nom=de=plume wrote:
"Don White" wrote in message
...
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"John H" wrote in message
...
I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257



Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because
things like Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs
that send terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume
Johnny spent his career as an army officer...he has no idea about American
principles or culture.

If he did, I would be shocked if what you say is true. US military officers
swear to defend the Constitution.

I'm afraid my little buddy Don has little knowledge of anything beyond
the Bowery like environs of his native Halifax neighborhood.

--
If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal.

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257




Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US are entitled to Due Process and the Rule populationof Law. Perhaps
because things like Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the
thugs that send terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our
principles.

Have you ever considered that we are the invaders of a foreign country
that never attacked us and therefore we are the terrorist *in fact*.

The fight was *not* brought to us by Pakistan or Afghanistan. We are on
their soil. OBL is a Saudi national. Most of the high jackers on the
flights of 911 were Saudi nationals.

Were are the bombs and troops for Saudi Arabia that is unable to control
their terrorist Bedouins.

If our economy wasn't crushed and sold down the Chang Jiang River perhaps
our young men could get employment other than turn to the military. Some
day they will start a war and no one will show up to play soldier.

John is just a thumb sucking dumb-ass looking to make a thread he can't
support. He plays with nose pickers that are proud of the nasty habit.
Look for smarter people to joust with. Have a great day and it is good to
see you back.

cupcake wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257




Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US are entitled to Due Process and the Rule populationof Law. Perhaps
because things like Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the
thugs that send terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our
principles.


Have you ever considered that we are the invaders of a foreign country
that never attacked us and therefore we are the terrorist *in fact*.

The fight was *not* brought to us by Pakistan or Afghanistan. We are on
their soil. OBL is a Saudi national. Most of the high jackers on the
flights of 911 were Saudi nationals.



Good argument, except we in this instance was the Bush Family and last
I heard they("W" and Senior") are Republican's.

DP_Diddly

"cupcake" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:00:46 -0800, nom=de=plume wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257




Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US are entitled to Due Process and the Rule populationof Law. Perhaps
because things like Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the
thugs that send terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our
principles.

Have you ever considered that we are the invaders of a foreign country
that never attacked us and therefore we are the terrorist *in fact*.

If you're talking about Iraq, I agree. The leadership in Afganistan,
however, supported bin laden.

The fight was *not* brought to us by Pakistan or Afghanistan. We are on
their soil. OBL is a Saudi national. Most of the high jackers on the
flights of 911 were Saudi nationals.

The Saudi's admittedly did little pre-9/11 to deal with his crowd, but they
did boot him out and revoke his citizenship, I believe well in advance of
the attacks.


Were are the bombs and troops for Saudi Arabia that is unable to control
their terrorist Bedouins.

Unable to control and unwilling to control are two diff things. At first,
they were unwilling. Now they're willing and mostly do.

If our economy wasn't crushed and sold down the Chang Jiang River perhaps
our young men could get employment other than turn to the military. Some
day they will start a war and no one will show up to play soldier.

Someday the military will have to hold a bakesale to pay for yet another
fighter jet we don't really need.

John is just a thumb sucking dumb-ass looking to make a thread he can't
support. He plays with nose pickers that are proud of the nasty habit.
Look for smarter people to joust with. Have a great day and it is good to
see you back.

A bit harsh, but despite the allure of France, it's good to be home.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Jan 8, 4:00*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

(Sent through Google)

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions. Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?
You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get your
head out of Cheney's posterier.


--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions. Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?
You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

I'm not so sure this is true. Check into it and get back to us.

--
If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.

Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.


You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.

--
John H.

"The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that
thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and
industries they control."

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 13:31:28 -0500, John H
wrote:

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.

Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.


You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.

And here's something else for you, plum. Please take heed!!

A woman went to her doctor for advice.

She told him that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex,
and she was not sure that it was such a good idea.

'Do you enjoy it?' The doctor asked. 'Actually, yes, I do. ''Does it
hurt you?' he asked. 'No. I rather like it.' 'Well, then,' the doctor
continued, 'there's no reason that you shouldn't practice anal sex, if
that's what you like, so long as you take care not to get pregnant.'

The woman was mystified. 'What? You can get pregnant from anal sex?'
'Of course, ' the doctor replied. 'Where do you think people like
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid come from?'

--
John H.

"The truth is that unions are essentially parasitic organizations that
thrive only by draining and ultimately destroying the companies and
industries they control."

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:17:32 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Jan 8, 4:00 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message

...

I still haven't gotten an answer from a liberal explaining why it's OK
to bomb folks running on the ground in Pakistan, but we have to give a
'fair trial with lawyers and a jury' to terrorists who try to kill us.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=9510257

Perhaps because the "folks" running on the ground in Pakistan are in a
foreign territory, are engaged in military campaigns against us, are
considered the enemy, etc.; whereas, the people who are arrested in the
US
are entitled to Due Process and the Rule of Law. Perhaps because things
like
Due Process and the Rule of Law separate us from the thugs that send
terrorists here.

Perhaps you need a refresher course about our country and our
principles.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OK. It's fair to kill 'supposed' enemy combatants, even though there's
been no proof of same presented, and they're wearing nothing to
distinguish them from the local population. However, if and when an
enemy combatant can penetrate our border, then he is due the complete
and full protection granted any citizen of the USA.

Which is what happened in both the Shoe Bomber and Underware Bomber cases.

Suppose the enemy combatant crossed our border as part of a battalion.
Would he then, if captured, be entitled to the full protection of the
law?

Or, should captured enemy combatants be treated as prisoners of war,
which is what the little ****ers are.

Huh? If captured, they're entitled to be treated under the Geneva
Conventions.

Exactly. Thank you. They should be treated as prisoners of war under
the Geneva Convention. So should any other enemy combatant, even if he
flew in on an American airliner.

How do you determine if this person is an enemy combatant (which is not well
defined by law) or just a lunatic acting alone?


Do you seriously believe that a "battalion" would get that far?

Makes no difference. That wasn't the point.

It's totally the point. You're the one who used it as an argument.


You were in the military I presume? So, you have some understanding of our
defensive capabilities?

Again, makes no difference. Good try to change the subject, however.

Again, totally the point.

Maybe you and your liberal friends need a refresher in combat. At
least your Messiah is learning to use the proper terminology, "We are
at war." "Smartest words to come out of his mouth yet. Thank God he's
listening to Cheney.

No response here. Must have agreed that your Messiah is finally doing
something right.

No response needed, since your diatribe lacks any logical or factual
argument.

Maybe you need to actually read what *you* wrote. Maybe you need to get
your
head out of Cheney's posterier.

Hey, it's your Messiah who's using Cheney's words, finally.

Hey, it's your lying criminal who is Cheney.

--
Nom=de=Plume