Obama : KSM Will Undergo A Moscow Show Trial Then Will be Executed

Do any of the various Republicans in this thread care to take a moment and help Thomas to stop making a fool of himself further? Seriously, anyone who disagrees with him is a enemy of the United States? :eusa_eh:

You'll learn quickly, if you haven't already, that Da Thomas likes to run his mouth a lot, but he can never back up anything he says.

I back it up all the time. it is YOU that projects.
 
It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand the legal aspects involved in such an act.

It is not his ignorance. It is yours.

YOU make the bald claim that only nation states can engage in war. You are wrong.

While it is of course true that it is usually STATES that engage in war, there is no "rule" that says that a supra-national organization cannot engage in war.

Osama bin piganuslicker DID declare war on the United States.

The U.S. FOUGHT a war against the Barbary Pirates and they weren't exactly a nation state.

He can "declare war" all he wants. That doesn't make it a war any more than if he were to claim he's an avocado would make that true.

Also, good job showing your ignorance of history. The Barbary pirates were the agents of the nation-state: the Barbary States.

Wrong and wrong. You remain consistent in that field.

The declaration of war by Osama was followed by acts of war and when those things happen, you can call it an "avacado," but it's still war.

Further the Barbary "states" were independent quasi-nations, not actual nations or nation- states. It was a loose confederation of Islamo-filth. Not much different than the shit we are confronting today when you get right down to it.

Nice try to spin your way out of it, Polky, but you remain no less wrong for that effort.
 
Except that, by definition, they can't declare war because they lack the legal ability to do so. Legally speaking, a state of war can only exist between two nation-states or pairings of nation-states. Individuals and groups of individuals don't have the ability to declare war. They can engage in criminal actions that inflict as much damage as a military assault, but the extent of the damage does not make the act war.

And noting this fact is not "siding with the terrorists". If anything, the ones siding with the terrorists are people like you, who consider our Constitution and laws to be as useful as used toilet paper if they don't align with your desires.
OK. There was no Revolutionary War. There was no Civil War, either. And, there has never been a war between Israel and any Palestinians.

Way to go, Polk. :thup:

There hasn't been a war between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Revolutionary War (United States versus Britain) and the Civil War (United States versus Confederate States) are both wars because you two national actors.
LMAO. The "United States"? Really?

Your point is so idiotic and you still defend it. :lol::lol::lol:
 
WRONG and NOT the POINT. These were people from a ROGUE orginization that have declared WAR upon the UNITED STATES, and it's citizens.

Congratulations for SIDING with the terrorists DOGBOY. And making yourself as BAD as them. ARE YOU an enemy of the United States, YOUR family, and MINE? If you say NO? Then YOU belie your statement.

Except that, by definition, they can't declare war because they lack the legal ability to do so. Legally speaking, a state of war can only exist between two nation-states or pairings of nation-states. Individuals and groups of individuals don't have the ability to declare war. They can engage in criminal actions that inflict as much damage as a military assault, but the extent of the damage does not make the act war.

And noting this fact is not "siding with the terrorists". If anything, the ones siding with the terrorists are people like you, who consider our Constitution and laws to be as useful as used toilet paper if they don't align with your desires.

so you're saying that Vietnam, Korea, and both Iraq wars were not wars at all?

Depends on if you want to define a declaration of war as being necessary for war to exist. In each of those cases, you have nation-states on both sides: Vietnam (North Vietnam, et al. versus the United States and South Vietnam), Korea (North Korea, et al. versus South Korea, the United States, et al.) and Iraq (Iraq versus United States, et al.).
 
LEGAL? To declare WAR against a Country? Are you REALLY serious?

Are YOU really this stupid? POLK? *I* Accuse you of acting WITH the terrorists BY PROXY.

I declare YOU an enemy of the United States if YOU really belive what you just wrote.

But then YOU are a WET Behind the Ears child that has never served in the Military...and doesn't KNOW any better...But better stated?

YOU HATE YOUR OWN Country which make YOU an enemy of it BY PROXY.

Congrats. You're in good company along with OBAMA.

Put down the sauce, Tommy. Disagreeing with your wild ass bullshit isn't an act of terrorism. And as for serving in the military, it's funny you bring that up even though you chickenhawk ass didn't serve.

You LOST by this statement alone. Try again BOY.

You cannot WIN against me Polky. Try as you might.

I see you're going in to another meltdown.
 
Except that, by definition, they can't declare war because they lack the legal ability to do so. Legally speaking, a state of war can only exist between two nation-states or pairings of nation-states. Individuals and groups of individuals don't have the ability to declare war. They can engage in criminal actions that inflict as much damage as a military assault, but the extent of the damage does not make the act war.

And noting this fact is not "siding with the terrorists". If anything, the ones siding with the terrorists are people like you, who consider our Constitution and laws to be as useful as used toilet paper if they don't align with your desires.
OK. There was no Revolutionary War. There was no Civil War, either. And, there has never been a war between Israel and any Palestinians.

Way to go, Polk. :thup:

There hasn't been a war between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Revolutionary War (United States versus Britain) and the Civil War (United States versus Confederate States) are both wars because you two national actors.
what made the confederacy a national actor, but al qaeda a non-national actor?
 
Put down the sauce, Tommy. Disagreeing with your wild ass bullshit isn't an act of terrorism. And as for serving in the military, it's funny you bring that up even though you chickenhawk ass didn't serve.

You LOST by this statement alone. Try again BOY.

You cannot WIN against me Polky. Try as you might.

I see you're going in to another meltdown.

You are seeing something else, and tha is myself and others OWN your stupid young ass.
 
It is not his ignorance. It is yours.

YOU make the bald claim that only nation states can engage in war. You are wrong.

While it is of course true that it is usually STATES that engage in war, there is no "rule" that says that a supra-national organization cannot engage in war.

Osama bin piganuslicker DID declare war on the United States.

The U.S. FOUGHT a war against the Barbary Pirates and they weren't exactly a nation state.

He can "declare war" all he wants. That doesn't make it a war any more than if he were to claim he's an avocado would make that true.

Also, good job showing your ignorance of history. The Barbary pirates were the agents of the nation-state: the Barbary States.

Wrong and wrong. You remain consistent in that field.

The declaration of war by Osama was followed by acts of war and when those things happen, you can call it an "avacado," but it's still war.

Further the Barbary "states" were independent quasi-nations, not actual nations or nation- states. It was a loose confederation of Islamo-filth. Not much different than the shit we are confronting today when you get right down to it.

Nice try to spin your way out of it, Polky, but you remain no less wrong for that effort.

The Barbary States were not "quasi-nations". There were nations that existed under the broader umbrella of state nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, but were administered locally. Sorta like an early version of Bermuda's status today.
 
OK. There was no Revolutionary War. There was no Civil War, either. And, there has never been a war between Israel and any Palestinians.

Way to go, Polk. :thup:

There hasn't been a war between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Revolutionary War (United States versus Britain) and the Civil War (United States versus Confederate States) are both wars because you two national actors.
what made the confederacy a national actor, but al qaeda a non-national actor?

He sees NO distinction whether it be domestic or foreign, and THAT is his problem.
 
I have a theory that anybody who disagrees with another person's POV and then calls them an enemy of the state, always turn out to be a Simpleton who looks only at the lowest common denominator.

I'm glad to see Mr T is backing up that theory....in spades...
 
he can "declare war" all he wants. That doesn't make it a war any more than if he were to claim he's an avocado would make that true.

Also, good job showing your ignorance of history. The barbary pirates were the agents of the nation-state: The barbary states.

wrong and wrong. You remain consistent in that field.

The declaration of war by osama was followed by acts of war and when those things happen, you can call it an "avacado," but it's still war.

Further the barbary "states" were independent quasi-nations, not actual nations or nation- states. It was a loose confederation of islamo-filth. Not much different than the shit we are confronting today when you get right down to it.

Nice try to spin your way out of it, polky, but you remain no less wrong for that effort.

the barbary states were not "quasi-nations". There were nations that existed under the broader umbrella of state nominally part of the ottoman empire, but were administered locally. Sorta like an early version of bermuda's status today.


wrong.
 
I have a theory that anybody who disagrees with another person's POV and then calls them an enemy of the state, always turn out to be a Simpleton who looks only at the lowest common denominator.

I'm glad to see Mr T is backing up that theory....in spades...

racist.
 
OK. There was no Revolutionary War. There was no Civil War, either. And, there has never been a war between Israel and any Palestinians.

Way to go, Polk. :thup:

There hasn't been a war between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Revolutionary War (United States versus Britain) and the Civil War (United States versus Confederate States) are both wars because you two national actors.
what made the confederacy a national actor, but al qaeda a non-national actor?

Sovereignty, for starters. Sovereignty consists of two parts: control inside your own borders (which the CSA had and Al Qaeda doesn't since they don't possess any territory) and recognition by other nations (the CSA had diplomatic relations with France and Britain).
 
At the end of the day, nobody on the right has given a valid argument why the guy should not be tried in New York.

As for going under a military tribunal, he was arrested by the US, so should be subject to its laws. Simple. Let him have his day in court.

As for Obama stating that he expects him to be tried and executed...and least he's honest...
 
wrong and wrong. You remain consistent in that field.

The declaration of war by osama was followed by acts of war and when those things happen, you can call it an "avacado," but it's still war.

Further the barbary "states" were independent quasi-nations, not actual nations or nation- states. It was a loose confederation of islamo-filth. Not much different than the shit we are confronting today when you get right down to it.

Nice try to spin your way out of it, polky, but you remain no less wrong for that effort.

the barbary states were not "quasi-nations". There were nations that existed under the broader umbrella of state nominally part of the ottoman empire, but were administered locally. Sorta like an early version of bermuda's status today.


wrong.

Actually, that's correct. Also, what sort of dishonest fuck do you have to be to go through my post and make every uppercase letter into lowercase? Wait, I already know that answer.
 
He can "declare war" all he wants. That doesn't make it a war any more than if he were to claim he's an avocado would make that true.

Also, good job showing your ignorance of history. The Barbary pirates were the agents of the nation-state: the Barbary States.

Wrong and wrong. You remain consistent in that field.

The declaration of war by Osama was followed by acts of war and when those things happen, you can call it an "avacado," but it's still war.

Further the Barbary "states" were independent quasi-nations, not actual nations or nation- states. It was a loose confederation of Islamo-filth. Not much different than the shit we are confronting today when you get right down to it.

Nice try to spin your way out of it, Polky, but you remain no less wrong for that effort.

The Barbary States were not "quasi-nations". There were nations that existed under the broader umbrella of state nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, but were administered locally. Sorta like an early version of Bermuda's status today.

No. The regencies were not actual states. And yes. They had been a part of the larger entity known as the Ottoman Empire, but they were not actually so affiliated at the time of the Barbary Wars. They were little more than the Islamo-trash we confront today, but with the pretense of "rule" from regents or sultans.

And your quibble doesn't alter the point, anyway. It was a war with a collection of Pirates and a loose confederation of quasi-nations. And it wasn't even a "declared" war, so you usual little petty pointless is even less meaninful than it normally is.
 
I have a theory that anybody who disagrees with another person's POV and then calls them an enemy of the state, always turn out to be a Simpleton who looks only at the lowest common denominator.

I'm glad to see Mr T is backing up that theory....in spades...

You ARE Rascist. You are a total dumbass that points out and relies upon what YOU just admoished ME for doing. Congrats for your total projection.

I graduate you to MASTER of projection.
 
You ARE Rascist. You are a total dumbass that points out and relies upon what YOU just admoished ME for doing. Congrats for your total projection.

I graduate you to MASTER of projection.

Grump, stop being so "Rascist!" :rofl:

And some "admoishing" poor Thomas. :lol:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top