US Flag Desecration on 9/11

whats that noise? waaaaaaAAAAAAaaaaaa,

Oh its a waabulance,, :lol:

Good thread though, makes for a good read.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 20 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]322718[/snapback]</div>

Saddam hated the Islamic fundamentalists, and they hated him. He perpetrated acts of terror against his own people when he was on the CIA payroll, using American weapons and American chemicals, but he gave no support to bin Laden or al Qaeda.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 21 2006, 01:17 AM) [snapback]322718[/snapback]</div>

Maybe you forgot to take your wacko pill this morning?....

Are you implying we protected Bin Ladin and purposely didn't hit him as we knew where he was?

Delusion runs deep.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 21 2006, 08:31 AM) [snapback]322766[/snapback]</div>

Wow.. if you believe that..no wonder your bitter... maybe you should convert to Islam?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 21 2006, 12:34 PM) [snapback]322863[/snapback]</div>

Yesh, I am implying that.


And no, I took my Wacko pill today. Along with his brother Yakko and sister Dot pill.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 21 2006, 09:31 AM) [snapback]322766[/snapback]</div>

Well, by supporting, he did not exactly go out of his way to condemning them, when they attacked the Twin Towers, what was it, in '93?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(windstrings @ Sep 21 2006, 09:34 AM) [snapback]322863[/snapback]</div>

Islam is as big a load of hooey as christianity or any other religion.

But Saddam and the islamic fundamentalists hated each other. The last thing Saddam wanted was a pack of mullahs trying to squirrel their way into his lock on political power.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Sep 21 2006, 02:37 PM) [snapback]322957[/snapback]</div>

Those are shaped like anvils, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 19 2006, 10:31 PM) [snapback]322127[/snapback]</div>

The military tribunal serves that purpose for enemy combatants. They are not entitled to a "trial" with a "jury of their peers" because they are not within our legal system. They are also not within their home legal system of Islamic law, where I believe they would be judged by a three-judge panel (very similar to the military's system in that regard). They are in the military's system. And yes, the tribunal can decide if they are entitled to be held or released. And yes, they can be held, just like POWs, without charge until the conflict is over. The tribunal can also decide to execute them after a trial before the judges (no jury), as we did the Nazi saboteurs during WWII.

The military system of justice is subject to review by our government, with the three branches chiming in, as the Congress did today with the bill to resolve the issue raised by Hamdan (I think that was the case). My understanding is that the Supremes said that's all that was needed, legislative consent for the executive branch to hold them under a tribunal system. Once that is given, and the Supremes give their blessing, the "technicality" part of it will be over, we'll have crossed our "t's" and dotted our "i's" and the dirty bastards will still be held until they no longer want to kill me.

BTW - it is the height of hubris to say to the world that only our legal system is the right one. Our own soldiers are subject to a different justice system than civilians, with a differing standard of presumption of innocence (although they are still presumed innocent.) Other countries, such as France, have a different standard altogether, and you do not have a presumption of innocence in France. Arrest is part of the evidence that you are guilty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 21 2006, 06:31 AM) [snapback]322766[/snapback]</div>

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is reportedly an old Arab saying. Saddam granted $25,000 checks to the families of succesful Palistinian terrorists and supported other terrorist organizations:



You know, I never heard a single member of the administration link Iraq to 9/11, but they did identify Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. And all the nations in that "axis of evil" were identified and put on notice. Most people understand that distinction, unless they are partisans, of course.

The media, however, had numerous "linking" stories as recounted on http://www.husseinandterror.com/ Reporters were quick to show links, and kept asking the Administration officials about it for the year leading up to the war in Iraq. The closest I ever saw anyone come to saying there WAS a link was the VP, who said "there might be a link" after getting the question re-directed to him a couple of times.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 21 2006, 09:46 PM) [snapback]323246[/snapback]</div>

So did the government of Saudi Arabia. In addition, Al Qaeda is funded almost exclusively with Saudi money. Why didn't we invade that country?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 22 2006, 12:25 AM) [snapback]323243[/snapback]</div>

Very well stated. When the Supremes ruled in favor of Hamden they granted terrorists nation status and cited Articles of the Geneva Convention that did not apply to terrorists -specifically Article III. These guys belong far away from our civilian courts - funny how some of us want to afford them the protections granted those they are trying to slaughter?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 21 2006, 09:25 PM) [snapback]323243[/snapback]</div>

The people held in prison at Guantanamo have not even had military tribunals. They have had no opportunity to argue their own innocence before any sort of judge or tribunal. But I repeat, that many of them deny being combatants, and the government refuses to present any evidence that they were.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Sep 22 2006, 08:09 AM) [snapback]323371[/snapback]</div>

Well, not really. I think this is a straw man that is stood up to make some kind of moral equivalency between the actions of the government of Saudi Arabia and the "axis of evil" countries, with the intent to present American actions as unfair, unequal and disproportionate. Like all propeganda, it doesn't tell the whole truth, but just a little of it.

The Saudi government "allowed" money to flow through charity fronts, sometimes from ruling family members. There is some evidence that two of the hijackers had support from Saudi Arabia. But that was before 9/11. The world changed on 9/11, and we made it clear what the change was.

What is the official position of the Saudis after 9/11? See http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2004/30740.htm for some testimony in 2004 on their more recent activities supporting our efforts to ferrett out terrorists. Like Libya, the Saudis are giving us cooperation and helping to identify and vanquish terrorists.

What did Iraq do after 9/11?

After the State of the Union speech in 2002, did Saddam and Iraq pledge their cooperation with America like the majority of the rest of the Arab countries? Over the next year, Iraq had ample opportunity to comply with the world community's demands and resolutions. They did not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 22 2006, 09:08 AM) [snapback]323413[/snapback]</div>

That's not correct. At least some of them have, but the recent court decision (which you evidently support) shut them down. Here's a very critical article of the process, but it shows you are just wrong about whether tribunals have been held or not (emphasis mine):

In fact, it is liberals who are blocking the "day in court" these men are entitled to, with the Hamden case perhaps giving them POW status. That means that the government has no need to do anything with these men until we determine the war is over. While interrogation would stop, so would any chance of them seeing freedom for a very long time. If you think being held indefinately is better than having a three judge panel decide if you are guilty or not, then you must believe they are guilty.

I do find it curious that you state you have no faith in our legal system, yet want these men put into it rather than into an alternative system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 22 2006, 10:18 PM) [snapback]323781[/snapback]</div>

The government of Saudi Arabia gave cash grants to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, just as Saddam Hussein did.

Prince Alwaleed claimed that his telethon pledge would help rebuild Palestinian infrastructure destroyed by Israeli forces, and included a large amount of donated relief goods. However Timmerman cites Israeli documents that offer a different story of how some of the telethon's money was used. These documents include "payment cycles" made by the Saudi Committee for Support of Intifada al-Quds for more than 300 Palestinian "victims" of the 2000-2001 uprising, many of whom were involved directly in attacks against Israeli civilians.

A report by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) titled "Saudi Arabia finances terror activities (5-9-02)," indicates that the most recent payments to the families of 102 Palestinians who died in 2001, "spelled out in chilling detail the biographies of 36 of the Palestinian 'victims.' Eight of them were identified by name in the Saudi documents as suicide bombers. The other 28 were Hamas, Fatah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad military commanders and activists directly involved in planning or executing terrorist attacks." Among these were the commander of the Hamas military wing in the West Bank, one of the heads of the Islamic Jihad in northern Samaria and the General Secretary of the PFLP.

The IDF report further notes

The IDF report concludes that persons and entities associated with the Hamas and with Radical Islam are the main beneficiaries of the funds of the Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Aqsa Intifada (also known as the Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Quds Intifada).[/b][/quote]

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 11 2006, 12:42 AM) [snapback]317612[/snapback]</div>

Message to the annoying Amoral Minority Of Ultra Conservatives (AMOUC): you still don't own the flag, the constitution or Christianity (nor any other religion or country) -- you must learn how to share your religion, your country and your planet peacefully and respectfully -- your bullying days are over.

Using the terms Nigger and Spic so comfortably -- is a classic example of the AMOC's legacy of racism, bigotry and hate. It's particularly sad to see this person confusing the US flag as a Christian idol.

Americans have grown weary tolerating the most vile AMOUCs who have appointed themselves as "the deciders" pontificating how everyone else "should" use and/or interpret the flag. Nonetheless, it's funny how wearing a lapel flag pin has become the unofficial sign of AMOUCs -- and how this usage breaks "their code".

Now can we get back to Prius related information?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kenoarto @ Sep 24 2006, 09:34 PM) [snapback]324529[/snapback]</div>

I object to your characterization of me as amoral and ultra conservative. I am neither. You don't know me, and judging someone without knowing them is the classic example of prejudice and bigotry.

I called no one a name. I used two words in dialog, not as slurs or invective. As adults, we can be expected to tell the difference between a slur and the terms themselves.

Why did you insult me? Are you confused about the difference between "dialog" and "argument", and feel that is what is expected here?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kenoarto @ Sep 24 2006, 09:34 PM) [snapback]324529[/snapback]</div>

Please take note of where you are posting before you assume the role of a moderator, and "pontificate" about how "everyone else should" post in this forum:

Got a mirror?