Domestic Terrorism
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the debate is, "what is legal" and that is subjective
Sorry, bud. Torture is illegal and clearly defined. The precedents go back over a century. Whether waterboarding or stress positions. It's torture and it is illegal.
oilFactotum wrote:
Torture is illegal and clearly defined
you betcha
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Does Bill Ayers fit in there somewhere? Ayers was a much better terrorist, and he has connections. I hear he even has a book out about his exploits. :rolleyes:
Glad to see that you agree that Roeder is a terrorist.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Torture is illegal and clearly defined
you betcha
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Glad you agree.
-
Why in the world do you think that I want this terrorism against a woman's access to legal medical care to continue?
oilFactotum wrote:
woman's access to legal medical care
That what we should call abortion. That makes it sound all better. Legal medical care...
-
The legal and effective methods that have been our mainstay until recently.
Whoa, hold the phone. You believe that the CIA had their happy faces on up until 2000? :omg: You got anything to back up that crazy assertion, or did it grow out of necessity to fuel your hatred of all things Bush? I know the CIA has enjoyed such a wonderful reputation for handing out smiles and cotton candy up until 8 years ago but... :rolleyes:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the debate is, "what is legal" and that is subjective
Sorry, bud. Torture is illegal and clearly defined. The precedents go back over a century. Whether waterboarding or stress positions. It's torture and it is illegal.
oilFactotum wrote:
clearly defined. The precedents go back over a century. Whether waterboarding or stress positions. It's torture and it is illegal.
Again, if any of what you said there was true, there would be no debate.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Glad to see that you agree that Roeder is a terrorist.
oilFactotum wrote:
agree that Roeder is a terrorist.
I would say he is a vigilante, his objective I don't think was to inspire terror. I would agree that he is subject to the penalties of law... now-day's a vaporous, nebulous squishy subjective touchy feely thing (ask Sotomayor). I did not look at his race, but he is a male. + 20 years if he's white + 20 years if he hated + 20 years if he called the abortionist a fag + 20 black - 20 hispanic - 40 lesbian, hispanic with pms - off with 2 month probation. I could be a judge :)
-
Glad to see that you agree that Roeder is a terrorist.
Now that depends on his intent. Was he trying to make the government change it's policies as a result of the terror he inspired? Is anybody scared that he (or his organization, if there is one) will strike again? Or was he just trying to kill someone he saw as a mass murderer that needed to be stopped? None of us know. In any event, what we do know is that he's a murderer, who should and will be put to justice. And there's no way to know just how many lives will be saved by his actions. A better question might be, why is it important to you to label him a terrorist? Because he seems to have taken extreme action based on a right wing belief? Because there's a word for that kind of bating antagonism on the internet... It starts with a "T" and ends with a "roll".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
agree that Roeder is a terrorist.
I would say he is a vigilante, his objective I don't think was to inspire terror. I would agree that he is subject to the penalties of law... now-day's a vaporous, nebulous squishy subjective touchy feely thing (ask Sotomayor). I did not look at his race, but he is a male. + 20 years if he's white + 20 years if he hated + 20 years if he called the abortionist a fag + 20 black - 20 hispanic - 40 lesbian, hispanic with pms - off with 2 month probation. I could be a judge :)
Brilliant :thumbsup: I especially enjoyed the "now-day's a vaporous, nebulous squishy subjective touchy feely thing" part.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
So you'd advocate illegal methods?
the debate is, "what is legal" and that is subjective but yes, I advocate measures some deem illegal.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Sorry for the late reply Mike.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
"what is legal" and that is subjective
No, legal is what is define by the law. What you feel is right or wrong is subjective. Unless you mean the interpretation of defined laws to be legal or not. Personally, I'm against abortion, but killing someone who is allowing/facilitating/pro abortion is something I'm against as well.
If the post was helpful, please vote! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
the debate is, "what is legal" and that is subjective
Sorry, bud. Torture is illegal and clearly defined. The precedents go back over a century. Whether waterboarding or stress positions. It's torture and it is illegal.
oilFactotum wrote:
Sorry, bud. Torture is illegal and clearly defined. The precedents go back over a century. Whether waterboarding or stress positions. It's torture and it is illegal.
So you prefer protecting the rights of terrorists to protecting the rights of women?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
clearly defined. The precedents go back over a century. Whether waterboarding or stress positions. It's torture and it is illegal.
Again, if any of what you said there was true, there would be no debate.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
There isn't. A bunch of toture apologist crying about how it's not torture is not a debate.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Sorry, bud. Torture is illegal and clearly defined. The precedents go back over a century. Whether waterboarding or stress positions. It's torture and it is illegal.
So you prefer protecting the rights of terrorists to protecting the rights of women?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
It's not either/or. Everyone's rights need to be protected. Is that a problem for you?
-
oilFactotum wrote:
agree that Roeder is a terrorist.
I would say he is a vigilante, his objective I don't think was to inspire terror. I would agree that he is subject to the penalties of law... now-day's a vaporous, nebulous squishy subjective touchy feely thing (ask Sotomayor). I did not look at his race, but he is a male. + 20 years if he's white + 20 years if he hated + 20 years if he called the abortionist a fag + 20 black - 20 hispanic - 40 lesbian, hispanic with pms - off with 2 month probation. I could be a judge :)
kmg365 wrote:
I don't think was to inspire terror.
That is exactly his goal. He used murder in an attempt to achieve a political goal. That is a definition of terrorism.
-
Now that depends on his intent. Was he trying to make the government change it's policies as a result of the terror he inspired? Is anybody scared that he (or his organization, if there is one) will strike again? Or was he just trying to kill someone he saw as a mass murderer that needed to be stopped? None of us know. In any event, what we do know is that he's a murderer, who should and will be put to justice. And there's no way to know just how many lives will be saved by his actions. A better question might be, why is it important to you to label him a terrorist? Because he seems to have taken extreme action based on a right wing belief? Because there's a word for that kind of bating antagonism on the internet... It starts with a "T" and ends with a "roll".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And there's no way to know just how many lives will be saved by his actions.
I am reminded of a quote from the 1979 novel (Stephen King) and the 1983 movie The Dead Zone[^] ...Johny Smith asks if the doc, a holocaust survivor, if he could go back in time and given the opportunity, to kill Hitler... Johnny Smith: What about my question? Dr. Sam Weizak: Huh? Huh? Oh, you mean the one about Hitler? Johnny Smith: What would you do? Dr. Sam Weizak: I don't like this, John. What are you getting at? Johnny Smith: What would you do? Would you kill him? Dr. Sam Weizak: All right. All right. I'll give you an answer. I'm a man of medicine. I'm expected to save lives and ease suffering. I love people. Therefore, I would have no choice but to kill the son of a bitch. Johnny Smith: You'd never get away alive. Dr. Sam Weizak: It doesn't matter. I would kill him. [lifting drink] Dr. Sam Weizak: Nasdro via. Skol.
modified on Tuesday, June 2, 2009 4:57 PM
-
Now that depends on his intent. Was he trying to make the government change it's policies as a result of the terror he inspired? Is anybody scared that he (or his organization, if there is one) will strike again? Or was he just trying to kill someone he saw as a mass murderer that needed to be stopped? None of us know. In any event, what we do know is that he's a murderer, who should and will be put to justice. And there's no way to know just how many lives will be saved by his actions. A better question might be, why is it important to you to label him a terrorist? Because he seems to have taken extreme action based on a right wing belief? Because there's a word for that kind of bating antagonism on the internet... It starts with a "T" and ends with a "roll".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
Of course it was an act of terrorism. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/how_should_congress_respond_to.html[^]
As The American Prospect's Ann Friedman writes, this has to be understood in context. It is the final, decisive act in "an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment against someone who was providing completely legal health-care services." That campaign stretched over decades of protests, lawsuits, violence, and, finally, murder. The different elements were not always orchestrated. But the intent remained constant: To counter the absence of a statute that would make Tiller's work illegal with enough intimidation to render it impossible. This was, in other words, a political act. Tiller was murdered so that those in his line of work would be intimidated.
-
Of course it was an act of terrorism. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/how_should_congress_respond_to.html[^]
As The American Prospect's Ann Friedman writes, this has to be understood in context. It is the final, decisive act in "an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment against someone who was providing completely legal health-care services." That campaign stretched over decades of protests, lawsuits, violence, and, finally, murder. The different elements were not always orchestrated. But the intent remained constant: To counter the absence of a statute that would make Tiller's work illegal with enough intimidation to render it impossible. This was, in other words, a political act. Tiller was murdered so that those in his line of work would be intimidated.
-
Why in the world do you think that I want this terrorism against a woman's access to legal medical care to continue?
Just out of curiosity, do you really believe that abortion fits nicely under the umbrella of the Constitutional right to privacy? Or are you just happy that some method was found to make it legal, because deep down you feel it should be legal no matter what means were used to make it so? Cuz I just might be tempted to call the later judicial terrorism on the same grounds. Ignoring, for the moment, the issue of whether or not abortion is a moral issue because it deals with the forced ending of human life, there is another dimension to the abortion issue that can be rationally argued since the advent of Roe vs. Wade. Because even some people who are on the fence about abortion itself and highly pissed off that one stinking judge (one did his crazy write up, other whack jobs voted his direction apparently swayed by his magical powers of BS), on one stinking court, made one bullsh!t ruling (and it truely is, hell he himself admitted it was a stretch), on one stupid case, that forced it on all Americans from now until the end of time. Personally, I feel his justification for dumping it under the right to privacy was nothing more than a desperate last ditch effort to render services to whoever paid him to find a place for it. Or he himself was an ideologue first and a judge second. In either case, it was dishonest and wrong, and should be recognized as such. This sentiment was captured pretty well in an article I found last weekend[^], which of course puts it far more eloquently than I ever could.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Now that depends on his intent. Was he trying to make the government change it's policies as a result of the terror he inspired? Is anybody scared that he (or his organization, if there is one) will strike again? Or was he just trying to kill someone he saw as a mass murderer that needed to be stopped? None of us know. In any event, what we do know is that he's a murderer, who should and will be put to justice. And there's no way to know just how many lives will be saved by his actions. A better question might be, why is it important to you to label him a terrorist? Because he seems to have taken extreme action based on a right wing belief? Because there's a word for that kind of bating antagonism on the internet... It starts with a "T" and ends with a "roll".
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
It starts with a "T" and ends with a "roll".
Are you calling Oily a Tootsie Roll? :omg:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
There isn't. A bunch of toture apologist crying about how it's not torture is not a debate.
Yeah, you waving your hand in dismissal doesn't make the debate go away. Just because you don't recognize the legitimacy of an opposing argument doesn't make it invalid. Otherwise I'd just say that a bunch of terrorist apologists crying about mistreatment isn't a debate.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.