Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by JLStorm

They do not deserve this type of respect for life unless they do the same in return. They have made it clear that they will not, the rules of traditional war should no longer apply. Will there be innocent people killed, most probably, but I would rather 100 of theirs than one of ours...

Those on the other side who support terrorism follow a similar line of reasoning.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Josh, that's assuming you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they aided the commission of the crime. Otherwise, as Joe said, we wouldn't need a trial and thousands of innocent people would suffer even though they are innocent.

How lengthy would the trial have to be? 1 airliner/1 building later... 2 airliners/2 buildings later... 3 airliners?

Do you have a solution to stop terrorism? If it will work, I'm for it. Whatever works... I'm for it. I just think you are mistaken that treating them kindly is going to make a difference and get them to stop. My guess is that these terrorists are laughing their butts off at this we-gotta-treat-these-guys-fairly stuff. And to say that harsh measures to get them to stop their violence makes us like them is erroneous in my view.

In a time of calm, if we used the military to wipe out one of their cities just because we didn't like who they were... that would make us like them. We were attacked and I don't think we have any reason to apologize for responding to it, or provide the terrorists with justification for what they did. The bottom line is that they have no justification for their actions. Unless you disagree with that too. I surely hope not.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

When I say association I mean associated in supporting the terrorists in anyway. That would mean if they helped fund them, or gave them a place to sleep after it was made known they were suspect, or even failed to assist law enforcement or recovery teams. The list could go on and on, but I do not mean guilt simply through association, but if that association is after it is made publicly known that there is a man hunt for them or their group, then the gloves are off. We have very similar laws here as you know, such as aiding and abetting or harboring a fugitive, even if we dont enforce them regularly.

So no you arent responsible for what your family members may do, but if you show them support that inhibits law enforcement in any way after they do something illegal, you are somewhat responsible.

I agree, as long as you prove it.

I must admit dismay at the lack of a public outcry by Moslems and their leaders after 9/11, both in this country and outside. And I was surprized by the clebration I saw on the news reports after that. It doesn't give me a positive attitude, but I still insist on strict, conservative treatment of the Constitution. Don't mess with our political Bible.

I am also dismayed at many who call themselves conservative today. Compromising the Constitution and our creed is not conservative. It's a radical right wing departure. My conservative thinking goes back to Barry Goldwater. He would never compromise Constitutional rights, and he would never approve of irresponsible spending and tax cuts that have the potential to bankrupt the country or at least put us in dept through our granschildren's lives. Need I remind you that Goldwater said the government has no place in getting involved in such things as abortion rights. His daughter even had one. And when something like Roe v. Wade has been the law for over 25 years, overturnnig it is not conservatism, but reactionary radicalism. Turnning control over to the corporations and rich and taking it away from the people is not conservatism, but again reactionary radicalism.

So, let us remember that the right wing radicals we see today have nothing to do with conservatism. Even the idea that we can mix church and state in any way is repulsive to conservatism.

Strangely, the swing to the left may restore the power and influence of true conservatism by revealing the anti-conservative things that have been done in its name.

Originally Posted by urleebird

We were attacked and I don't think we have any reason to apologize for responding to it, or provide the terrorists with justification for what they did. The bottom line is that they have no justification for their actions. Unless you disagree with that too. I surely hope not.

I agree with all this.

My only question is what's an appropriate response. Invading Afgahanistan was, and the world supported us. Invading Iraq, it appears from everything I know now, was not. And it drew us away from pursuing the real terrorists, made Al Qeada a cause, gave Iran a huge leg-up, and mustered world opinion against us, including our traditional allis' opinions. Objectively, what do you suppose accounts for the difference.

We will not know the civilian toll for some time. It may be that the terrorists are greatly responsible for it, as they were in Lebanon, based on where they shot at the Isrealis from and the disregard of using civilians as a shield. I don't have an answer, but knowing we are going to do that damage with our response makes it problematic. Based on what ilija said about his memories of Bosnia, it doesn't make us look good, and it raises great resentment in the Moslems of the world and other nations that are watching us. I guarantee you that if Russia was doing it we'd be screaming about war crimes.

The problem with Iraq and Vietnam was that we had a country and population that didn't support us. Whether it's the result of force or not, the insurrgents hide in their midst. Largely these are not Al Qead, which has its own country in Anbar Province. As in Vietnam, we wnat to win more than the locals. This is in direct contrast to Korea, where the locals carry their weight.

For any hope of a positive result, the Iraqis have to stand up now and work on a political solution, not kill each other. Once they show signs of doing this, we should redeploy, say to friendly Kurdistan and get out of the middle of the fray. It not only protects our troops, but reduces tensions significantly and lets the Iraqis work it out. We can still protect borders, and If any outside country tries to interfere, we're close enough for swift and decisive action. I would rather see us protect a peace process than be in the middle of a civil war, with both sides as willing to kill us as each other.

Originally Posted by Kees

... Don't Arabs have civil rights, rights of a fair trial etc.? 99% of Arabs are just as peace loving as you and me, they want to raise their families in peace and have a quiet life.

Is this the ultimate test of civility?

Kees this isn't directed soley at you, but since you provided the opening...

There is something that we in the West need to recognize. While “99%” of Arabs/middle eastern Muslims may not be actively engaged in terrorism or attacking western interests, I believe (and I too have spent some time with Arabs) that many, many are sympathetic and at best passively supportive of the other “1%”. We have a major clash of cultures here. These issues we’re talking about are not just isolated tit-for-tat incidents. We can’t just go about our la-di-da-da way and act like this would stop if we just all “got along, man”.

Are you all familiar with the group of nuts going around protesting at military funerals saying the deaths and 9/11 are punishment of the U.S. for tolerating homosexuals? As far as I’m concerned, they are cut from the same fabric as the Muslim extremists. And those who say we should be tolerant of the Muslim radicals because “they’re just different” and we need to “respect their culture” and they hate us because we’re mean to them, etc. are extremely naïve. They hate us for more fundamental reasons – we’re not Muslim and we support Israel’s right to exist.

Could you live with and cooperate on any meaningful level with say - white supremist skinheads? My guess is no. Your views and outlook are so different they would immediately clash and at some point, most of us would say “I can’t do this. One of us has to go”. Those we are fighting today are the same as those skinheads. They have the same outlook - their brains work the same. We need to recognize this. And before anyone says it – yes, we certainly tolerate and support the rights of such groups to exist and express themselves, we also draw a line and take them down when it's crossed.

I’ll believe that 99% of Arabs(using this word loosely) just want to live in peace when they start drawing similar lines and stop sending their children to be educated by religious nut-jobs who brain-wash them into blowing themselves up.

Thanks for indulging my semi-coherent rant.

Deep breaths….I need a beer….and a shave

Jordan

Thanks for indulging my semi-coherent rant.

Deep breaths….I need a beer….and a shave

Thanks for ranting, adds to the discussion

Just wanted to advise you switch the order to a shave and then a beer.

Originally Posted by jnich67

Are you all familiar with the group of nuts going around protesting at military funerals saying the deaths and 9/11 are punishment of the U.S. for tolerating homosexuals? As far as I’m concerned, they are cut from the same fabric as the Muslim extremists. Jordan

And note how that died down when thousands of bikers started showing up to these funerals with the understanding that they would be happy to beat the crap out of any protestors. I truely believe that pain teaches, and the threat of pain reinforces those teachings, especially in adults.

Originally Posted by jnich67

those who say we should be tolerant of the Muslim radicals because “they’re just different” and we need to “respect their culture” and they hate us because we’re mean to them, etc. are extremely naïve. They hate us for more fundamental reasons – we’re not Muslim and we support Israel’s right to exist.

I don't think anybody said that, and I would strongly disagree if they did.

What I think Kees said is that you can't condemn and destroy a race because the nuts come from that race. Although the terrorists should get what they deserve (I wish them the worst), you need to prove that they're terrorists first, and you need to do it using legal means not a kangaroo court. I'm talking about fundamental principals of justice: habeas corpus, know what you're accused of and what the evidence is, and give the opportunity and legal help to disprove it. Without that, you really don't know if you have a guilty person.

Now I have been staying out of the whole arab thing, because it isn't exactly on topic and it isn't as interesing to me as the original topic. but I just have to say this.

Living in Michigan less than half an hour from dearbon, the largest enclave of arabs outside the middle east. I have to say I tend to agree with Josh. Heres why:

On 9/11 I have two images indelibly burned into my brain, that of a jet hitting the world trade center under the direction of terrorists, and that of people not more than fifty miles from my house rushing into the streets to dance and celebrate that fact.

To get back to the original topic, the above is no small part of why I have, and carry a gun and support the right of all citizens to do so.

I am under the impression that the constitution is a document that grant power to and descrbes the workings of our federal government. How would this apply to or any way effect the rights of non-citizens, especially those outside of our borders?

Originally Posted by JLStorm

And note how that died down when thousands of bikers started showing up to these funerals with the understanding that they would be happy to beat the crap out of any protestors. I truely believe that pain teaches, and the threat of pain reinforces those teachings, especially in adults.

I don't think the Christian nuts are the same thing. They may bother you, and cause some emotional distress, but they don't hurt anyone. Why beat them up because they don't agree with you or annoy you? Those are the kinds of things the Nazis did. Isn't this just a question of freedom of speech?