Geez... I'm absolutely shocked at how many otherwise reasonable people are equating a threat to burn a book with riots, threats of murder, and murder itself.

It's a damn stack of paper! Is it an insult?? Absolutely... but so is being told that we have to put up with a mosque so near the ground zero site that will by design open on the 10th anniversary of the murder.

I'll remind you that the Branch Davidians died at the hands of our government simply because they had the capability of killing people. They never had before, and never threatened to do so. They hadn't burned anything or damaged private or public property. Members of the Muslim faith have murdered, threatened murder, burned, destroyed and damaged private property... and our government tells them they have rights??

REALLY??

Answer to the question? Not no but HELL no.

(09-09-2010 08:15 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:23 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  dwr - actually my example ISN'T particularly over the top. Muslim clerics have thretened to kill innocent Americans in response to the book buring... I am "shooting innocents" in response to your "yelling fire"... or Killing your grads in response to your doing something that is legal, but I find it offensive.

Nobody is talking about riots... they're talking about killing Americans for doing legal things... or for asking that the mosque builders be sensitive and move the mosque (like we're asking the book burners be sensitive)

Maybe my example isn't the best, but I don't think it's that far off.

(Another team winning a game against your favorite team = a group of people burning your religious text)

Not a good analogy.

For the record, before the personal attacks start, neither situation is grounds for killing someone.

I actually think what we're disagreeing on is a big part of my point...

You have no idea how committed I am to my Owls

I'd agree with you if our laws gave any deference to "a holy book" as being anything other than a stack of paper. Beating my Owls is AT LEAST equal to burning a stack of paper. The fact that YOU (or more correctly "one") views this paper as Holy doesn't make it so legally. Now, if it were the actual manuscript... you'd have a point... but as something that can be identically replaced for a paltry sum of money?? It's a stack of paper, and no different under the law than a newspaper...

As I said... but maybe not in this thread... If one is going to expect/demand that I accept their unreasonable rules... they must expect that they will be expected to accept MY unreasonable rules. The Qu'ran is NOT a protected document under US law.

If we're strictly talking about legality, then yes, you're absolutely right.

(09-10-2010 08:17 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:23 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  dwr - actually my example ISN'T particularly over the top. Muslim clerics have thretened to kill innocent Americans in response to the book buring... I am "shooting innocents" in response to your "yelling fire"... or Killing your grads in response to your doing something that is legal, but I find it offensive.

Nobody is talking about riots... they're talking about killing Americans for doing legal things... or for asking that the mosque builders be sensitive and move the mosque (like we're asking the book burners be sensitive)

Maybe my example isn't the best, but I don't think it's that far off.

(Another team winning a game against your favorite team = a group of people burning your religious text)

Not a good analogy.

For the record, before the personal attacks start, neither situation is grounds for killing someone.

All reasonable people agree....The problem is we are not dealing with reasonable people. I firmly believe the government has as much grounds to stop this pastor as they thought they did in stopping Saddam. Why are this pastors actions not creating an eminent threat to national security and the security of our men and women engaged in combat? If you are going to use the "eminent threat" excuse for going to war...then why is it not valid in the situation?

My whole reason for starting this thread was not to advocate that force be used to stop the burning of cellulose material. Anyone that has read very many of my posts has to know better.... I started it to show the the the arbitrary manner in which the those in power choose to interpret the Constitution and apply it to things that they like or dislike. In this case because it deals with a religious subject...they choose to stand down. Application of the WPA and Constitutional mandates are not consistent. This is just another example..IMO.

WMD's and burning a Koran, Good comparison. Prevent a fanatical, tyrannical, murderer from acquiring, using WMD's, or prevent a witless pastor (his belief that Islam is Evil) from burning a Koran. Better you leave this thread before you lose your last shred of dignity.

You lose all credibility..as did the Bush admin. by making the assertion that Saddam was a threat. Not a damn shred of evidence that has been uncovered backs that up. I bought into the BS also...The difference is..I admit I was wrong.

(09-10-2010 09:20 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Answer to the question? Not no but HELL no.

I agree...but...I am not in power. Those that are...do whatever they wish... and similarly ...as you have pointed out in the Mosque issue..."use" the Constitution to achieve what THEY want by finding some loophole or just simply making sh!t up as they go along.... If the Fed. decides to stop this..then it is stopped.

(09-10-2010 12:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 09:20 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Answer to the question? Not no but HELL no.

I agree...but...I am not in power. Those that are...do whatever they wish... and similarly ...as you have pointed out in the Mosque issue..."use" the Constitution to achieve what THEY want by finding some loophole or just simply making sh!t up as they go along.... If the Fed. decides to stop this..then it is stopped.

You asked if they had the constitutional ability. Having the constitutional ability to do it as opposed to just doing it are two, totally different things. ...and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows them to prevent it nor has there ever been a precedent set about the matter. If sillyass liberals want to set the precedent, then I can't WAIT for a Republican to get back in office with the system they create. That should really send them to the mental ward.

(09-10-2010 12:20 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 12:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 09:20 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Answer to the question? Not no but HELL no.

I agree...but...I am not in power. Those that are...do whatever they wish... and similarly ...as you have pointed out in the Mosque issue..."use" the Constitution to achieve what THEY want by finding some loophole or just simply making sh!t up as they go along.... If the Fed. decides to stop this..then it is stopped.

You asked if they had the constitutional ability. Having the constitutional ability to do it as opposed to just doing it are two, totally different things. ...and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows them to prevent it nor has there ever been a precedent set about the matter. If sillyass liberals want to set the precedent, then I can't WAIT for a Republican to get back in office with the system they create. That should really send them to the mental ward.

Yes...I agree. I will point out however that we have a system(Homeland Security) put in place by a Rep. administration. If the Fed. did decide to do something..It would likely be done using that system. I bring this up not to be argumentative but to illustrate your point about building upon polices already in place and expanding them beyond their original scope. This is the nature of the system unfortunately. Whenever a new program get initiated, someone should ask..."What is going to happen to this program in 5 years or so?":idea:

(09-10-2010 12:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes...I agree. I will point out however that we have a system(Homeland Security) put in place by a Rep. administration. If the Fed. did decide to do something..It would likely be done using that system. I bring this up not to be argumentative but to illustrate your point about building upon polices already in place and expanding them beyond their original scope. This is the nature of the system unfortunately. Whenever a new program get initiated, someone should ask..."What is going to happen to this program in 5 years or so?":idea:

I'd love to see the Black Panther wannabe Kenyan go after this preacher when he let the Black Panther who wanted to kill some crackas and 'dey babies off the hook.

(09-10-2010 12:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 12:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes...I agree. I will point out however that we have a system(Homeland Security) put in place by a Rep. administration. If the Fed. did decide to do something..It would likely be done using that system. I bring this up not to be argumentative but to illustrate your point about building upon polices already in place and expanding them beyond their original scope. This is the nature of the system unfortunately. Whenever a new program get initiated, someone should ask..."What is going to happen to this program in 5 years or so?":idea:

I'd love to see the Black Panther wannabe Kenyan go after this preacher when he let the Black Panther who wanted to kill some crackas and 'dey babies off the hook.

Word.

(09-10-2010 12:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 08:17 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:23 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  dwr - actually my example ISN'T particularly over the top. Muslim clerics have thretened to kill innocent Americans in response to the book buring... I am "shooting innocents" in response to your "yelling fire"... or Killing your grads in response to your doing something that is legal, but I find it offensive.

Nobody is talking about riots... they're talking about killing Americans for doing legal things... or for asking that the mosque builders be sensitive and move the mosque (like we're asking the book burners be sensitive)

Maybe my example isn't the best, but I don't think it's that far off.

(Another team winning a game against your favorite team = a group of people burning your religious text)

Not a good analogy.

For the record, before the personal attacks start, neither situation is grounds for killing someone.

All reasonable people agree....The problem is we are not dealing with reasonable people. I firmly believe the government has as much grounds to stop this pastor as they thought they did in stopping Saddam. Why are this pastors actions not creating an eminent threat to national security and the security of our men and women engaged in combat? If you are going to use the "eminent threat" excuse for going to war...then why is it not valid in the situation?

My whole reason for starting this thread was not to advocate that force be used to stop the burning of cellulose material. Anyone that has read very many of my posts has to know better.... I started it to show the the the arbitrary manner in which the those in power choose to interpret the Constitution and apply it to things that they like or dislike. In this case because it deals with a religious subject...they choose to stand down. Application of the WPA and Constitutional mandates are not consistent. This is just another example..IMO.

WMD's and burning a Koran, Good comparison. Prevent a fanatical, tyrannical, murderer from acquiring, using WMD's, or prevent a witless pastor (his belief that Islam is Evil) from burning a Koran. Better you leave this thread before you lose your last shred of dignity.

You lose all credibility..as did the Bush admin. by making the assertion that Saddam was a threat. Not a damn shred of evidence that has been uncovered backs that up. I bought into the BS also...The difference is..I admit I was wrong.

On the eve of 9/11 you are trying to rewrite history. You would enable the murderers for political purposes. Typical. Saddam was a threat and there was plenty of evidence. How many people did Saddam murder? Did he abide by the cease fire of the 1st gulf war? Did he comply with the UN inspectors? You have chosen sides, chosen the touchy, feely point of view of Progressive liberals. When I look at the images of 9/11, I see my country attacked. You on the other hand, obviously, are unaware of the broader threat. The symbols of liberty, WTC, Capitol, Pentagon, White House, were the target of a cowardly, surprise attack by people who hate us, hate liberty, hate freedom, hate my country. What will it take for you to understand the war against us included Iraq.

(09-10-2010 02:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 12:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 08:17 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 07:23 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  (Another team winning a game against your favorite team = a group of people burning your religious text)

Not a good analogy.

For the record, before the personal attacks start, neither situation is grounds for killing someone.

All reasonable people agree....The problem is we are not dealing with reasonable people. I firmly believe the government has as much grounds to stop this pastor as they thought they did in stopping Saddam. Why are this pastors actions not creating an eminent threat to national security and the security of our men and women engaged in combat? If you are going to use the "eminent threat" excuse for going to war...then why is it not valid in the situation?

My whole reason for starting this thread was not to advocate that force be used to stop the burning of cellulose material. Anyone that has read very many of my posts has to know better.... I started it to show the the the arbitrary manner in which the those in power choose to interpret the Constitution and apply it to things that they like or dislike. In this case because it deals with a religious subject...they choose to stand down. Application of the WPA and Constitutional mandates are not consistent. This is just another example..IMO.

WMD's and burning a Koran, Good comparison. Prevent a fanatical, tyrannical, murderer from acquiring, using WMD's, or prevent a witless pastor (his belief that Islam is Evil) from burning a Koran. Better you leave this thread before you lose your last shred of dignity.

You lose all credibility..as did the Bush admin. by making the assertion that Saddam was a threat. Not a damn shred of evidence that has been uncovered backs that up. I bought into the BS also...The difference is..I admit I was wrong.

On the eve of 9/11 you are trying to rewrite history. You would enable the murderers for political purposes. Typical. Saddam was a threat and there was plenty of evidence. How many people did Saddam murder? Did he abide by the cease fire of the 1st gulf war? Did he comply with the UN inspectors? You have chosen sides, chosen the touchy, feely point of view of Progressive liberals. When I look at the images of 9/11, I see my country attacked. You on the other hand, obviously, are unaware of the broader threat. The symbols of liberty, WTC, Capitol, Pentagon, White House, were the target of a cowardly, surprise attack by people who hate us, hate liberty, hate freedom, hate my country. What will it take for you to understand the war against us included Iraq.

The murders that committed this atrocity are dead. The mastermind is still at large. None of them came from Iraq. No credible tie has ever been established between Saddam and this cowardly act. Was Saddam a bad guy?...Damn right. Did he deserve to die for what he did to his people?...Damn right...but It has nothing to do with 9/11. You ask what would it take for me to believe otherwise....evidence to that fact would suffice. I weep for the victims of this heinous crime. I also weep for the dead servicemen that fought bravely in this conflict and their families. The sooner they come home the better...IMO

I believed as you do that there was a credible reason and eminent threat scenario that existed to go after Saddam. Then...I find that that evidence was mostly BS. There is no denying otherwise. I admit now it was a mistake. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

(09-10-2010 03:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 02:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 12:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 08:17 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-09-2010 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  All reasonable people agree....The problem is we are not dealing with reasonable people. I firmly believe the government has as much grounds to stop this pastor as they thought they did in stopping Saddam. Why are this pastors actions not creating an eminent threat to national security and the security of our men and women engaged in combat? If you are going to use the "eminent threat" excuse for going to war...then why is it not valid in the situation?

My whole reason for starting this thread was not to advocate that force be used to stop the burning of cellulose material. Anyone that has read very many of my posts has to know better.... I started it to show the the the arbitrary manner in which the those in power choose to interpret the Constitution and apply it to things that they like or dislike. In this case because it deals with a religious subject...they choose to stand down. Application of the WPA and Constitutional mandates are not consistent. This is just another example..IMO.

WMD's and burning a Koran, Good comparison. Prevent a fanatical, tyrannical, murderer from acquiring, using WMD's, or prevent a witless pastor (his belief that Islam is Evil) from burning a Koran. Better you leave this thread before you lose your last shred of dignity.

You lose all credibility..as did the Bush admin. by making the assertion that Saddam was a threat. Not a damn shred of evidence that has been uncovered backs that up. I bought into the BS also...The difference is..I admit I was wrong.

On the eve of 9/11 you are trying to rewrite history. You would enable the murderers for political purposes. Typical. Saddam was a threat and there was plenty of evidence. How many people did Saddam murder? Did he abide by the cease fire of the 1st gulf war? Did he comply with the UN inspectors? You have chosen sides, chosen the touchy, feely point of view of Progressive liberals. When I look at the images of 9/11, I see my country attacked. You on the other hand, obviously, are unaware of the broader threat. The symbols of liberty, WTC, Capitol, Pentagon, White House, were the target of a cowardly, surprise attack by people who hate us, hate liberty, hate freedom, hate my country. What will it take for you to understand the war against us included Iraq.

The murders that committed this atrocity are dead. The mastermind is still at large. None of them came from Iraq. No credible tie has ever been established between Saddam and this cowardly act. Was Saddam a bad guy?...Damn right. Did he deserve to die for what he did to his people?...Damn right...but It has nothing to do with 9/11. You ask what would it take for me to believe otherwise....evidence to that fact would suffice. I weep for the victims of this heinous crime. I also weep for the dead servicemen that fought bravely in this conflict and their families. The sooner they come home the better...IMO

I believed as you do that there was a credible reason and eminent threat scenario that existed to go after Saddam. Then...I find that that evidence was mostly BS. There is no denying otherwise. I admit now it was a mistake. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

We liberated 30 million Iraqis. Not enough for you?

We were still at war with Saddam. He signed agreements. We put shooting at him on hold. He violated all those agreements daily. Fo, you of all people with your talk of contracts and agreements should realize there are consequences for not abiding by agreements you enter into.

The American people have to be convinced to support actions. To get many to support going back in, excuses were made. Violating a seize fire agreement was all that was necessary. To many people didn't care at all that he was shooting at us. Some people needed more than that. WMD's and eminent threat seemed to be the biggest public support swayer's.

All these other excuses for resuming hostilities against him were secondary.

Never mind that WMD's WERE found.

(09-10-2010 10:51 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 03:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 02:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 12:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-10-2010 08:17 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  WMD's and burning a Koran, Good comparison. Prevent a fanatical, tyrannical, murderer from acquiring, using WMD's, or prevent a witless pastor (his belief that Islam is Evil) from burning a Koran. Better you leave this thread before you lose your last shred of dignity.

You lose all credibility..as did the Bush admin. by making the assertion that Saddam was a threat. Not a damn shred of evidence that has been uncovered backs that up. I bought into the BS also...The difference is..I admit I was wrong.

On the eve of 9/11 you are trying to rewrite history. You would enable the murderers for political purposes. Typical. Saddam was a threat and there was plenty of evidence. How many people did Saddam murder? Did he abide by the cease fire of the 1st gulf war? Did he comply with the UN inspectors? You have chosen sides, chosen the touchy, feely point of view of Progressive liberals. When I look at the images of 9/11, I see my country attacked. You on the other hand, obviously, are unaware of the broader threat. The symbols of liberty, WTC, Capitol, Pentagon, White House, were the target of a cowardly, surprise attack by people who hate us, hate liberty, hate freedom, hate my country. What will it take for you to understand the war against us included Iraq.

The murders that committed this atrocity are dead. The mastermind is still at large. None of them came from Iraq. No credible tie has ever been established between Saddam and this cowardly act. Was Saddam a bad guy?...Damn right. Did he deserve to die for what he did to his people?...Damn right...but It has nothing to do with 9/11. You ask what would it take for me to believe otherwise....evidence to that fact would suffice. I weep for the victims of this heinous crime. I also weep for the dead servicemen that fought bravely in this conflict and their families. The sooner they come home the better...IMO

I believed as you do that there was a credible reason and eminent threat scenario that existed to go after Saddam. Then...I find that that evidence was mostly BS. There is no denying otherwise. I admit now it was a mistake. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that.

We liberated 30 million Iraqis. Not enough for you?

Honestly...I hope the best for those "liberated"...but...No. You are trying to justify a mistake by painting it in the best light. I also hope the blood spilled will be worth the treasure. I fear however that will not be the case.

(09-11-2010 07:33 AM)Paul M Wrote:  We were still at war with Saddam. He signed agreements. We put shooting at him on hold. He violated all those agreements daily. Fo, you of all people with your talk of contracts and agreements should realize there are consequences for not abiding by agreements you enter into.

The American people have to be convinced to support actions. To get many to support going back in, excuses were made. Violating a seize fire agreement was all that was necessary. To many people didn't care at all that he was shooting at us. Some people needed more than that. WMD's and eminent threat seemed to be the biggest public support swayer's.

All these other excuses for resuming hostilities against him were secondary.

Never mind that WMD's WERE found.

Take all this to Colin Powell today and ask him WTF would he NOW do if he had been given accurate intel. Never mind. We know.

Iraq never has been an eminent threat to America. The evidence to that effect is overwhelming. Again...I admit that I believed otherwise 9 years ago.

The only way that invading Iraq ever made any sense was if we believed Israel was getting ready to make Baghdad glow and we wanted to prevent that. I don't know whether they were or not, although there are facts that suggest to me that they were, and if they were I don't know whether that was sufficient rationale or not. Personally, I'd have let Israel do it, and in any event I would not have gone into Iraq until the job was completely done in Afghanistan--meaning Osama dead, Mullah Omar dead, the Taliban dead. We are nowhere near to achieving that today, and I don't know how much of that failure is due to splitting our attention with Iraq, and how much is due to our never being in to win from the get-go.

One big difference between Israel nuking Iraq and Israel nuking Iran--most of the Arab world would have sided with Iraq against Israel, but I expect most of them will side with Israel against Iran. "My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world." That might have been sufficient to cause me to think stopping an Israeli attack against Iraq was worth it. Either way it's a close call--if the facts are that Israel really was getting ready to attack.

(09-11-2010 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-11-2010 07:33 AM)Paul M Wrote:  We were still at war with Saddam. He signed agreements. We put shooting at him on hold. He violated all those agreements daily. Fo, you of all people with your talk of contracts and agreements should realize there are consequences for not abiding by agreements you enter into.

The American people have to be convinced to support actions. To get many to support going back in, excuses were made. Violating a seize fire agreement was all that was necessary. To many people didn't care at all that he was shooting at us. Some people needed more than that. WMD's and eminent threat seemed to be the biggest public support swayer's.

All these other excuses for resuming hostilities against him were secondary.

Never mind that WMD's WERE found.

Take all this to Colin Powell today and ask him WTF would he NOW do if he had been given accurate intel. Never mind. We know.

Iraq never has been an eminent threat to America. The evidence to that effect is overwhelming. Again...I admit that I believed otherwise 9 years ago.

Neither was Germany. As to what Colin Powell thinks... you ever spoken to him? You might be surprised. He didn't NEED the intel... the Intel was there to try and get "the world" on board. The fact is, once the decision was made, Colin wouldn't have stopped when Bush41 did, and wouldn't have waited for UN approval to resume hostilities. Believe what you want. The man was a pragmatic warrior.

(09-13-2010 11:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Neither was Germany.

Germany declared war on us immediately after we announced we were at war with their Axis partner Japan.

(09-13-2010 12:58 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-13-2010 11:49 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Neither was Germany.

Germany declared war on us immediately after we announced we were at war with their Axis partner Japan.

and Iraq invaded Kuwait... (with or without a declaration of war, that is clearly an ACT of war) a country we had a protection agreement with.... or "Allied" partner, if you will. What is the difference? Just because someone declares war against you doesn't mean you have to travel 2000 miles to bomb them. Sure you CAN, but their declaration doesn't mean we MUST respond with bombs. Interesting that they never DID attack US soil, yet you equate them to being an "eminent" (imminent?? = immediate as opposed to eminent = superior?) threat.