We should send all US terror suspects to GITMO?

We are in a WAR. And if we want to win we have to quit excusing the instigators of said war.

I see. War. So, once we invade them, take over their capitol and they surrender, all will be fine and dandy?

The terrorism problem isn't a war, but if you insist on calling it one, it's the stupidest war imaginable. We're letting the 'other side' dictate the terms and basically committing to remain at war as long as there is anyone out there who intends to do us harm. In other words, perpetually. Why do you want to let them set the terms?

Not exactly. Throughout the 70's and 80's in Europe we played that game. They set the rules and we reacted to the rules. Problem was they kept changing those rules. It wasn't until after 9-11-01 when we started to dictate the rules. We changed terrorism from a police problem to a military problem. Now if the politicians would just allow the military to conduct operations without getting in the way maybe something could change.
 
Not exactly. Throughout the 70's and 80's in Europe we played that game. They set the rules and we reacted to the rules. Problem was they kept changing those rules. It wasn't until after 9-11-01 when we started to dictate the rules. We changed terrorism from a police problem to a military problem. Now if the politicians would just allow the military to conduct operations without getting in the way maybe something could change.

Really? Because in calling it a 'war' you are, in fact, acquiescing to their terms. You're giving them exactly what they want. They insist that their actions aren't terrorist crimes, but legitimate attacks in a holy war. Calling it a 'war' elevates the status of terrorists from criminal murderers, to soldiers in battle. Does that seem right to you? Are they soldiers? Or murdering scum?
 
Not exactly. Throughout the 70's and 80's in Europe we played that game. They set the rules and we reacted to the rules. Problem was they kept changing those rules. It wasn't until after 9-11-01 when we started to dictate the rules. We changed terrorism from a police problem to a military problem. Now if the politicians would just allow the military to conduct operations without getting in the way maybe something could change.

Really? Because in calling it a 'war' you are, in fact, acquiescing to their terms. You're giving them exactly what they want. They insist that their actions aren't terrorist crimes, but legitimate attacks in a holy war. Calling it a 'war' elevates the status of terrorists from criminal murderers, to soldiers in battle. Does that seem right to you? Are they soldiers? Or murdering scum?

So you are hung up on one word? We are shooting and being shot at, yes it's a war. And they are lower than scum. What do you want to call it? Care to go back to "Police Action"? I would hope not.....
 
We changed terrorism from a police problem to a military problem.

And the Bush administration didn't listen to the police. Hence one of the most wasteful programs ever enacted; the Dept. of Homeland Security

DHS could be a good program if it wasn't so inflated and blown out of proportion. They should be nothing more than a simple liaison between all the snoops, military , and other components of the Government. Making certain that everyone is on the same sheet of music......
 
So you are hung up on one word? We are shooting and being shot at, yes it's a war. And they are lower than scum. What do you want to call it? Care to go back to "Police Action"? I would hope not.....

No, I'm hung up on idiotic policy. We want this to be a 'war' because we're good at war. We have the biggest, baddest military on the planet and we know that no one can seriously challenge us in a real war. So, we really, really, want this to be a war. But sadly, it isn't. And that sucks, because it would be much easier to deal with if if it were.

Instead, it's something more subtle, and more insidious than war. And it's going to take a different strategy to solve. We won't find that strategy as long as we're deluding ourselves as to the actual nature of the problem. We need to wake up.
 
We changed terrorism from a police problem to a military problem.

And the Bush administration didn't listen to the police. Hence one of the most wasteful programs ever enacted; the Dept. of Homeland Security

DHS could be a good program if it wasn't so inflated and blown out of proportion. They should be nothing more than a simple liaison between all the snoops, military , and other components of the Government. Making certain that everyone is on the same sheet of music......

DHS is pure, unadulterated shit. It is worse than useless.
 
Last edited:
So you are hung up on one word? We are shooting and being shot at, yes it's a war. And they are lower than scum. What do you want to call it? Care to go back to "Police Action"? I would hope not.....

No, I'm hung up on idiotic policy. We want this to be a 'war' because we're good at war. We have the biggest, baddest military on the planet and we know that no one can seriously challenge us in a real war. So, we really, really, want this to be a war. But sadly, it isn't. And that sucks, because it would be much easier to deal with if if it were.

Instead, it's something more subtle, and more insidious than war. And it's going to take a different strategy to solve. We won't find that strategy as long as we're deluding ourselves as to the actual nature of the problem. We need to wake up.

Yeah but war packs our government's rich friends pockets with out tax money.

So war it is.
 
We are in a WAR. And if we want to win we have to quit excusing the instigators of said war.

I see. War. So, once we invade them, take over their capitol and they surrender, all will be fine and dandy?

The terrorism problem isn't a war, but if you insist on calling it one, it's the stupidest war imaginable. We're letting the 'other side' dictate the terms and basically committing to remain at war as long as there is anyone out there who intends to do us harm. In other words, perpetually. Why do you want to let them set the terms?

Not exactly. Throughout the 70's and 80's in Europe we played that game. They set the rules and we reacted to the rules. Problem was they kept changing those rules. It wasn't until after 9-11-01 when we started to dictate the rules. We changed terrorism from a police problem to a military problem. Now if the politicians would just allow the military to conduct operations without getting in the way maybe something could change.

So we are in a state of martial law in the USA?
This thread is about dealing with terrorists IN the USA.
 
I see. War. So, once we invade them, take over their capitol and they surrender, all will be fine and dandy?

The terrorism problem isn't a war, but if you insist on calling it one, it's the stupidest war imaginable. We're letting the 'other side' dictate the terms and basically committing to remain at war as long as there is anyone out there who intends to do us harm. In other words, perpetually. Why do you want to let them set the terms?

Not exactly. Throughout the 70's and 80's in Europe we played that game. They set the rules and we reacted to the rules. Problem was they kept changing those rules. It wasn't until after 9-11-01 when we started to dictate the rules. We changed terrorism from a police problem to a military problem. Now if the politicians would just allow the military to conduct operations without getting in the way maybe something could change.

So we are in a state of martial law in the USA?
This thread is about dealing with terrorists IN the USA.

Like the Quakers and Catholic nuns.
 
I see. War. So, once we invade them, take over their capitol and they surrender, all will be fine and dandy?

The terrorism problem isn't a war, but if you insist on calling it one, it's the stupidest war imaginable. We're letting the 'other side' dictate the terms and basically committing to remain at war as long as there is anyone out there who intends to do us harm. In other words, perpetually. Why do you want to let them set the terms?

Not exactly. Throughout the 70's and 80's in Europe we played that game. They set the rules and we reacted to the rules. Problem was they kept changing those rules. It wasn't until after 9-11-01 when we started to dictate the rules. We changed terrorism from a police problem to a military problem. Now if the politicians would just allow the military to conduct operations without getting in the way maybe something could change.

So we are in a state of martial law in the USA?
This thread is about dealing with terrorists IN the USA.

Sorry, I was addressing a side issue. It depends if the person in question is a citizen or not. If they are a citizen then I have no problem with trying them as a traitor in Federal Court. If they are not give them a one way ticket to gitmo.
 
According to our lead Republican we should send all US terror suspects to GITMO.

Where will it end?

Supreme Court already ruled on that. Would require an act of Congress to change. We are in a WAR. And if we want to win we have to quit excusing the instigators of said war.
Agreed!!!!!!!


"Every month brings improved job news—and bleaker prospects for the Republicans in November, which is why they’re contemplating economic sabotage as their only hope.

We’re just under eight months away from Election Day now, which means that the GOP is starting to run out of time to think up new ways to ruin the economy so that Barack Obama doesn’t get reelected. The Republicans have to do this delicately, of course; they can’t be open about it lest it become too obvious that harming the economy is their goal. But they have to be aggressive enough about it for their efforts to bear some actual (rotten) fruit. There are three fronts—gas prices, jobs, and the budget—on which we should keep our eyes open for signs that the Republicans are trying to achieve Mitch McConnell’s No. 1 goal for America."

images
 

Forum List

Back
Top