Quote :

"What, you mean my position is "bullshit" like Obama's is bullshit? Obama: KSM will be convicted, executed"

And the president has been roundly criticized for saying something he shouldn't have. Big whoop. It will cause a bit of a stir in the courtroom, but so will torture issues, amongst other things. You think he's gonna say anything other than expressing confidence in their conviction? That's one of the jobs of the executive branch, to prosecute crimes, don't ya know. You're not bringing anything new to the discussion. You're rehashing the same points as if they're revelations of something profound.

Quote :

"So, they could have simply been given a military tribunal and promptly executed--just as Obama says they will be. "

You don't get it. The trial is meant to prove a point... that we trust our system of justice to deliver a verdict that is just, fair and equitable. We NEED to do it this way, so we can show the world that we're committed to justice. Your commissions scenario may have the word "justice" in it, but it's just for show, not for substance.

Quote :

"Except in my scenario, there is no opportunity for those fuckheads to violate us and the families of the dead yet again--and it would be significantly less expensive and risky."

So you're saying now that you don't trust the safeguards put in place after 9/11 to prevent more attacks? But you've said quite a lot that they've thwarted attacks, including one in Los Angeles. Why's it a problem all of a sudden?

Quote :

"[Edited on November 23, 2009 at 11:38 PM. Reason : Answer my list of questions, troll.]"

lol.

Quote :

"There's ample precedent in modern history for successful prosecutions of terrorists in federal courts, but you're hell-bent on ignoring it. Go do your own goddamn research."

11/23/2009 11:49:16 PM

I think hooksaw is right… the way to beat terrorists is to do things like terrorists would do.

11/23/2009 11:57:02 PM

Again though, were do we plan on scrounging up an impartial jury of peers from? I suppose we could do away with the jury trial and just have it decided by a judge, but then what have we saved over a tribunal? And for the record, I don't care where they're tried, as long as it's someplace where the death penalty is on the table, it would be a complete insult to find one of these guys guilty and then make the tax payers pay for their continued health and well being for the rest of their lives. And as NC just demonstrated, we can't guarantee that a "life" sentence really means "for life". Hell it doesn't even mean the 80 years the law said it was.

11/24/2009 12:08:02 AM

Quote :

"Again though, were do we plan on scrounging up an impartial jury of peers from?"

Why don't we leave that up the the judge and lawyers? There's a reason these people get paid to do what they do, ok? You could have asked the same question about the prosecutions of Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh, and they both got fair trials, didn't they?

11/24/2009 12:12:42 AM

Quote :

"Again though, were do we plan on scrounging up an impartial jury of peers from?"

Same place we scrounge up any jury? If you think we shouldn’t try people if we can’t find an “impartial jury of peers” then a good many of cases would never be tried. If you think that a person not having a “truly” impartial jury voids justice, then you’re going to have thousands and thousands of cases that need to be thrown out too.

This is such a lame thing to bring up (to put it mildly…) i’m surprised you even bothered.

11/24/2009 12:13:48 AM

Reid: 'I am at war with your country'
Friday, January 31, 2003

Quote :

"(CNN) – The following is a partial transcript of Thursday's court hearing in which Richard Reid was sentenced to life in prison for his confessed plan to try and blow up a jetliner with explosives he had hidden in his shoes."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/31/reid.transcript/

Jury spares 9/11 plotter Moussaoui
May 3, 2006

Quote :

"'America, you lost,' Moussaoui taunted, clapping his hands as he left the courtroom. 'I won.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/03/moussaoui.verdict/index.html

11/24/2009 12:15:32 AM

^ Those two articles prove nothing at all. They were found guilty. Is your point that the had to be put to death in order for you to be satisfied? The guilty ruling is the important part. Those people being put in prison for the rest of their lives denies terrorists a martyr.

11/24/2009 12:18:06 AM

^^wow, those guys really hurt America with those comments. How will we ever recover?

It’s almost like you have some type of female genitalia that is making you unduly irritable because sand has somehow gotten in.


[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 12:19 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 12:18:35 AM

^^^great. now we let the words of idiots and murderers faze us?

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .]

11/24/2009 12:18:43 AM

^ it makes sense though, doesn’t it, that hooksaw would take things that way?

He thinks half-assed snarky comments prove his great points, so why wouldn’t a terrorist that does the same thing be equally as damaging?

11/24/2009 12:20:57 AM

I think you buffoons realize, even though those terrorists planned/carried out attacks on the United States, they were not given the death penalty. Yeah, let's give KSM et al three hots and a cot and free medical care--for life. GG!

STFU.

11/24/2009 12:25:29 AM

Okay, we get it. You'd rather just kill him without a trial. Too bad that's not how justice works, champ.

11/24/2009 12:27:55 AM

^ How is a military tribunal not a trial? And how is it unjust?

And is there any chance that KSM et al will get off? Any chance they won't get the death penalty?

11/24/2009 12:30:05 AM

^

Quote :

"hacksaw: I'm not "afriad." We shouldn't be giving an international reality show to murdering enemy combatants--we should be murdering them."

You wanna revise that statement, then? You've gone between wanting to murder them to wanting to try them in a military commission. Make up your mind.

Quote :

"And is there any chance that KSM et al will get off? Any chance they won't get the death penalty?"

Okay, so admit that you're afraid of our federal judicial system, and get on with it. It'd be a shame if we didn't kill 'em all dead, right?

11/24/2009 12:34:01 AM

hooksaw, why do you think you know more than 32 generals and admirals?

Quote :

" We have watched with disappointment efforts to engender fear among the American people about the prospect of bringing suspected terrorists to the United States for trial. Our federal justice system has a proven track record of successfully prosecuting terrorists and incarcerating them safely in our prisons. Our courts have convicted 195 terrorists since 9/11. Meanwhile, there have been only three successful prosecutions of terrorists by military commissions over that same period; two of those found guilty were released in less than a year. Those convicted in our federal courts, including many al Qaeda terrorists, are serving long sentences in federal prisons. The highly respected American Correctional Association, the nation’s largest corrections organization, in a recently passed resolution assured the American public they “would be safe from harm and free from danger should any detainees be transferred to a facility or facilities within the United States.” Our prisons currently house more than 150 convicted terrorists and none has ever escaped. The American people can have confidence that our judicial and penal institutions are strong and that our military, law enforcement and corrections professionals are second to none. Signed, GENERAL JOSEPH HOAR, USMC (RET.) GENERAL CHARLES KRULAK, USMC (RET.) GENERAL DAVID M. MADDOX, USA (RET.) GENERAL MERRILL A. MCPEAK, USAF (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD E. ADAMS, USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT G. GARD JR., USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL LEE F. GUNN, USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAUDIA J. KENNEDY, USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL ALBERT H. KONETZNI JR., USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES OTSTOTT, USA (RET.) VICE ADMIRAL JACK SHANAHAN, USN (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL HARRY E. SOYSTER, USA (RET.) LIEUTENANT GENERAL PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL PAUL D. EATON, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL EUGENE FOX, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL JOHN FUGH, USA (RET.) REAR ADMIRAL DON GUTER, JAGC, USN (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL FRED E. HAYNES, USMC (RET.) REAR ADMIRAL JOHN D. HUTSON, JAGC, USN (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL MELVYN S. MONTANO, ANG (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM L. NASH, USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL WALTER L. STEWART, JR., USA (RET.) MAJOR GENERAL FRANK TERRELL, USAR, (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID M. BRAHMS, USMC (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES P. CULLEN, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL EVELYN P. FOOTE, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL LEIF HENDRICKSON, USMC (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID R. IRVINE, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD O’MEARA, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL MURRAY G. SAGSVEEN, USA (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL ANTHONY VERRENGIA, USAF (RET.) BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN N. XENAKIS, USA (RET.) "

why do you hate the military so much?

11/24/2009 12:34:25 AM

Quote :

"^^ How is a military tribunal not a trial? And how is it unjust? And is there any chance that KSM et al will get off? Any chance they won't get the death penalty?"

At least two terrorists, Moussaoui and Reid, have gotten off already

^ For Christ's sake, can you appeal to authority--and numbers--anymore? You must really think you have something there.

If I produce even more "generals and admirals" who agree with me, will you STFU? NO?! GASP!!!1

11/24/2009 12:42:19 AM

Quote :

"At least two terrorists, Moussaoui and Reid, have gotten off already"

Guilty verdicts = gotten off? Holy shit, where did you learn to debate?

11/24/2009 12:43:36 AM

^ Those sentences are not in compliance with Obama's death mandate.

11/24/2009 12:44:35 AM

^ Those sentences were handed down before Obama was in office. Your point fails. Again.

11/24/2009 12:46:51 AM

^ Yes, you have a firm grasp of the obvious--I already posted the dates above and happen to remember the verdicts well. So you're saying that the death penalty is more likely under a Democrat?

Care to prove this?

11/24/2009 12:50:55 AM

Is the death penalty the ONLY outcome? Why are you so concerned about stacking the deck? Do you not want a fair outcome? Or only one where he's dead? I assume you already know all of the relevant facts that haven't been presented in a courtroom yet.

11/24/2009 12:57:58 AM

Quote :

"Is the death penalty the ONLY outcome?"

It's the only appropriate outcome. And it should've already happened--immediately after a military tribunal.

Quote :

"Why are you so concerned about stacking the deck?"

The terrorists in question admitted their terrorist acts--before they decided to plead not guilty in order to express themselves about evil Bush and the Great Satan America.

Quote :

"Do you not want a fair outcome?"

Define "fair." What's fair to the nearly 3,000 victims of 9-11 who burned alive, jumped to their deaths, or were crushed under tons of rubble--what's fair to them, douche?

Quote :

"I assume you already know all of the relevant facts that haven't been presented in a courtroom yet."

No, but Obama has all of the relevant intel. . .

Obama: KSM will be convicted, executed

http://tinyurl.com/ygc7hhm

PS: STFU.

11/24/2009 1:06:53 AM

Quote :

"can you appeal to authority--and numbers--anymore?"

can you appeal to your own personal emotions any less?

can you appeal to any authority? can you produce an any quantifiable, empirical evidence? anything at all? bueller? bueller?

Quote :

"You must really think you have something there."

yeah, i think this is something:

Our courts have convicted 195 terrorists since 9/11. Meanwhile, there have been only three successful prosecutions of terrorists by military commissions over that same period; two of those found guilty were released in less than a year. Those convicted in our federal courts, including many al Qaeda terrorists, are serving long sentences in federal prisons ... [which] currently house more than 150 convicted terrorists and none has ever escaped.

something that you obviously have no argument against.

Quote :

"If I produce even more "generals and admirals" who agree with me, will you STFU?"

yes, i will. although i'm certain you can't. so you will, as usual, call me some more names, roll some more eyeballs, and hope i go away so you can continue your subjective, fear-based rant.

11/24/2009 1:12:56 AM

^ Did you even think about the bullshit you just posted? Setting aside your appeal to authority, out of all the retired "admirals and generals" in existence today you could list only 32 that support your position?

LOL! STFU!

And the terrorists will be held by "jailers" (your word) that you routinely mock. AHAAAHAAA!!!1

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 1:37 AM. Reason : PS: ]

11/24/2009 1:19:52 AM

anyhow, there's a huge difference between "appealing to authority", and using expert testimony as evidence.

32 staff officers including military judges have endorsed the position of trying them in federal court as opposed to military tribunals, and presented their signatures to Congress.

0 (zero) have endorsed the position of trying them in tribunals.

Keep avoiding, though. it's fun to watch your contortions.



and for the record:

Quote :

"So you're saying that the death penalty is more likely under a Democrat?"

yes it is.

Quote :

"Care to prove this?"

Okay.

there have been 37 federal death penalty executions from 1927 to present.

13 executed by Republicans. 24 executed by Democrats. Dems beat Reps, 2-to-1.

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-executions-1927-2003

I know you're still struggling with your liberal studies degree after 6 years, so I'll put it in picture format for you










[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 2:27 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 2:18:49 AM

^ I wouldn't make fun of anyone's degree if I were you--why don't you go study the branches of government some more and get back to us. What have you got against public administration anyway? I mean, you love government so goddamned much, right?

Anyway, this from the site you so proudly listed above:

Quote :

"**Haupt, Herbert, Electrocution, White, Sabotage, 22, 08/08/42, DC **Heinck, Heinrich, Electrocution, White, Sabotage, Unk, 08/08/42, DC **Keiling, Edward, Electrocution, White, Sabotage, Unk, 08/08/42, DC **Neubauer, Herman, Electrocution, White, Sabotage, Unk, 08/08/42, DC **Quirin, Richard, Electrocution, White, Sabotage, Unk, 08/08/42, DC"

Quote :

"** Tried by a military commission appointed by President Roosevelt on July 8, 1942."

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-executions-1927-2003

You may be correct about the federal death penalty--but it's hardly accurate to compare Democrats of the '20s, '30s, and '40s with today's ACLU-type bleeding hearts. And take a poll here and let's see how many TSB moonbats will go on record in support of the death penalty.

And it's only been since Clinton that the Democrat presidential candidates and officeholders began to support the death penalty again:

Democrats shift on death penalty
December 7, 2003

Quote :

"Soft on crime. Through the 1970s and '80s, Republicans flogged their Democratic opponents with those three words. George S. McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter F. Mondale, and Michael S. Dukakis all opposed the death penalty."

Quote :

"The three Democrats who steadfastly oppose the death penalty are all lower-tier candidates in the polls -- Dennis J. Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, and the Rev. Al Sharpton. All three have said they would seek to abolish capital punishment."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/12/07/democrats_shift_on_death_penalty/

In any event, those guilty murdering fucks should have been frog-hopped before a military tribunal well before now and promptly shot. It would have been better for everyone for a number of reasons and I don't give a fuck what any Rasputin-looking Left Coast fuckhead has to say about it.

11/24/2009 3:10:19 AM

Quote :

"Keep avoiding, though. it's fun to watch your contortions. "

11/24/2009 3:29:02 AM

Hooksaw: A modern Jack Ruby wannabe? Or just another turd compensating with overboard internet bravado?

------

Also, regarding the "Obama mandate":

Quote :

"“I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” the president told NBC's Chuck Todd. Asked if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama insisted that he wasn’t prejudging the outcome. “What I said was, people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury,” Obama said. “What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism.”"

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 5:15 AM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 5:06:41 AM

New York rally planned to protest 9/11 trial
Tue Nov 24, 2009

Quote :

"NEW YORK, Nov 24 (Reuters) - A group against bringing the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks to trial in a U.S. civilian court will hold a rally in New York demanding Washington reconsider its decision, the group said on Tuesday. The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition said it will hold an rally on Dec. 5 at a park adjacent to the Manhattan federal courthouse where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried just blocks from Ground Zero."

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2431289820091124

11/25/2009 4:11:39 AM

It's pretty funny that hooksaw is using the actions of Roosevelt to argue that something is Constitutional.

I'd have Zombie FDR's babies (Schwarzenegger in Junior style-- no coitus), and even I wouldn't make such a silly argument. FDR was not exactly the gold standard for the type of Constitutional interpretation hooksaw has claimed in the past to adhere to. I assume you'd be ok with Obama nominating a couple extra judges to the Supreme Court?

Homework: find me where it it mentions military tribunals in Article III of the Constitution. I've not yet found the "unless you totally know they did it" clause, yet.




[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 7:34 AM. Reason : ]

11/25/2009 7:32:57 AM

^^ Maybe they can get Westboro Baptist Church to protest with 'em. Give it an extra special dash of hate.

11/25/2009 9:34:18 AM

^^ What a fucking buffoon. The Constitution doesn't explicitly list that I can go to dinner every evening--clearly, this activity must be unconstitutional! What a dumbass.

The question you should be asking is why did U.S. Attorney General Epic Failder botch the following questions so badly?

Quote :

"Senator Lindsey GRAHAM (R-S.C.): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court? U.S. Attorney General Eric HOLDER (his brow starting to glisten): [*Crickets*] GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no."

Quote :

"If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice? HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely."

Quote :

"GRAHAM: Well, let me ask you this. Okay, let me ask you this. Let's say we capture him tomorrow. When does custodial interrogation begin in his case? If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture? HOLDER: Again I'm not--that all depends. I mean, the notion that we-- GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent. The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war. What would you tell the military commander who captured him? Would you tell him, 'You must read him his rights and give him a lawyer'? And if you didn't tell him that, would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

Graham completely owned Holder. Holder looked like a bumbling, stuttering stooge.



Again I'm not--that all depends. I mean, the notion that we--

--Eric Holder aka Nicholas Fehn

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

11/25/2009 4:47:23 PM

Eric Holder "botching" an interchange with a US senator does not mean that KSM shouldn't be tried in a federal district court. Unfortunately we won't know what Holder meant to say there because Graham interupted him in order to pontificate on the percieved "absolutes" of the modern American legal system.

11/25/2009 5:10:31 PM

^^ Heeeeeeeeey chester, if you're so clever about it being unconstitutional, then explain why the Bush administration did it with Moussaui? Oh yeah, you claimed earlier that he "got off" with only life imprisonment, which doesn't meet your personal criteria for "justice served." Was it constitutional when the Bush administration reversed course and ran his case through federal court? Or are you suggesting that they did that wrong, too?

Oh, and you never answered my question earlier. Put it on record, so we can make fun of you some more.

Quote :

"You wanna revise that statement, then? You've gone between wanting to murder them to wanting to try them in a military commission. Make up your mind."

11/25/2009 11:33:48 PM

Lindsey Graham has spoken and it is so!

[Edited on November 26, 2009 at 6:37 AM. Reason : ]

11/26/2009 6:25:48 AM

My concern is that there will be 1 jurist you think like many of you do - that we need to show the world that America is changing; that we're willing to play along, and that this is no longer the bullish Bush administration.

This i jurist, and it only takes 1, is gonna give some bs reason to declare reasonable doubt.

11/26/2009 10:22:30 AM

I'm curious what you think other people think.


Some of "you people"--you know, those who think like many of you do--seem to believe the government isn't really trying to pursue a conviction.

11/26/2009 10:34:01 AM

Lindsey Graham is wrong. For one, he's made the mistake of saying that we're "at war" with the terrorists. Well, we're not. You have war between governments and militaries, not groups of people. So, we're not criminalizing the war, because it isn't a war...we're treating terrorist acts as a crime, as we should.

His other point is that if we read Bin Laden his Miranda warning, we would be "less safe." We wouldn't be less safe. We happen to be using the military to track down these individuals, and they aren't law enforcement agents. I would see no problem reading a captured terrorist their rights, though. Unless the idea is that they have no rights because they're terrorists, which I happen to know that many people believe. Just because someone has allegedly done something really bad doesn't mean they don't get the basic rights afforded to any criminal tried in the United States.

Eric Holder did look like kind of a fool. I could have done a better job at that hearing.

11/26/2009 1:26:06 PM

I'm still confused how holder didn't have an answer preped for that question.

11/26/2009 1:33:32 PM

Quote :

" Yeah, let's give KSM et al three hots and a cot and free medical care--for life. GG!"

Perfect. I can honestly think of no better way to show Al Qaeda that we're better than they are.

-We won't be killing them summarily, we'll be giving them as close to a fair trial is humanly possible

-If they are found guilty (by no means a foregone conclusions, this is America after all and the
accused are innocent until proven guilty by a jury) and not sentenced to death then they'll see
how we treat prisoners. We treat them well, we don't just execute whoever the hell we want
with no reason. We actually treat our prisoners like human beings, regardless of what hideous
crime they might have committed.

-The Arab world gets to see these things, and they get to choose between the people who kill
indiscriminately or those who only kill after every other option has been exhausted. Frankly we
haven't made too good of a showing of ourselves in these wars. We've been behaving as badly
as the terrorists we condemn, and it's time for that to change. You can complain about it all you
want, you can let your fear overtake your reason, you can claim all you want that some people
don't deserve the rights and protections under law that we're about to give them, but those
rights and protections are the only things that make America really worth fighting for, so you
really just need to get over it.

11/26/2009 2:42:15 PM

I'm still massively confused why in the hell Obama chose NYC as the venue. I mean, that's a waste of a day already, given that the first fucking motion will be "uhh, we need a change of venue." What. The. Hell.

btw, part of me would like to say to these people "hey, you think everything about America sux, right? Ok, that must mean fair trials suck, too. So, here's a bullet to the head, bastard." I would LOVE to say that to these jerks. Of course, the only problem is that you have to prove that they've effectively said they think everything about America sux... Damnit! But, yeah, it drives me crazy that these guys can get on video and say "Death to America!" and say everything about her is terrible, but the moment they get scooped up, it's "give me a lawyer! where are my rights?"

[Edited on November 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/26/2009 5:21:30 PM

My understanding is that NYC was chosen for their anti-terrorism unit (one of the best in the country, if not the world) and it's massive warehouses of evidence.

Even if there's a change of venue, they'll probably still be able to use the NYC unit's resources.

[Edited on November 26, 2009 at 5:30 PM. Reason : /]

11/26/2009 5:30:03 PM

where is a Jack Ruby when we need him?

Just sentence this asshole after a speedy closed trial and promptly euthanize this type of motherfucker and quit making a spectacle of it by giving them a circus.

These aren't even humans that we are talking about. These are soul-less animals that deserve to perish alone and quietly.

11/26/2009 8:17:44 PM

the irony of Jack Ruby is that he very likely killed the wrong guy.

11/27/2009 12:32:06 AM

Quote :

"These aren't even humans that we are talking about. These are soul-less animals that deserve to perish alone and quietly."

If you dehumanize them, you are no better than they are.

11/27/2009 12:51:08 AM

Quote :

"These aren't even humans that we are talking about. These are soul-less animals that deserve to perish alone and quietly."

YeeeeeaaaaahhhhhhHH!!!! Kill 'em all!!!!!!! Our God is better than Allah!!!!


you see what I did there?

11/27/2009 10:27:26 PM

Lets have a contest where one of us uses words and the other uses a bomb, and we'll see who survives

Morals and values are great when you're dealing with other people with morals and values. But they're pretty worthless when you're dealing with people who would blow themselves up for virgins in heaven

11/27/2009 11:45:25 PM

well, i'll be damned... i just read a post by destroyer and agreed with every word he wrote. wtf is going on here, soap box??

and burro i understand what you're saying. but you forget an important issue in militant islam. to imprison these militants for life is a fate worse than death. if they actually believe what they preach, then it's better for them to be executed by the enemy, because then they become martyrs and gain additional benefits in heaven. even if they dont believe the heaven stuff, they are celebrated as martyrs.

but if they die a slow ignominious death from old age rotting in a prison, they get forgotten; there's no glory in quietly serving out a life sentence in solitary confinement.




[Edited on November 28, 2009 at 1:52 AM. Reason : ]

11/28/2009 1:51:59 AM

destroyer is a reasonable guy, he just doesn’t have faith in humanity

11/28/2009 2:36:14 AM

Quote :

"but you forget an important issue in militant islam. to imprison these militants for life is a fate worse than death. if they actually believe what they preach, then it's better for them to be executed by the enemy, because then they become martyrs and gain additional benefits in heaven. even if they dont believe the heaven stuff, they are celebrated as martyrs. but if they die a slow ignominious death from old age rotting in a prison, they get forgotten; there's no glory in quietly serving out a life sentence in solitary confinement."

I'm not entirely sure how that is relevant to what I posted.

11/28/2009 6:40:37 AM