Obama argues assassination program is "state secret"

[revelarts]

I know a few (many?) of you here think that terrorist are so threaten that any action is justified to stop them. I just hope you think again about the legacy of your leaving your children by supporting a gov't that will kill enemies "of the people" at will in secret without a trail.
You are giving your family and friends a U.S. Presidency with 24/7/365 "surgical" but unlimited police powers that can be turned in any direction. Without check.

Do you feel safer?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/25/AR2010092500560.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy


"Obama argues his assassination program is a "state secret
By Glenn Greenwald - Salon

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality."...."

[Pagan]

I'm still waiting for the Obama supporters to tell me what they think of Obama embracing and expanding the Bush Doctrine.

Where are you?????????????????????????????????/

[hjmick]

I'm still waiting for the Obama supporters to tell me what they think of Obama embracing and expanding the Bush Doctrine.

Where are you?????????????????????????????????/

Don't hold your breath...

[Pagan]

Don't hold your breath...

Oh I'm not, for I realize they're nothing more than Party Hacks who can only Parrot what the Party tells them.

[Gaffer]

I know a few (many?) of you here think that terrorist are so threaten that any action is justified to stop them. I just hope you think again about the legacy of your leaving your children by supporting a gov't that will kill enemies "of the people" at will in secret without a trail.
You are giving your family and friends a U.S. Presidency with 24/7/365 "surgical" but unlimited police powers that can be turned in any direction. Without check.

Do you feel safer?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/25/AR2010092500560.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/barack_obama/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/09/25/secrecy


"Obama argues his assassination program is a "state secret
By Glenn Greenwald - Salon

At this point, I didn't believe it was possible, but the Obama administration has just reached an all-new low in its abysmal civil liberties record. In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality. But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality."...."

He's not targeted for assassination. He's targeted simply as a al queda member, like all al queda are targeted. Makes no difference if he has American citizenship or not. He's on the side of the enemy, that makes him a target. bin laden is a target too, so what's the problem?

[revelarts]

Gaffer if you can't see the problem yet, I'm not sure I can splain it to ya.

[Kathianne]

Gaffer if you can't see the problem I'm not sure I can tell ya.

It seems you do not understand how protections of Constitution work. If he comes home, he will not be targeted. Instead he is working against our people, both at home and abroad. He's a terrorist and those who are saying that Obama so far is following Bush doctrine? This proves it.

[revelarts]

It seems you do not understand how protections of Constitution work. If he comes home, he will not be targeted. Instead he is working against our people, both at home and abroad. He's a terrorist and those who are saying that Obama so far is following Bush doctrine? This proves it.

what do you mean"comes home"?

[Kathianne]

what do you mean"comes home"?

He returns to the state and he will be tried.

[revelarts]

He returns to the state and he will be tried.

Frankly Kathianne I'm not sure we've got the right to kill potential enemies/suspects,"foreign or domestic". Can you show me that in the constitution Kathianne? And the rights of trail for citizens extend beyond our shores. If not why does military law apply to our soldiers. they are not on U.S. soil many times when they are suspect of a crime. Even a treasonous soldier "on the battlefield" is entitled to a trial. location is not a factor.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6_7W0U_BuVU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6_7W0U_BuVU?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5qzs-57av0s?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5qzs-57av0s?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Kathianne]

Soldiers, yes. Terrorists, no. As for trials abroad, good luck with our constitution. Ask anyone busted in Mexico.

[Gaffer]

Gaffer if you can't see the problem I'm not sure I can tell ya.

So far I'm not seeing assassination teams running around the US, tho I wouldn't put that past the dark lord. But an arab American al queda member in yemen is a legitimate military target. To say he is somehow immune to target status because he's an American is silly.

If you think assassination teams are something new you better think again. They have been around since the CIA's inception back when it was the OSS. Their targets are not high profile people but usually foreign agents. The russians have these teams too and putin uses them consistently to suppress decent. Among putins admirers are Ron Paul and Pat Buchanann.

[revelarts]

Soldiers, yes. Terrorists, no. As for trials abroad, good luck with our constitution. Ask anyone busted in Mexico.

You mean when the CIA Bust you in Mexico?

That's what I'm talking about .
when the U.S. gov't is Busting people in foreign countries Kathianne.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gKLNjhu0GmI?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gKLNjhu0GmI?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[avatar4321]

So who do you think the President is actually targeting?

[red states rule]

I have no problem with the govenemnt targeting terrorists. Before WWII there was an officer in the British military who came up with a plan to kill Hitler

He asked for permission to carry it out (he saw what was coming) and was told no

Bad call that cost the lives of 50 million people

[revelarts]

So far he's announced that he's targeting that Awaliki Guy.
An American Citizen. the Uni bomber an American, was captured and got a trial, Tim McVey was captured and got a trial. Charles Manson was caught and got a trial. This guy hasn't done anything close to any of those 3 as far as we know. But he's on an assignation hit list. For, as far as i can tell, having bad ideas and having the wrong friends. Are friends of the Hurrtee group next, Are Tea Partiers, are anti war activist? There's no LEGAL reason why not if this Bush/Obama action stands. ZERO. This is a formal legal precedence for overt state executions Avatar. It doesn't matter whose on the hit list, the activity, the idea is unconstitutional. We the people never gave the President the authority to secretly kill citizens based on secret suspicions. It's not there. It's despotic authority. No matter who's in charge, I'm more afraid of that than any terrorist.

[revelarts]

So Gaffer, Red State, Kathianne,
Without any oversight or the ability to review or question them American Presidents Have the right to
wire tap,
Sneak and peak,
kidnap,
torture,
disembowel,
imprison and or
Kill
any suspected "terrorist" (citizen or none citizen)
in secret
anywhere in the world
at any time.

And that squares with your understanding of the constitution?

[Mr. P]

Your pacifist nature is cute, Vert. Unfortunately, it puts us in danger of losing more liberty and freedom than you apparently comprehend, not to mention life itself.

[Pagan]

So far he's announced that he's targeting that Awaliki Guy.
An American Citizen. the Uni bomber an American, was captured and got a trial, Tim McVey was captured and got a trial. Charles Manson was caught and got a trial. This guy hasn't done anything close to any of those 3 as far as we know. But he's on an assignation hit list. For, as far as i can tell, having bad ideas and having the wrong friends. Are friends of the Hurrtee group next, Are Tea Partiers, are anti war activist? There's no LEGAL reason why not if this Bush/Obama action stands. ZERO. This is a formal legal precedence for overt state executions Avatar. It doesn't matter whose on the hit list, the activity, the idea is unconstitutional. We the people never gave the President the authority to secretly kill citizens based on secret suspicions. It's not there. It's despotic authority. No matter who's in charge, I'm more afraid of that than any terrorist.

Obama is just embracing and expanding the Bush Doctrine.

I'm still waiting for the Obama supporters who screamed IMPEACH Bush/Cheney !!!!!! WTF are you ????????

Oh yea, just like the NeoCon's who screamed about Clinton, your boys in office now so it's OK.

Fucking Party Hacks make me hurl! http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/barf.gif

[DragonStryk72]

Your pacifist nature is cute, Vert. Unfortunately, it puts us in danger of losing more liberty and freedom than you apparently comprehend, not to mention life itself.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Are we so weak against these terrorists that there is no other way? We weren't that weak against the Nazis, the Japanese, the Axis Powers, hell, we weren't even that weak against each other in the Civil War, but you believe we are so weak now, that we absolutely must throw out the ideals we were built on to go after an enemy that is less capable of destroying us than the state of Hawai'i?

This is always my issue with these things, that somehow we just have to do it. To that sentiment of weakness I say "Fuck you all." We are far stronger than these pissants, and I see no reason to throw out honor, liberty and dignity to fight them. We don't need these bullshit tactics, we can win legitimately, so why else, other than believe that we are truly weak could there be?

The wholesale take over of Iraq took us what, two weeks? Yeah, then the insurgency began, but we actually owned Iraq two weeks after we decided we were going to go for it.

Yes, we should hunt down Al Qaeda, but not by making ourselves like them. Let's really show them that our way better, and beat them clean.

[Gaffer]

So far he's announced that he's targeting that Awaliki Guy.
An American Citizen. the Uni bomber an American, was captured and got a trial, Tim McVey was captured and got a trial. Charles Manson was caught and got a trial. This guy hasn't done anything close to any of those 3 as far as we know. But he's on an assignation hit list. For, as far as i can tell, having bad ideas and having the wrong friends. Are friends of the Hurrtee group next, Are Tea Partiers, are anti war activist? There's no LEGAL reason why not if this Bush/Obama action stands. ZERO. This is a formal legal precedence for overt state executions Avatar. It doesn't matter whose on the hit list, the activity, the idea is unconstitutional. We the people never gave the President the authority to secretly kill citizens based on secret suspicions. It's not there. It's despotic authority. No matter who's in charge, I'm more afraid of that than any terrorist.

This Awaliki guy was involved with a number of al queda types and was their inspiration. People like the underwear bomber and the Houston shooter. I guess you would put him on a par with Charles Manson. He doesn't pull the trigger, just inspires others to do it. He's now in yemen inspiring and leading other al queda types. He's a major threat to all Americans including you. He's not likely to turn himself in or be picked up by a cop on the street. He's surrounded by like minded fighters so you can't just walk in and arrest him. Therefore you target him. And as I said before, just cause he has American citizenship doesn't make him immune to being targeted.

Things like that are state secrets because of people like you who would be all incensed over the idea. It's used as a political tool to make administrations look bad.

Being nice and tolerant and understanding to evil people is just, in their minds, showing weakness. They will use that against you at every opportunity.

[Gaffer]

So Gaffer, Red State, Kathianne,
Without any oversight or the ability to review or question them American Presidents Have the right to
wire tap,
Sneak and peak,
kidnap,
torture,
disembowel,
imprison and or
Kill
any suspected "terrorist" (citizen or none citizen)
in secret
anywhere in the world
at any time.

And that squares with your understanding of the constitution?

No one said anything about not having any oversight. And most of what you listed has never been done, except in a Tom Clancy novel.

Your a reactive kind of guy. You only want to take action after the fact. Pick up the pieces and try to find the perp, then treat him nice after you catch him.

I'm a proactive guy. I want to catch him before he hurts anyone. And I want him punished to the max and made an example of so others don't try to follow him.

[revelarts]

No one said anything about not having any oversight.
So who has oversight? and can tell the president stop.
He's telling the courts that its top secret they can't know. so who?


And most of what you listed has never been done, except in a Tom Clancy novel.
If none of it being done then there's no need for the secrecy and those in gitmo can go free, the soldiers in jail for torture too etc..
But the thing is, all except for 1 has been done or there's standing open orders to do them.

Your way is unconstitutional.
My way you like to minimize.

for example
the underpants bomber. I think this guy should have been arrested long before he got on the plane. His father warned the state dept., he had no passport. Anyone with those 2 strikes (and there was more) should have been searched and easily jailed for possession and intent without having to circumvent the constitution. 911 as well, there was enough evidence to stop it without circumventing the constitution. And now we've killed 100s of thousands of iraqs-afghans-Muslims -over there- and it seems that none of the hard core war promoters feel any safer. But still want the gov't to search harder, break more laws , to H-LL with rights. more searches, torture, killing blood until there's no threat. That day will never come. but all our right can disappear and the gov't still couldn't garrentee your safety NO ONE CAN.

It seems like you want to kill people who talk about hurting Americans. That's just wrong. there are men that threaten people every day here in the U.S.. Those threatened don't have the right to kill them because of threat, or if they buy a gun. But if they are on your property - or 30 ft away after the restraining order... BANG. a Shotgun might not kill em , that's being nice IMO.

[Gaffer]

So who has oversight? and can tell the president stop.
He's telling the courts that its top secret they can't know. so who?


If none of it being done then there's no need for the secrecy and those in gitmo can go free, the soldiers in jail for torture too etc..
But the thing is, all except for 1 has been done or there's standing open orders to do them.

Your way is unconstitutional.
My way you like to minimize.

for example
the underpants bomber. I think this guy should have been arrested long before he got on the plane. His father warned the state dept., he had no passport. Anyone with those 2 strikes (and there was more) should have been searched and easily jailed for possession and intent without having to circumvent the constitution. 911 as well, there was enough evidence to stop it without circumventing the constitution. And now we've killed 100s of thousands of iraqs-afghans-Muslims -over there- and it seems that none of the hard core war promoters feel any safer. But still want the gov't to search harder, break more laws , to H-LL with rights. more searches, torture, killing blood until there's no threat. That day will never come. but all our right can disappear and the gov't still couldn't garrentee your safety NO ONE CAN.

It seems like you want to kill people who talk about hurting Americans. That's just wrong. there are men that threaten people every day here in the U.S.. Those threatened don't have the right to kill them because of threat, or if they buy a gun. But if they are on your property - or 30 ft away after the restraining order... BANG. a Shotgun might not kill em , that's being nice IMO.

Oversight of the president has to be done by congress. The supreme's are only involved in Constitutional issues. And there needs to be oversight of congress. That should be done by the media. We all know how well that would work.

If its so secret then how would anyone know what's being done. Is the stuff being leaked? by who? for what purpose? How accurate is the source?

Afghanistan was a reactionary operation. They knew where the perps were and went after them. Iraq was a proactive operation to bring down a potential real threat.

The underwear bomber should have been caught way before hand. But they weren't being proactive. They blew off the father and all the warnings. Someone was being politically correct. Their actions are much as you would have acted.

If someones making threats then you should want to know what his intentions are. You might want to watch him, have someone else watch him and maybe monitor who he talks to and what he says. If he really wants to harm you a restraining order, which is a piece of paper, will not keep him away.

You fire your shotgun at a long range and you won't affect him. He'll come back. He'll continue to come back until he achieves what he intends to do. Or you can wait until he gets to close range and end it all with one shot. Never to be bothered again.

Being proactive is not unconstitutional and the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[abso]

So Gaffer, Red State, Kathianne,
Without any oversight or the ability to review or question them American Presidents Have the right to
wire tap,
Sneak and peak,
kidnap,
torture,
disembowel,
imprison and or
Kill
any suspected "terrorist" (citizen or none citizen)
in secret
anywhere in the world
at any time.

And that squares with your understanding of the constitution?

whats new in that ???, it always have been like this, the only thing new, is that they are doing it in public this time, makes no difference, if you want to prevent them from doing it, they will still do it, but with no publicity.

[revelarts]

whats new in that ???, it always have been like this, the only thing new, is that they are doing it in public this time, makes no difference, if you want to prevent them from doing it, they will still do it, but with no publicity.

You know there's some truth to that. But it's always been illegal. and Maybe just maybe the U.S. Public will see that it's wrong and really demand a stop to it. Or at least start moving in that direction. instead of Legalizing it and promoting it as the only way really to get things done.

[abso]

You know there's some truth to that. But it's always been illegal. and Maybe just maybe the U.S. Public will see that it's wrong and really demand a stop to it. Or at least start moving in that direction. instead of Legalizing it and promoting it as the only way really to get things done.

i agree, for those things to be done illegaly is completely different when they become legal, for assasination to become legal with no charge or trial, then the adminstration will gain the power to kill people as they wish, even if they have no relation with terrorists at all.

As Abraham Lincoln said:
Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

so the same principle applies here, if you allow your president to kill a man because he think that its necessary to protect the nation, then you will allow him to kill at pleasure, nothing will stop him from killing anyone then saying that he was a threat, and americans will never know if he is right or wrong, cause all the evidence are secret.

[Pagan]

Just shows how absolutely how far we've digressed as a Nation and a Society when there is actually a debate on if -



So Gaffer, Red State, Kathianne,
Without any oversight or the ability to review or question them American Presidents Have the right to
wire tap,
Sneak and peak,
kidnap,
torture,
disembowel,
imprison and or
Kill
any suspected "terrorist" (citizen or none citizen)
in secret
anywhere in the world
at any time.

And that squares with your understanding of the constitution?


is legal.

Fucking pathetic.

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

[abso]

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.

~Ronald Reagan

[revelarts]

Just shows how absolutely how far we've digressed as a Nation and a Society when there is actually a debate on if -

So...
Without any oversight or the ability to review or question them American Presidents Have the right to
wire tap,
Sneak and peak,
kidnap,
torture,
disembowel,
imprison and or
Kill
any suspected "terrorist" (citizen or none citizen)
in secret
anywhere in the world
at any time.

And that squares with your understanding of the constitution?

is legal.

Fucking pathetic.

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended,
Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."


It is pathetic.
the thing that bothers me most is that so many of my friends on the right who i use to think I could count on to be defenders of the constitution are in such a state that they are willing to chuck what the flag stands for. Many at the Glen Beck honor rally and the tea party rallies wear tee shirts with the constitution on it. But figit, stretch, evade, quibble over and deny the plane meaning of the
4th -Search and seizure.-
5th -Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination-
6th -Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel-
8th -Cruel and unusual punishment.

Just as bad as a liberal does on the 2nd amendment.
And both liberals and Conservatives do it in the name of safety.
"the guns are going to kill our children, the amendment was never meant for people to have assault rifles ...or hand guns..."

"the terrorist are going to kill our children, the amendments were not meant to be a suicide pact..."

And frankly more Americans have been killed by guns than terrorist every year. even in 2001 there where over 8000 gun murders.
and in the worse year for U.S. terrorist victims its barley a quarter of that number.
Whose got a stronger case on the pragmatic -safety 1st- do u want them to kill us- keep our children safe- scale?


the only amendments you can count on Conservatives for now a days seems to be the
9th -Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
the 10th - Powers reserved to the States and people.
the 2nd
And most of the
1st -Freedom of Religion, Speech, the Press, Assembly and redress the gov't.

It's a D-M Shame. that the ACLU will stand by more of the bill of rights than a lot of conservatives who would rather stick by the party and be frightened into an eternal warm war with pack of roaches.

You don't burn down you own house to kill roaches.

[abso]

And frankly more Americans have been killed by guns than terrorist every year. even in 2001 there where over 8000 gun murders.
and in the worse year for U.S. terrorist victims its barley a quarter of that number.

................................

[jimnyc]

................................

Great response!

But that's because the USA won't lie down to these filthy muslim terrorists. Compare that 8,000 killed by guns to terrorism in any given year throughout the world. I'd say your numbers will change a bit.

And BTW, regardless of how many per year are killed by guns in America, it doesn't make even a single death by a terrorist any less disgusting. I'm willing to bet a decent amount of gun deaths are from legal owners protecting themselves. There's NEVER a good reason to kill via terrorism.

[abso]

Great response!

But that's because the USA won't lie down to these filthy muslim terrorists. Compare that 8,000 killed by guns to terrorism in any given year throughout the world. I'd say your numbers will change a bit.

And BTW, regardless of how many per year are killed by guns in America, it doesn't make even a single death by a terrorist any less disgusting. I'm willing to bet a decent amount of gun deaths are from legal owners protecting themselves. There's NEVER a good reason to kill via terrorism.

true, there is never a good reason for terrorism.

but when you spend your money to fight something, then you fight the thing that harm you the most, and apparently, over than 500,000 americans dies every year from different diseases, so spending more money on wars than you spend on health care, is pretty stupid.

--------------------------------------------------------
1865-1877: Over 3000 Freedmen and their Republican Party allies were killed by a combination of the Ku Klux Klan and well-organized campaigns of violence by local whites in a campaign of terrorist violence which overthrew the reconstructionist governments in the American South and re-established segregation.

Sterling Hall bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing)
Oklahoma City bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing)


those acts of terrorism was not done by Islamic radicals, actually Oklahoma city bombing was the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11, 2001 attacks.

and even with the Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 and Ku Klux Klan, all the deaths from terrorism on US soil never exceeded 10000 deaths, and even 10000 is overestimation.

and Islamic radicals are only responsible for less than 4000 deaths in all the american history.

While in year 2000 death reasons in USA:
tobacco (435,000)
Alcohol (85,000)
motor vehicle accidents (43,000)
illicit use of drugs (17,000)

and still war on terrorism is worth all the money that is spent for it ???

[jimnyc]

true, there is never a good reason for terrorism.

but when you spend your money to fight something, then you fight the thing that harm you the most, and apparently, over than 500,000 americans dies every year from different diseases, so spending more money on wars than you spend on health care, is pretty stupid.

The last I checked, the US spends BILLIONS combating various diseases (cancer, aids, flu...). The US spends billions ensuring the safety of its vehicles. Hell, we spend billions yearly helping the main reasons of death in other countries! But that does not preclude us from trying to eliminate the scum of the earth who kill in the name of allah.

BTW - looks like the US has even spent billions over the years helping your shit country:

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/

[abso]

The last I checked, the US spends BILLIONS combating various diseases (cancer, aids, flu...). The US spends billions ensuring the safety of its vehicles. Hell, we spend billions yearly helping the main reasons of death in other countries! But that does not preclude us from trying to eliminate the scum of the earth who kill in the name of allah.

BTW - looks like the US has even spent billions over the years helping your shit country:

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/features/egypt/

Thanks for the insult, it really shows how a decent man you are, people who are unable to talk with respect, those what i call scum of the earth.

[jimnyc]

Thanks for the insult, it really shows how a decent man you are, people who are unable to talk with respect, those what i call scum of the earth.

Sure, I'm supposed to respect a dickhead who lives in another country, comes to an American message board, and accuses our President of being a liar with no proof whatsoever. Don't throw stones and I won't hit you in your fucking head with ten in return.

[Sir Evil]

Don't throw stones and I won't hit you in your fucking head with ten in return.

Stoned to death? Acceptable practice over in his parts yet he is here crying about America's crusade on terrorism.... The irony...:laugh2:

[abso]

Sure, I'm supposed to respect a dickhead who lives in another country, comes to an American message board, and accuses our President of being a liar with no proof whatsoever. Don't throw stones and I won't hit you in your fucking head with ten in return.

he said that there are WMD, while he never provided any solid evidence, so, i have the right to call him a liar, if you have problems with that, then show my anything that proves the existence of WMD in iraq.

[jimnyc]

he said that there are WMD, while he never provided any solid evidence, so, i have the right to call him a liar, if you have problems with that, then show my anything that proves the existence of WMD in iraq.

Evidence was provided to our national intelligence committee and also presented to our entire congress - and all of the above saw the evidence as credible as well. Other countries provided their own intel, which also came back with awfully similar results. But yet you want to just call GWB a liar. Why not the other countries? Why not your fellow muslim defectors who gave the intel? Why not Saddam who proclaimed to have them?

You read what you want to read and ignore the entirety of the evidence which piled up from 1991 on. Quite frankly, you are very ignorant. I will guarantee you that you know extremely little as to what Iraq was guilty of from 1991 till the day the US knocked Saddam out of power.

If you feel otherwise, I challenge you to an official debate in our debate section of the board. There is no flaming allowed in those debates, only you and I are allowed to respond & it's based solely on FACTS. If you have any balls you will accept my challenge.

Furthermore, as discussed in another thread about the quran, hadith & shariah law - I will even debate you on your own damn "religion". I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that both the quran and hadith contain passages of superiority over women, the ability to strike a woman, calling for the death of infidels & calling for the death of those who leave the islamic faith. Then I will end my debate by summarizing shariah law, where it's still utilized and how many millions of muslims still think this law is a good idea.

So there you have it - a debate about the US and it's invasion of Iraq, and your own turf, a debate on whether or not the claims I made about Islam are true or not.