 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:34 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: Stiggy, if it were anything other than abortion clinics, they would all agree with you.
Do you have brain damage or something? "If it were anything other than abortion clinics" I'd think it wasn't terrorism?
You'd better amend that to "anything other than abortion clinics or Walmarts", because I've used that as an example of terrorism, too. What else do you magically think I believe it isn't terrorism to blow up? Pet stores? Shoe shops? The Oklahoma City Federal Building?
In fact, your comment would be more applicable to yourself: if it was anything other than an abortion clinic, you would agree that it was terrorism.
He's trying to make the point that bombing abortion clinics is a worthy cause. Yeah, I've heard the EXACT same reasonings from the IRA so they don't regard themselves as terrorists either and their "victims" were never supposed to be there because they gave warnings so they think that by technicality they can't be regarded as terrorists or held accountable under the law for terrorism even when they murder.
And then there's al-Qaeda who will have the same reasonings for 9/11 except in that one they did intend to kill and are even proud of it.
But they all use the same reasonings which is "we're not terrorists, we're all in worthy causes and if anyone gets caught up in it, tough luck."
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:40 pm by Sally-Anne
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: In fact, your comment would be more applicable to yourself: if it was anything other than an abortion clinic, you would agree that it was terrorism.
I dunno, he used the same selective process when he challenged me about the IRA, but he accuses others of it, go figure.
It's a bit like slamming Hype's wife and Buttons daughter, but calling Loryn out for having a go about coadies kids. You know, hypocritical.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:48 pm by Sally-Anne
|
darwiniac
Coadie who has been banned
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 505 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:57 pm |
|
| A lot of bodies carried out of these clinics daily. Who is the terrorist? 45 million dead.
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 10:59 pm |
|
darwiniac wrote: A lot of bodies carried out of these clinics daily. Who is the terrorist? 45 million dead.
That's exactly the argument I'd agree with. That is legal terrorism. The real terrorism is committed against the unborn and the law condones it.
Sick.
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:16 pm |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
Not even if he should accidentally kill an innocent person in his bombing? You would still regard him as a "dumbass" not accountable under the law for his terrorist action?
Not accountable under the law if he kills someone? Do me a favor, find your phantom strawman opponent making such stupid claims and take it up with him.
Oh right, he's not a terrorist so he can't be held accountable according to....
So YOU introduce the concept of accountability, and just decide to willy-nilly attribute something about it to me, even though I never mentioned it? You're absurd. Do me a favor and write private pms to whatever dipshit you have me confused with, who thinks people shouldn't be held accountable for blowing up buildings and killing people.
But leave me out of it.
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:17 pm by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:33 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: Fair enough. But would you be sad to hear someone bombed the places the jews were to be gassed and even with some casualties like the soliders caring it out and a number of intended gas victims? I mean, if it meant the holocust never happened?
Okay, let's say I think Walmart is evil. It rips off its workers. It mistreats them. Its anti-competitive practices destroy the livelihoods of small business owners. It sources products from the fruits of child slave labour.
Should I be called a terrorist for going out and blowing up Walmarts at 3 AM? Abso-fucking-lutely!
There are two important points here:
1) Stiggy seems to be under the impression that abortion clinic bombers are vewy vewy careful not to hurt anyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Google "Nuremberg Files" to see just how "careful" they are.
2) You can take Stiggy's analogy any way you wish, and claim that abortion clinics are a new Holocaust which must be stopped at all costs. But you then open the door for anyone to make similar claims about anything. "I'm just fighting the good fight against the evil oppressors!" becomes the catchcry, and the word "terrorist" becomes precisely what Stiggy and his ilk would like it to be: a label applied to Muslims that blow up buildings.
This entire debate is precisely what I said would happen, right at the outset. fundie Christians agree with Sarah Palin. They don't think blowing up abortion clinics is terrorism, because they think abortion clinics are a Bad Thing.
The Taliban don't think blowing up Americans is terrorism, because America is a Bad Thing.
It's all 100% point-of-view dependent, and exactly why I continue to maintain that Christian fundamentalist theocracy is every bit as scary as Muslim fundamentalist theocracy: NorrinRadd, Cajun, Josh, Hiram, Coadie continue to demonstrate this.
Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions. He's even tried to deflect back onto me by starting a new thread about medical definitions.
Oh, and I've ragged on his beloved Sarah, so he's getting all manly...
EXCELLENT ONTOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHICAL TRUSIM: "STIGGY IS JUST BEING STIGGY." Thanks for allowing me to be a poster child for ontological truth all these months. But I'd say it's time someone else can take the mantle for this universal philosophical truth, and I'm here to inaugurate it right now:
Declin, when you type stuff, "YOU'RE JUST DECLIN BEING DECLIN." Should we call it declining when you write? No, that would be too much hilarity for one post.
Anyway, no one seems to be able to answer my question as to whether the bombers of empty gas oven in nazi Gernmany could only be done by terrorists. Wonder why. And no one seems to be able to tell me if bombers of infanticides WOULD be terrorists if infanitide were legal. Sally says she can't answer that question BECAUSE infanticide isn't legal, which is weird. She suddenly can't deal in hypotheticals.
Meanwhile, everyone also seems silent on the questionable connection of this subject matter to Obama and Ayers as expressed in your post that spawned all these replies. Even if we do consider abortion clinic bombers the equivalent of AlQaida, you still have this problem:
Palin never blurbed a book for an abortion clinic bomber.
Palin never served on a board with an abortion clinic bomber.
Palin never used an abortion clinic bomber's home to inaugutae her political career.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:38 pm |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
ILast edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:38 pm by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:42 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:44 pm by Sally-Anne
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:47 pm |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Let's hope not. But since we can't be sure, that's yet another good reason that the people that I called dumbasses should NOT blow up abortion clinics. But that doesn't make them terrorists. A terrorist blows shit up to (a). make an ideological point or (b). to instill terror in people.
If someone blows up an abortion clinic for the sole purpose of saving the lives of one or two unborn babies scheduled for death within the building the next day or the day after, he does not literally qualify as a terrorist by either (a) or (b) above.
Not even if he should accidentally kill an innocent person in his bombing? You would still regard him as a "dumbass" not accountable under the law for his terrorist action?
Not accountable under the law if he kills someone? Do me a favor, find your phantom strawman opponent making such stupid claims and take it up with him.
Oh right, he's not a terrorist so he can't be held accountable according to....
So YOU introduce the concept of accountability, and just decide to willy-nilly attribute something about it to me, even though I never mentioned it? You're absurd. Do me a favor and write private pms to whatever dipshit you have me confused with, who thinks people shouldn't be held accountable for blowing up buildings and killing people.
But leave me out of it.
You're the one calling abortion clinic bombers dumbasses who don't engage in terrorism.
So what would they be tried for if someone got killed in one of their bombings?
Last edited on Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:49 pm by Sally-Anne
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Oct 26th, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 12:02 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 12:12 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
That would depend on what sentencing the judge or jury would give for manslaughter of this type. My guess would be life.
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 12:38 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
That would depend on what sentencing the judge or jury would give for manslaughter of this type. My guess would be life.
Manslaughter? Some dumbass sets off a bomb and it murders someone, which lets face it, it has every chance of killing someone when dumbass is setting bombs off wily nilly in the community, but he gets manslaughter. Maybe.
OK.
Yeah, nothing for the community to be terrified in then Stigg. Lets just hope some poor old granny aint walking her dog at 3am and dumbass gets caught.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 12:46 am by Sally-Anne
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:06 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
That would depend on what sentencing the judge or jury would give for manslaughter of this type. My guess would be life.
Manslaughter? Some dumbass sets off a bomb and it murders someone, which lets face it, it has every chance of killing someone when dumbass is setting bombs off wily nilly in the community, but he gets manslaughter.
Yes. That is textbook manslaughter.
Maybe.
OK.
Yeah, nothing for the community to be terrified in then Stigg. Lets just hope some poor old granny aint walking her dog at 3am and dumbass gets caught.
Drunken drivers who don't MEAN to kill people are also not terrorists, but that hradly means we have nothing to fear from them.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:07 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:08 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Sally-Anne wrote: Aldaron wrote: Stiggy? Well, he's just being Stiggy and being pedantic about definitions.
He's splitting hairs. But according to his reasonings, a "dumbass" would get off scott free due to a technicality even if they killed someone.
Yeah, right. That's my "reasoning." So take it youir REASONING is this:
Since stiggy doesn't think a particular ilegal act is an act of terrorism, therefore stiggy believes that all broken laws that are not terrorism, should result in no punitive action whatsover.
How asinine.
I
How so? You reckon he's just a dumbass. How can you take punitive action against a "dumbass"?? Last time I was aware, there was no grounds to try a "dumbass."
Did you just invent a new judicial act that I am unaware of? The "Dumbasses who kill but not through terrorism may be tried under a court of law but not for terrorism because it was a worthy cause." ???
How does that work then?
Good lord, girl. Your reasoning is getting more muddled by the minute.
I said that although I did not consider abortion clinic bombers to be terrorists, I did consider them to be dumbasees.
From that you conclude:
(1). I therefore think that abortion clinic bombers are NOT criminals (as if the only crime could be one of terrorism, as opposed to ARSON or VANDALISM), and (here's your new one):
(2). I therefore conclude that the crime can ONLY be being a dumbass, which in actuality is not a crime.
I hardly know what to say to such silliness.
So lets say, for arguments sake, Stiggy has a sister and her name is Sally-Anne and he loves her very much. Unfortunately Sally-Anne gets killed in dumbasses bomb blast because she just happened to be walking past an abortion clinic at 3am in the morning for no apparent reason.
What happens to dumbass?
That would depend on what sentencing the judge or jury would give for manslaughter of this type. My guess would be life.
Manslaughter? Some dumbass sets off a bomb and it murders someone, which lets face it, it has every chance of killing someone when dumbass is setting bombs off wily nilly in the community, but he gets manslaughter. Maybe.
OK.
Yeah, nothing for the community to be terrified in then Stigg. Lets just hope some poor old granny aint walking her dog at 3am and dumbass gets caught.
Sally, in a court of law (U.S.), you would have to prove intent to harm people, if not, it would be manslaughter.
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:10 am |
|
manonfire wrote: Sally, in a court of law (U.S.), you would have to prove intent to harm people, if not, it would be manslaughter.
Right, and under your "system" the IRA would probably walk away free.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:11 am by Sally-Anne
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:12 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote: Drunken drivers who don't MEAN to kill people are also not terrorists, but that hradly means we have nothing to fear from them.
Some who have been convicted and released over and over again are akin to terrorists.
|
manonfire
Manofire
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:13 am |
|
Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Sally, in a court of law (U.S.), you would have to prove intent to harm people, if not, it would be manslaughter.
Right, and under your "system" the IRA would probably walk away free.
Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
____________________
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:21 am |
|
manonfire wrote: Sally-Anne wrote:
manonfire wrote: Sally, in a court of law (U.S.), you would have to prove intent to harm people, if not, it would be manslaughter.
Right, and under your "system" the IRA would probably walk away free.
Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Oh, you let terrorists walk away? Yeah, that sounds about right. Osama is still on the loose.
Funny thing America, I was flying through on my way to Canada and the customs guy gave me the ninth degree on being in America and why I was there.
Me: Um, I'm not here sir, I'm flying through to Canada and there are no direct flights.
He: Well, people come through and don't leave.
Me: I don't want to be here, I have no choice because there is no direct flight from NZ.
He: Well, what do you intend to do in America.
Me: Um, nothing, catch my onward plane out of it?
He: Well you know, people come in and don't leave and we have security.
Sally-Anne's secret thoughts: "Um, you let terrorists fly planes into buildings, I don't exactly feel safe in your country, but you grill me over my freedom to come and go but let terrorists get away?"
Blimey. :::rolly eye::::
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:27 am by Sally-Anne
|
Sally-Anne
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 5386 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:24 am |
|
manonfire wrote: Folks have rights here in the states. We are not yet a socialist nation; howevr, we are getting closer and closer to becoming a socialist state.
Folks now have TOO MANY rights in the UK, and that's the problem.
Watch for the mega-mosque at the next Olympics. Puke.
Last edited on Mon Oct 27th, 2008 01:25 am by Sally-Anne
|
Current time is 03:32 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   |
|
|
|
|
