On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.

Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.


Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.

How do you the 'hidden' party is guilty of anything?

The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.

Which would be the proper course of action - or capturing the
individual and granting him 'due process'.

With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?

Pakistan has nukes now?

You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.

But being blown to smithereens without due process is OK?

They concealed that they were torturing. Why?

Gosh, you must totally believe anything Democrat witch-hunters have to
say.

Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.

You make little sense. On the one hand you preach 'law', but on the
other you justify the 'lawlessness' of drone strikes on 'possible'
terrorists who 'may' be guilty of something besides being intermingled
with civilians.

Sneer as you will, but you're right up there with the Toad when it
comes to your liberal logic.
--

Here's hoping you have a very Merry Christmas, and a spectacular New Year!

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:22:08 -0500, Toad Gigger
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.

Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.


Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.

How do you the 'hidden' party is guilty of anything?

The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.

Which would be the proper course of action - or capturing the
individual and granting him 'due process'.

With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?

Pakistan has nukes now?

You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.

But being blown to smithereens without due process is OK?

They concealed that they were torturing. Why?

Gosh, you must totally believe anything Democrat witch-hunters have to
say.

Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.

You make little sense. On the one hand you preach 'law', but on the
other you justify the 'lawlessness' of drone strikes on 'possible'
terrorists who 'may' be guilty of something besides being intermingled
with civilians.

Sneer as you will, but you're right up there with the Toad when it
comes to your liberal logic.

===

Pakistan has had nukes for a long time. That's one of the big risks
in the Middle East given their political instability. It's not clear
how much longer they will be able to withstand the combined threats of
a hyper religious populace, the Taliban, Al Queda and ISIS.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:23:32 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:22:08 -0500, Toad Gigger
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:26 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


There is no statute of limitation on murder or war crimes.
If the democrats are able to establish that a policy decision like the
interrogations were illegal, the drone strikes would be fair game for
the republicans or just the families of the innocents killed.

Nobody wants to open that Pandora's Box,.


Drone strikes on enemies who choose to hide among "non-combatants" in
unreachable territory, Pakistan eg, and torturing "detainees," are
different matters.

How do you the 'hidden' party is guilty of anything?

The alternative to drone strikes is invasion, artillery barrages, or
carpet bombing, and occupation - all if you're ambitious.

Which would be the proper course of action - or capturing the
individual and granting him 'due process'.

With Pakistan, the next step is nuclear conflagration.
Is that what you really want?

Pakistan has nukes now?

You called torture "interrogation" Torture is torture.

But being blown to smithereens without due process is OK?

They concealed that they were torturing. Why?

Gosh, you must totally believe anything Democrat witch-hunters have to
say.

Because it is a criminal activity.
Drone strikes aren't concealed. They aren't illegal.
So unless drone attacks are declared illegal, quit crying about them.
Republicans and Democrats are free to support torture and drone strikes
alike. Let them stand up and declare it.
I'll point out to you, as I did to Luddite, that this isn't a political
matter. It's a question of law, which is derived from values.

You make little sense. On the one hand you preach 'law', but on the
other you justify the 'lawlessness' of drone strikes on 'possible'
terrorists who 'may' be guilty of something besides being intermingled
with civilians.

Sneer as you will, but you're right up there with the Toad when it
comes to your liberal logic.

===

Pakistan has had nukes for a long time. That's one of the big risks
in the Middle East given their political instability. It's not clear
how much longer they will be able to withstand the combined threats of
a hyper religious populace, the Taliban, Al Queda and ISIS.

Oh what a dummy - I was thinking 'Palestine' when I read his rant.

Sorry BAO, I take that 'one' line back.
--

Here's hoping you have a very Merry Christmas, and a spectacular New Year!

On 12/16/14 8:22 AM, Toad Gigger wrote:


Pakistan has nukes now?


Have you been living in a cave in Afghanistan? Both Pakistan and India
have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has had them for nearly 20 years.


--
Let’s elect a gay black woman with a latino lover president,
if only for the possibility of provoking a right-wing mass suicide.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 09:49:53 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/16/14 8:22 AM, Toad Gigger wrote:


Pakistan has nukes now?


Have you been living in a cave in Afghanistan? Both Pakistan and India
have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has had them for nearly 20 years.

Mis-read Toad. Not something you've ever done!
--

Here's hoping you have a very Merry Christmas, and a spectacular New Year!

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:28:59 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 08:22:08 -0500, Toad Gigger
wrote:

Pakistan has nukes now?

for many years

Yes, yes, yes! I was thinking 'Palestine'.

Jeees. We can't all be as perfect as the Toad!
--

Here's hoping you have a very Merry Christmas, and a spectacular New Year!