Conquer Club

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Obama "We are at war with al-Kaida"

We apprehend al-Kaida = prisoner of war

I rest my case

What's this? An appeal to authority? Too bad Obama is either talking metaphorically or else out of his arse. I hope it's the former but fear the latter is more probable.

yeah, it doesn;t make sense when Obama says it. fortunately we can turn to reality and simply realize when Obama acknowledges it

Phatscotty wrote:Obama "We are at war with al-Kaida"

We apprehend al-Kaida = prisoner of war

I rest my case

We are also having a war on drugs, does that mean every stoned guy who gets arrested is a POW?

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Obama "We are at war with al-Kaida"

We apprehend al-Kaida = prisoner of war

I rest my case

We are also having a war on drugs, does that mean every stoned guy who gets arrested is a POW?

definition of war fail

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Obama "We are at war with al-Kaida"

We apprehend al-Kaida = prisoner of war

I rest my case

We are also having a war on drugs, does that mean every stoned guy who gets arrested is a POW?

definition of war fail

C'mon Scotty. Get real.


EVERYONE knows trolls don't live in caves, they live under bridges.

notyou2 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Obama "We are at war with al-Kaida"

We apprehend al-Kaida = prisoner of war

I rest my case

We are also having a war on drugs, does that mean every stoned guy who gets arrested is a POW?

definition of war fail

C'mon Scotty. Get real.


EVERYONE knows trolls don't live in caves, they live under bridges.

But he's right, he failed.

MeDeFe wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Titanic wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Obama "We are at war with al-Kaida"

We apprehend al-Kaida = prisoner of war

I rest my case

We are also having a war on drugs, does that mean every stoned guy who gets arrested is a POW?

definition of war fail

C'mon Scotty. Get real.


EVERYONE knows trolls don't live in caves, they live under bridges.

But he's right, he failed.

it's actually a hollowed out tree, and as you can see the road outside is right next to the bridge.

visual comprehension fail

AH HA!!!
We now know you live in a hollowed out tree, near a road that then crosses a river/ravine/gully/stream, and we also know what you look like, but perhaps you should have posted your pic in "Post a pic of yourself"
It looks like a chestnut tree, or perhaps a maple.
We're onto you trollScotty

The Nigerian is not entitles to the 5th amendment, or any of USA's law abiding citizens rights

4 high ranking officials and congress, including THEE highest intelligence official in the USA, testified today they were not consulted on the decision to send The nigerian to be tried as a common criminal in federal court. Holder should be fired/resign for health reasons. I thought the centerpiece of the whole left wing argument was that we dont need military tribunals or shouldnt use them, cuz we will "work together"...................

Phatscotty wrote:4 high ranking officials and congress, including THEE highest intelligence official in the USA, testified today they were not consulted on the decision to send The nigerian to be tried as a common criminal in federal court.

So now we have to clear it with high ranking intelligence officials whether or not we should obey the law?

Phatscotty wrote:The Nigerian is not entitles to the 5th amendment, or any of USA's law abiding citizens rights.

I see... I wonder how many traffic violations you have. Perhaps your government should deny you all your rights because of them.

Woodruff wrote:How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

I suppose I agree with giving him his rights... if by that you mean that is is shot by the military as an illegal combatant. This is what is supposed to happen to people who wage war while dressed as civilians.

If we don't consider the acts of jihasist / muslim extremist terrorists to be the acts of war they are then we will lose.

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

If we don't consider the acts of jihasist / muslim extremist terrorists to be the acts of war they are then we will lose.

Are you suggesting we try to kill their ideas by mainly militaristic means (triple M's, not bad).

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

If we don't consider the acts of jihasist / muslim extremist terrorists to be the acts of war they are then we will lose.

Are you suggesting we try to kill their ideas by mainly militaristic means (triple M's, not bad).

Yeah, judging by the nation's view on terrorism it worked for them.

Frigidus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:4 high ranking officials and congress, including THEE highest intelligence official in the USA, testified today they were not consulted on the decision to send The nigerian to be tried as a common criminal in federal court.

So now we have to clear it with high ranking intelligence officials whether or not we should obey the law?

emphasis on "working together"

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

I suppose I agree with giving him his rights... if by that you mean that is is shot by the military as an illegal combatant. This is what is supposed to happen to people who wage war while dressed as civilians.

very good point

Phatscotty wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

I suppose I agree with giving him his rights... if by that you mean that is is shot by the military as an illegal combatant. This is what is supposed to happen to people who wage war while dressed as civilians.

very good point

What's supposed to happen to criminals is that they be apprehended by civilian law enforcement and tried in court.

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

I suppose I agree with giving him his rights... if by that you mean that is is shot by the military as an illegal combatant. This is what is supposed to happen to people who wage war while dressed as civilians.

very good point

What's supposed to happen to criminals is that they be apprehended by civilian law enforcement and tried in court.

it seems like you are basing that on the retarded belief that getting military training from al-qada and trying to blow up an airplane isn't an act of war. It is thee most heinous act of war, and most cowardly

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

jimboston wrote:

Woodruff wrote:How could it possibly be anything other than allowing him HIS RIGHTS?

I suppose I agree with giving him his rights... if by that you mean that is is shot by the military as an illegal combatant. This is what is supposed to happen to people who wage war while dressed as civilians.

very good point

What's supposed to happen to criminals is that they be apprehended by civilian law enforcement and tried in court.

it seems like you are basing that on the retarded belief that getting military training from al-qada and trying to blow up an airplane isn't an act of war.

Until you manage to explain how one person, or a small group of persons, blowing up anything is an act of war, I will continue to consider it a crime.

A soldier who has received military training in the army and then goes on to make use of that training while committing a crime is hardly treated as an enemy combatant (legal or illegal), is he now?


You believer of moronic beliefs.

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

jimboston wrote:I suppose I agree with giving him his rights... if by that you mean that is is shot by the military as an illegal combatant. This is what is supposed to happen to people who wage war while dressed as civilians.

very good point

What's supposed to happen to criminals is that they be apprehended by civilian law enforcement and tried in court.

it seems like you are basing that on the retarded belief that getting military training from al-qada and trying to blow up an airplane isn't an act of war.

Until you manage to explain how one person, or a small group of persons, blowing up anything is an act of war, I will continue to consider it a crime.

A soldier who has received military training in the army and then goes on to make use of that training while committing a crime is hardly treated as an enemy combatant (legal or illegal), is he now?


You believer of moronic beliefs.

was 9-11 an act of war?

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

he is a terrorist he should be tortured to get what info he knows or shot.


WAIT WAIT WAIT...DIDNT WE ALREADY GO THROUGH THIS in another thread...well I hold my position.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np2yZ5KQffs

hecter wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

But we declared war on it...

Neoteny wrote:

hecter wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:was 9-11 an act of war?

No, it was an act of terrorism.

But we declared war on it...

Just like you declared a war on drugs. Doesn't make every pot head and every junky a war criminal.

WHAT!!??!! They are torturing potheads and junkies to death now too???