination).
So, you're not willing to kill one enemy to save hunderds of lives? I would not want you to be in charge anywhere near where I live.
Ahh, I see now. So, if one day there was a knock on the door and the NYPD came into your apartment and told you there was a hostage crisis involving a relative of yours at the local elementary school and they needed to chop off your ears to intimidate them you would happily agree?
I am not happy about the policy because I have a feeling its going to be used against dissidents more than against terrorists, but I have no problem with the idea itself.
Considering you can't even quantify the difference between a dissident and a terrorist, this rings a bit hollow. Besides, what you really meant was:
Chechan dissidents = Terrorists
Other Russian dissidents = Dissidents
fgalkin wrote:No, the Patriot Act is "taking people who have nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever and imprisoning them, which has no effect on terror"
Which is EXACTLY what you are talking about doing here you dense motherfucker. What part of the law already having provisions for arresting terrorists don't you understand? What you are suggesting is making the assumption that they are ALL GUILTY. Do you see the problem with this logic? Aparently not.
Where did I say I'm assuming they're all guilty?
Oh, and enjoy the next beheading video when it comes out. I belive a Polish woman is the current hostage of note. Just keep in mind that it could have been prevented if we bothered to find the assholes' uncle, interrupt him from laying roadside mines, and take them into custody.
That's right because every beheader has an uncle that is a terrorist rather then a hardworking citizen that has always paid his taxes and goes to PTA meetings.
YES! You don't become a terrorist and expect to maintain close relations to your family. If someone is willing to tolerate a murderer of children in their midst, they are hardly model citizens, are they?
The new age idea of lumping everyone who lives in a certain area together and branding them as "terrorists" by mere geography smacks to me of contemporary racism. I'd really hoped we'd moved beyond this but aparently there are still morons like you that think everyone who lives in a country that is experiencing unrest is a terrorist and deserves to die.
Where did I say anything about assuming that everyone who lives in a certain area is assumed to be a terrorist?
fgalkin wrote:
There is no need to kill them. Cutting of their ears and sending them to the terrorists should be enough (not that this is good by any stretch of the imagination).
So, you're not willing to kill one enemy to save hunderds of lives? I would not want you to be in charge anywhere near where I live.
I am not happy about the policy because I have a feeling its going to be used against dissidents more than against terrorists, but I have no problem with the idea itself.
See, this is what all are trying to tell you here, why do you brand all the relatives of a terrorist as enemies?
Don't you think there might be some relatives that are innocent and not enemies of the state?
fgalkin wrote:
There is no need to kill them. Cutting of their ears and sending them to the terrorists should be enough (not that this is good by any stretch of the imagination).
So you're willing to mutilate innocents. Thanks for proving that you ARE vermin.
So, you're not willing to kill one enemy to save hunderds of lives? I would not want you to be in charge anywhere near where I live.
1. I'm the Batman. My refusal to kill enemies no matter what is a matter of public record.
2. We're not talking about killing enemies. We're talking about murdering innocents. Y'know, not everybody related to a terrorist is automatically one, too.
I am not happy about the policy because I have a feeling its going to be used against dissidents more than against terrorists, but I have no problem with the idea itself.
Then I humbly request you resign from the human race, because I know virii that have more morals than you do.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
fgalkin wrote:So, you're not willing to kill one enemy to save hunderds of lives? I would not want you to be in charge anywhere near where I live.
blatant strawman. nobody is talking about not killing the enemy. it´s about inocent poeple.
The people involved are hardly "innocent".They hate us just the same, they merely haven't done anything violent yet. They are still involved in fundraising, weapons smuggling, etc. They are still the enemy.
hey, hatfucker, you said that it´s ok to use them as hostages because they´re relatives of terrorists.
so either you think that they´re all guilty or you don´t value the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
fgalkin wrote:So, you're not willing to kill one enemy to save hunderds of lives? I would not want you to be in charge anywhere near where I live.
blatant strawman. nobody is talking about not killing the enemy. it´s about inocent poeple.
The people involved are hardly "innocent".They hate us just the same, they merely haven't done anything violent yet. They are still involved in fundraising, weapons smuggling, etc. They are still the enemy.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
So you apply collective guilt to them. Good work, because this shows your true colors.....
fgalkin wrote:
Where did I say I'm assuming they're all guilty?
Ahh, so you are okay with punishing the innocent. Gotcha.
YES! You don't become a terrorist and expect to maintain close relations to your family. If someone is willing to tolerate a murderer of children in their midst, they are hardly model citizens, are they?
If they knew, then perhaps. Unfortunately, ignorance of one's EXTENDED FAMILY is not a fucking crime. I see my uncles maybe once every two years, does this mean they should know and be responsible for everything I do?
Where did I say anything about assuming that everyone who lives in a certain area is assumed to be a terrorist?
Right here asswad:
Joseph Stalin Jr. wrote:
So, you're not willing to kill one enemy to save hunderds of lives? I would not want you to be in charge anywhere near where I live.
Ahh, so now they are all enemies despite the lack of due process? Looks to me like you are presuming guilt with ZERO evidence huh?
Tribun wrote:Why do I get the impression that guys like our fgalkin wish back ol' boy J. Stalin? His methods, even if toned down, seem to again become popular in Russia. Good o' S. also had thought, that collective guilt exists, olny in his case, he used the concept on whole ethnic groups. Today they want to do it only on a smaller scale.
Collective guilt? Are you on crack? I'm talking about family members who, in the case of Chechens, are involved in terror up to their ears themsleves.
And I resent your implication that I have anything but the utmost contempt for Stalin, after what he's done to my family.
fgalkin wrote:
The people involved are hardly "innocent".They hate us just the same, they merely haven't done anything violent yet. They are still involved in fundraising, weapons smuggling, etc. They are still the enemy.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
ok, one question:
do you really believe that the concept of "innodent until proven guilty" is less important than the concept of deterrent?
fgalkin wrote:
The people involved are hardly "innocent".They hate us just the same, they merely haven't done anything violent yet. They are still involved in fundraising, weapons smuggling, etc. They are still the enemy.
Then arrest them for that. If they are already breaking the law, there is no reason for a 'they're relatives so let's arrest them' law. If they aren't you're advocating mutilating (and eventually killing) people because of who they are related to. I happen to think that's wrong.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
fgalkin wrote:
The people involved are hardly "innocent".They hate us just the same, they merely haven't done anything violent yet. They are still involved in fundraising, weapons smuggling, etc. They are still the enemy.
But fgalkin, those are already considered illegal activities and should be prosecuted by existing laws, why would you need an extra law that doesn't differenciate between inocent relatives and guilty ones that cooperate with their terrorist relative?
Commence with the choppity chop. And Make it quite clear that you WILL
kill every single last relative of the terrorist themself if they carry out their
threats (re: Breslan), and bury them in pig fat, and have pigs shit on their
corpses before you bury the corpses in piles of pig manure.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
MKSheppard wrote:Commence with the choppity chop. And Make it quite clear that you WILL
kill every single last relative of the terrorist themself if they carry out their
threats (re: Breslan), and bury them in pig fat, and have pigs shit on their
corpses before you bury the corpses in piles of pig manure.
Man, MKsheppards posts are always so over the top I can't take them serious, I always have to laugh.
fgalkin wrote:
Where did I say I'm assuming they're all guilty?
Ahh, so you are okay with punishing the innocent. Gotcha.
Strawman. I said I am willing to punish the GUILTY.
YES! You don't become a terrorist and expect to maintain close relations to your family. If someone is willing to tolerate a murderer of children in their midst, they are hardly model citizens, are they?
If they knew, then perhaps. Unfortunately, ignorance of one's EXTENDED FAMILY is not a fucking crime. I see my uncles maybe once every two years, does this mean they should know and be responsible for everything I do?
If you don't keep in touch with your uncle, than holding you as a hostage would hardly have any weight with him, would it?
Where did I say anything about assuming that everyone who lives in a certain area is assumed to be a terrorist?
Right here asswad:
Joseph Stalin Jr. wrote:
So, you're not willing to kill one enemy to save hunderds of lives? I would not want you to be in charge anywhere near where I live.
Ahh, so now they are all enemies despite the lack of due process? Looks to me like you are presuming guilt with ZERO evidence huh?
Do you suffer from lack of reading comprehension? There's a metric ton of eveidence linking their families to their acitivyt. The terrorists at Beslan contacted the authorities THROUGH THEIR FAMILIES. Does that count as zero evidence?
fgalkin wrote:
The people involved are hardly "innocent".They hate us just the same, they merely haven't done anything violent yet. They are still involved in fundraising, weapons smuggling, etc. They are still the enemy.
But fgalkin, those are already considered illegal activities and should be prosecuted by existing laws, why would you need an extra law that doesn't differenciate between inocent relatives and guilty ones that cooperate with their terrorist relative?
Becuause under the current law you are allowed to deal with them without due process.
fgalkin wrote:
The people involved are hardly "innocent".They hate us just the same, they merely haven't done anything violent yet. They are still involved in fundraising, weapons smuggling, etc. They are still the enemy.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
ok, one question:
do you really believe that the concept of "innodent until proven guilty" is less important than the concept of deterrent?
THEY ARE proven guilty, you dipshit. I'm not saying we should pick up a random guy off the street and threaten to kill him here.
fgalkin wrote:
THEY ARE proven guilty, you dipshit. I'm not saying we should pick up a random guy off the street and threaten to kill him here.
Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
liar:
you were talking about relatives. period.
you weren´t talking about relatives "who are proven to be terrorists".
if you were talking about proven terrorists all the time why the hell did it take you two pages to say so? are you just flame baiting?
and it was already mentioned several times why your whole point is bunk if you´re talking about proven terrorists.
fgalkin wrote:
THEY ARE proven guilty, you dipshit.
If they are proven guilty then there is no need for an additional law allowing for them to be arrested just because they are related to a terrorist. They can be arrested already.
I'm not saying we should pick up a random guy off the street and threaten to kill him here.
No, you are saying we should pick up a guy and threaten to kill him merely because he's related to the terrorist.
Since you're going for deterrent, you'd actually want to kill the ones who's loss will most impact the terrorists. IOW, their kids.
Congratulations. You just advocated the slaughter of innocent children.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
I'm not saying we should pick up a random guy off the street and threaten to kill him here.
Shepp is.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.
Do you suffer from lack of reading comprehension? There's a metric ton of eveidence linking their families to their acitivyt. The terrorists at Beslan contacted the authorities THROUGH THEIR FAMILIES. Does that count as zero evidence?