So are these republicans for the terrorists?

[burritos]

"You're either with us or with the terrorists."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/..._pr_wh/bush_21

"When conservative military men like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell stand up to the president, it shows how wrong and isolated the White House is," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "These military men are telling the president that in the war on terror you need to be both strong and smart, and it is about time he heeded their admonitions."

According to the new neocon logic these deserter must be fore the terrorists, cause they ain't for Bushie!

[Prius Maximus]

No, they are still the same republicans, following the same republican platform. Remember it's 2 months to elections. They all have to separate themselves from Liar #1. Then after elections, it'll be back to the usual follow the leader and party before country crud.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 15 2006, 08:15 PM) [snapback]320312[/snapback]</div>

"You're either with us or with the terrorists."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/..._pr_wh/bush_21

"When conservative military men like John McCain, John Warner, Lindsey Graham and Colin Powell stand up to the president, it shows how wrong and isolated the White House is," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y. "These military men are telling the president that in the war on terror you need to be both strong and smart, and it is about time he heeded their admonitions."

According to the new neocon logic these deserter must be fore the terrorists, cause they ain't for Bushie!
[/b]

Do you understand the crux of the discussion that is ongoing? Specifically Article III in the Geneva Convention and what it relates to.

[TonyPSchaefer]

In the war on terror, wouldn't medication be more appropriate? After all, we're fighting an emotion and emotions are chemical actions and reactions in the human brain.

Now, on the other hand, if we were actually fighting terrorism - that is, the practice of invoking terror in your opponent - then we should employ weapons and intelligence.

All dry joking aside, the more often people use the word "terror" the more terror is created.
In that case, politicians are not fighting terror but actually creating it.

[Alric]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 18 2006, 07:56 AM) [snapback]321084[/snapback]</div>

Do you understand the crux of the discussion that is ongoing? Specifically Article III in the Geneva Convention and what it relates to.
[/b]

Yes. I wish Bush and Co. did as well.

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 18 2006, 09:36 AM) [snapback]321095[/snapback]</div>

Yes. I wish Bush and Co. did as well.
[/b]

In your opinion what doe sit pertain to - Article III that is?

[Alric]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 18 2006, 08:40 AM) [snapback]321097[/snapback]</div>

In your opinion what doe sit pertain to - Article III that is?
[/b]

I've got a feeling you have an unshakeable idea of what it means, and how it justifies that we can torture people while nobody else can.

This space left intentionally blank for you to disagree with...

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 18 2006, 09:09 AM) [snapback]321087[/snapback]</div>

In the war on terror, wouldn't medication be more appropriate? After all, we're fighting an emotion and emotions are chemical actions and reactions in the human brain.

Now, on the other hand, if we were actually fighting terrorism - that is, the practice of invoking terror in your opponent - then we should employ weapons and intelligence.

All dry joking aside, the more often people use the word "terror" the more terror is created.
In that case, politicians are not fighting terror but actually creating it.
[/b]

What or how would you term the attacks of 9/11 and the murder of 3,000 Americans?

[dbermanmd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Sep 18 2006, 09:09 AM) [snapback]321087[/snapback]</div>

In the war on terror, wouldn't medication be more appropriate? After all, we're fighting an emotion and emotions are chemical actions and reactions in the human brain.

Now, on the other hand, if we were actually fighting terrorism - that is, the practice of invoking terror in your opponent - then we should employ weapons and intelligence.

All dry joking aside, the more often people use the word "terror" the more terror is created.
In that case, politicians are not fighting terror but actually creating it.
[/b]

You seem to be dodging my question. What would you term the event of 9/11 which killed/murdered 3.000 Americans on our home soil? I am very interested in your response. Thanks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Sep 18 2006, 09:43 AM) [snapback]321098[/snapback]</div>

I've got a feeling you have an unshakeable idea of what it means, and how it justifies that we can torture people while nobody else can.

This space left intentionally blank for you to disagree with...
[/b]

I do not have an unshakable idea of what it means. I am asking you what you think it pertains to. My reading of it --- it pertains to civil wars and does not apply to conflicts that extend beyond a countries borders. Now your turn.

[Proco]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 18 2006, 10:41 AM) [snapback]321115[/snapback]</div>

You seem to be dodging my question.
[/b]

Or he wasn't online for the 45 minutes between your first post & your second. Patience, grasshopper.