On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:12:47 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:25:12 -0700, jps wrote:

In Afghanistan, religious extremists commit murder with their own
hands. In Merika, religious idiots have others handle their sins.

Our government uses robots to execute people (plus anyone else within
50 meters) that they used to arrest and take to Gitmo.

Is that better?

I would think death penalty opponents would be up in arms about this.
Death without a trial for suspicion of terrorism?

Nope, not a word when a Democrat is in the White House.

As a whole, I bet Anwar al-Awlaki would have rather been water boarded
a few times and be in Guantanamo with a chance to get out. They would
have a pretty hard time finding him guilty of anything in an American
court. Speech, even anti-American speech is still protected.

All that said, I still think he should have been killed ... but I
would kill the remaining bomber too.

Death penalty should be taken up by the religious before us atheist
"libruls" don't ya think?

The good news is that more states are either passing legislation
against or refusing to put people to death. It's not a deterrent,
never has been never will be.

I'm completely opposed to using drones. Collateral damage isn't
acceptable. It foments hatred and breeds more terrorists.

I think the jerks at Gitmo should be tried in a court of law and
either convicted and sentenced or sent wherever they can be monitored,
as necessary.

On 5/8/13 6:45 PM, jps wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 16:12:47 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:25:12 -0700, jps wrote:

In Afghanistan, religious extremists commit murder with their own
hands. In Merika, religious idiots have others handle their sins.

Our government uses robots to execute people (plus anyone else within
50 meters) that they used to arrest and take to Gitmo.

Is that better?

I would think death penalty opponents would be up in arms about this.
Death without a trial for suspicion of terrorism?

Nope, not a word when a Democrat is in the White House.

As a whole, I bet Anwar al-Awlaki would have rather been water boarded
a few times and be in Guantanamo with a chance to get out. They would
have a pretty hard time finding him guilty of anything in an American
court. Speech, even anti-American speech is still protected.

All that said, I still think he should have been killed ... but I
would kill the remaining bomber too.

Death penalty should be taken up by the religious before us atheist
"libruls" don't ya think?

The good news is that more states are either passing legislation
against or refusing to put people to death. It's not a deterrent,
never has been never will be.

I'm completely opposed to using drones. Collateral damage isn't
acceptable. It foments hatred and breeds more terrorists.

I think the jerks at Gitmo should be tried in a court of law and
either convicted and sentenced or sent wherever they can be monitored,
as necessary.



I don't recall the righties complaining when the Bush Admin killed tens
of thousands of Iraqis during that trumped up war.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...



I don't recall the righties complaining when the Bush Admin killed
tens
of thousands of Iraqis during that trumped up war.

---------------------------------------------------------

Harry, I don't recall you complaining about it either until much later
when we found ourselves dealing with an internal power struggle within
Iraq.

Seems like when things are going well the liberals are all for it.
It's only when things don't work out as planned that all the Monday
morning quarterbacking starts.

On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:34:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...



I don't recall the righties complaining when the Bush Admin killed
tens
of thousands of Iraqis during that trumped up war.

---------------------------------------------------------

Harry, I don't recall you complaining about it either until much later
when we found ourselves dealing with an internal power struggle within
Iraq.

Seems like when things are going well the liberals are all for it.
It's only when things don't work out as planned that all the Monday
morning quarterbacking starts.

Ah, no. I think if we go back to the start of that war you'll find
the small cadre of "libruls" here (I know I was very vocal about my
displeasure) were firmly against going into Iraq.

The fact that our congress did the go-along-to-get-along soft shoe
doesn't account for "libruls."

In article , says...

On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:34:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...



I don't recall the righties complaining when the Bush Admin killed
tens
of thousands of Iraqis during that trumped up war.

---------------------------------------------------------

Harry, I don't recall you complaining about it either until much later
when we found ourselves dealing with an internal power struggle within
Iraq.

Seems like when things are going well the liberals are all for it.
It's only when things don't work out as planned that all the Monday
morning quarterbacking starts.

Ah, no. I think if we go back to the start of that war you'll find
the small cadre of "libruls" here (I know I was very vocal about my
displeasure) were firmly against going into Iraq.

The fact that our congress did the go-along-to-get-along soft shoe
doesn't account for "libruls."

And your proof is?

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:29:30 AM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
In article , says...



On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:34:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:







"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...







I don't recall the righties complaining when the Bush Admin killed

tens

of thousands of Iraqis during that trumped up war.



---------------------------------------------------------



Harry, I don't recall you complaining about it either until much later

when we found ourselves dealing with an internal power struggle within

Iraq.



Seems like when things are going well the liberals are all for it.

It's only when things don't work out as planned that all the Monday

morning quarterbacking starts.



Ah, no. I think if we go back to the start of that war you'll find

the small cadre of "libruls" here (I know I was very vocal about my

displeasure) were firmly against going into Iraq.



The fact that our congress did the go-along-to-get-along soft shoe

doesn't account for "libruls."



And your proof is?

The congress-critter liberals are on video demanding blood. jps is full of it.

On Thu, 9 May 2013 05:47:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 7:29:30 AM UTC-4, BAR wrote:
In article , says...



On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:34:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:







"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...







I don't recall the righties complaining when the Bush Admin killed

tens

of thousands of Iraqis during that trumped up war.



---------------------------------------------------------



Harry, I don't recall you complaining about it either until much later

when we found ourselves dealing with an internal power struggle within

Iraq.



Seems like when things are going well the liberals are all for it.

It's only when things don't work out as planned that all the Monday

morning quarterbacking starts.



Ah, no. I think if we go back to the start of that war you'll find

the small cadre of "libruls" here (I know I was very vocal about my

displeasure) were firmly against going into Iraq.



The fact that our congress did the go-along-to-get-along soft shoe

doesn't account for "libruls."



And your proof is?

The congress-critter liberals are on video demanding blood. jps is full of it.

Little reading comprehension problem? Try again, dip****.

On 5/8/13 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:33:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I don't recall the righties complaining when the Bush Admin killed tens
of thousands of Iraqis during that trumped up war.


I guess I must not be a "righty"

... but I didn't even want the war when it was GHWB doing it. That
just enabled the 20 years of Iraq war that followed.
You also ignore the 20,000 that Iraq says we killed between the Kuwait
liberation and the GW invasion, in the name of WMD inspections and
saving the Kurds. We were bombing them regularly in the supposed
decade of "peace" leading up to the invasion..


We've been slaughtering non-combatants non stop since the end of WWII.

On 5/8/2013 9:23 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
We've been slaughtering non-combatants non stop since the end of WWII.

And yet you survive the slaughter. Pity.

On 5/9/13 12:06 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 21:23:19 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 5/8/13 8:40 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:33:09 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


I don't recall the righties complaining when the Bush Admin killed tens
of thousands of Iraqis during that trumped up war.


I guess I must not be a "righty"

... but I didn't even want the war when it was GHWB doing it. That
just enabled the 20 years of Iraq war that followed.
You also ignore the 20,000 that Iraq says we killed between the Kuwait
liberation and the GW invasion, in the name of WMD inspections and
saving the Kurds. We were bombing them regularly in the supposed
decade of "peace" leading up to the invasion..


We've been slaughtering non-combatants non stop since the end of WWII.

Why are you limiting this to "after WWII"?

Do you think the 8th Air Force and the RAF were all that selective in
their bombing?
The US was at least trying to target defense industries with daylight
bombing and the over hyped Norden bomb site but Bomber Harris was just
opening the bomb bays and letting them go over anything he thought
might have a lot of Germans in it.
Once LeMay got to his B29s over Japan, we used napalm on their
population centers with very little regard to their lack of combatant
status.

This really goes back through the union army in our own civil war and
the conquest of the southwest, from the Indians and the Mexicans.


I'm aware of our bloody history.