Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually, they do.really, they don't
I would bet soldiers have been killed after falling for that ruse.
factor in that we are dealing with an enemy that has no inhibitions to blowing himself up in order to kill a few American Infidels before you so naively believe a surrender ruse.
Shoot first, accept surrender later.
Otherwise we wouldn't have 200+ detainees at Gitmo, and scores more now being shipped to other countries for interrogations.
So all those people surrendered on a battlefield?
I don't think so.
I am sure some of them were captured against their will in a raid of some sort.
"It's not the truth of the charges that matter. What matters is the severity of the charges." -- Nancy Pelosi.Actually I think the VAST majority were rounded up based on people with an axe to grind. You don't NEED to prove your allegations you just need to whisper in the right ear to get someone you don't like to be taken into custody.
What vote? The President doesn't have a vote.Pretty sure I just called out OBAMA for his vote to reautorize the "Patriot" act.
Sirhan Sirhan is serving more time than other murderers because he shot a Kennedy.
He assassinated a US Senator.
How long do you think he should be held?
It was a Kennedy.
He should receive a medal for public service.
Your thread title was a rhetorical question, "Let's see if I am getting this straight."Pretty sure I just called out OBAMA for his vote to reautorize the "Patriot" act. I kinda think that EVERYONE who voted for that POS law should be removed from the Congress and posibly charged for sedition.
Answer: You're not.
"It's not the truth of the charges that matter. What matters is the severity of the charges." -- Nancy Pelosi.Actually I think the VAST majority were rounded up based on people with an axe to grind. You don't NEED to prove your allegations you just need to whisper in the right ear to get someone you don't like to be taken into custody.
Your thread title was a rhetorical question, "Let's see if I am getting this straight."Pretty sure I just called out OBAMA for his vote to reautorize the "Patriot" act. I kinda think that EVERYONE who voted for that POS law should be removed from the Congress and posibly charged for sedition.
Answer: You're not.
No I think I am getting it exactly right......
No rights as a combatant..........And
No rights as a civilian.
He voted against it when he was a Senator.What vote? The President doesn't have a vote.Pretty sure I just called out OBAMA for his vote to reautorize the "Patriot" act.
Before he became President.
You're not getting it right. It's more like:No I think I am getting it exactly right......
No rights as a combatant..........And
No rights as a civilian.
Are you saying that they have been - and should continue to be - treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention?Your thread title was a rhetorical question, "Let's see if I am getting this straight."
Answer: You're not.
No I think I am getting it exactly right......
No rights as a combatant..........And
No rights as a civilian.
yes that is the penalty for fighting in a war and being AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT as defined by the good folks who met in Geneva.
He voted against it when he was a Senator.What vote? The President doesn't have a vote.
Before he became President.
But he was all FOR the recent re-upping and expanding of it. But he didn't have a vote then, as I said.You're not getting it right. It's more like:No I think I am getting it exactly right......
No rights as a combatant..........And
No rights as a civilian.
"Rights when we say, for who we say, only to use as a political football against Booooosh. The rest of the detainees can still rot in jail with no charges, no trial. They're not useful as political pawns."
Starting to see the light yet?
You're just about positively wrong.He voted against it when he was a Senator.Before he became President.
But he was all FOR the recent re-upping and expanding of it. But he didn't have a vote then, as I said.You're not getting it right. It's more like:No I think I am getting it exactly right......
No rights as a combatant..........And
No rights as a civilian.
"Rights when we say, for who we say, only to use as a political football against Booooosh. The rest of the detainees can still rot in jail with no charges, no trial. They're not useful as political pawns."
Starting to see the light yet?
I am just about positive that Obama voted for it before he became President.
He voted against it when he was a Senator.What vote? The President doesn't have a vote.
Before he became President.
But he was all FOR the recent re-upping and expanding of it. But he didn't have a vote then, as I said.You're not getting it right. It's more like:No I think I am getting it exactly right......
No rights as a combatant..........And
No rights as a civilian.
"Rights when we say, for who we say, only to use as a political football against Booooosh. The rest of the detainees can still rot in jail with no charges, no trial. They're not useful as political pawns."
Starting to see the light yet?
Are you saying that they have been - and should continue to be - treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention?No I think I am getting it exactly right......
No rights as a combatant..........And
No rights as a civilian.
yes that is the penalty for fighting in a war and being AN ILLEGAL COMBATANT as defined by the good folks who met in Geneva.
Getting all wee-wee'd up about what they're doing right NOW, not last administration, is a sure ticket to redemption and enlightenment, and usefulness of your time and energies.Yeah I can see your point there.He voted against it when he was a Senator.Before he became President.
But he was all FOR the recent re-upping and expanding of it. But he didn't have a vote then, as I said.You're not getting it right. It's more like:No I think I am getting it exactly right......
No rights as a combatant..........And
No rights as a civilian.
"Rights when we say, for who we say, only to use as a political football against Booooosh. The rest of the detainees can still rot in jail with no charges, no trial. They're not useful as political pawns."
Starting to see the light yet?
You're just about positively wrong.He voted against it when he was a Senator.
But he was all FOR the recent re-upping and expanding of it. But he didn't have a vote then, as I said.You're not getting it right. It's more like:
"Rights when we say, for who we say, only to use as a political football against Booooosh. The rest of the detainees can still rot in jail with no charges, no trial. They're not useful as political pawns."
Starting to see the light yet?
I am just about positive that Obama voted for it before he became President.
Sirhan Sirhan is serving more time than other murderers because he shot a Kennedy.
He assassinated a US Senator.
How long do you think he should be held?
Shouldn't he receive the same sentence and parole considerations any murderer would get?
there are other people convicted of first degree murder that are walking the streets today are there not?
You're just about positively wrong.I am just about positive that Obama voted for it before he became President.
Well I guess I don't have to be pissed at him for voting for the "Patriot" act then.
i hate the patriot act.What was so disgusting about my post?
All I said was:
1) The enemies on the battle field should be shot on sight
2) Those who we do capture should be given quick military tribunals after interrogation
easy peasy
whats so disgusting about that?
