Merry Christmas from Al Qaida
Irish Mike
"It was puzzling to read opinion pieces in liberal newspapers like The New
York Times and Newsday lamenting the Christmas Day al-Qaida attempt to
blow up a Northwest Airlines jet. Most of the liberal press agreed: That
was not a nice thing to do, and those terrorists should stop the attacks
this very minute. But no actual solutions to stopping terrorism were put
forth by the progressive press.
Of course, 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a loser from Nigeria,
was not exactly 007 in executing his mission. That might speak to how
badly al-Qaida has been downgraded by aggressive measures put in place by
the George W. Bush administration.
Now, the al-Qaida agents of slaughter are smuggling explosives in their
underwear instead of trying to hijack the entire plane. Instead of being
handed over to the military, this Umar nitwit will be tried in civilian
court so the world can understand that the U.S. justice system really,
really works. Like the world cares.
Apparently, Abdulmutallab was trained in Yemen -- the same Yemen that on
Dec. 20 accepted six Guantanamo Bay detainees. That's another puzzling
deal. In the fall of 2007, the United States sent two other Gitmo
terrorists to Saudi Arabia for "rehabilitation." Now one of those guys,
Said Ali Shari, is reportedly a top al-Qaida commander in -- wait for it
-- Yemen! As the Church Lady once said, "How convenient!""
I am beginning to think we are in the "Twilight Zone" in this country. The
liberal press screams all day long about closing Gitmo and providing
civilian trials for captured foreign terrorists. Then when an overseas
terrorist almost blows up 300 innocent people, the press goes, 'Gee,
that's not acceptable."
Also, everybody except Al Franken knows that Yemen is an al-Qaida
stronghold, but the Barack Obama administration sends six incarcerated
terror suspects to Yemen? Paging Rod Serling.
This would be laugh-out-loud absurd if lives were not at stake. I mean,
why don't we just close Gitmo and send the misunderstood inmates there
directly to the mountains of Pakistan? Why delay the process with stops in
the Arabian Peninsula?
I'm surprised at CIA chief Leon Panetta. He surely understands that
countries like Yemen are chaotic cauldrons of violence where terrorists
openly roam. Leon, why are you sending Gitmo bad guys there? Help me, I'm
trying to understand.
Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad really
is. If they did, the Obama administration and the liberal press could
never get away with the lunacy that is now underway. The latest al-Qaida
fanatic may have gotten tangled up in his underwear, but some other killer
will do better down the road. And don't be surprised if he's from Yemen. "
Irish Mike
Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in the war
against Fox News.
------�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
David Monaghan
wrote:
>By Bill O'Reilly
>
>"
<snip>
>Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad really
>is.
<snip>
>"
Right. It's not as if they've seen an example of it, is there?
DaveM
Paul Popinjay
news:gek717x...@recgroups.com...
> By Bill O'Reilly
>
> Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad really
> is. If they did, the Obama administration and the liberal press could
> never get away with the lunacy that is now underway. The latest al-Qaida
> fanatic may have gotten tangled up in his underwear, but some other killer
> will do better down the road. And don't be surprised if he's from Yemen. "
>
> Irish Mike
>
For decades South Yemen was a hardcore communist regime, statues of Lenin,
the whole ball of wax, another Soviet Satellite in the style of Cuba or
Libya. Now Yemen is one country, but just like in Russia or Eastern Europe,
the communists do not simply disappear. My point is, what we're up against
is not simply a "muslim thing", but a communist thing. Communism is still
very much alive and well, and the goal still is to destroy the United
States, and eventually take us over. Given that we now have a virtual
Bolshevik in the White House, I would say that they are getting very close
to their goal. Yet you still have total morons here like Chris Robin and
McCard who think it is silly to worry about communism. Even my fellow
Coordinator, Opie-Manager, thinks there is such a thing as a "good"
communist, as he idolizes the bloody and murderous thug Nelson Mandela.
-PP
Puppytoes
So Dave, what is your take on the whole O'Reilly column? That he's
wrong based upon his belief that there are legions of clueless people that
really do not understand the threat? Clearly, the liberals either do not
understand the threat or just don't care. They're too busy social
engineering! It's pathetic!
misanthropic whackjob
I'm looking forward to communism. I'm getting older and tired of working
so hard. When we go communist, my working days are over forever.
Remember, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs." My ability will be forever reduced to zero.
--
I don't care about you! Fuck you! - FEAR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyM4uAJBujA
______________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:mim717x...@recgroups.com...
>
> I'm looking forward to communism. I'm getting older and tired of working
> so hard. When we go communist, my working days are over forever.
> Remember, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
> needs." My ability will be forever reduced to zero.
>
Brewmaster, put the beer down, sober up, go to Pechanga and win a poker
tournament or something. It's a nice day out, get out of the house, rake
the leaves in the backyard, make yourself useful, willya.
Mrs Iris Mike
> By Bill O'Reilly
>
> "It was puzzling to read opinion pieces in liberal newspapers like The New
Good thing Iris cuts and pastes this stuff. Saves anyone from going to
the site and being counted as eyes on the advertisements.
See, the UnAmerican one, thinks Bill O writes this stuff as a
patriotic modern day Paul Revere. Iris is unaware these people write
to make money. So every little bit Iris steals from these people-- the
better.
Ever notice about some people in the work place; they take credit for
other people's work and think nothing of it. Iris has said he was in a
supervisory position. I can imagine him in meeting presenting some one
else's material as his own.
David Monaghan
wrote:
>On Jan 3 2010 3:10 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:05:20 -0800, "Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >By Bill O'Reilly
>> >
>> >"
>> <snip>
>> >Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad really
>> >is.
>> <snip>
>> >"
>>
>> Right. It's not as if they've seen an example of it, is there?
> So Dave, what is your take on the whole O'Reilly column?
On the whole column? He's a Grade "A" idiot writing to a script with simple
rules.
DaveM
David Monaghan
Paul G? Is it you?
DaveM
Irish Mike
What, exactly, does that mean? Is there any thing in O'Reilly's article
that you can point out as being untrue? No, there isn't. So just stick
your head back in the Obama kool aid bucket.
Irish Mike
Obama has decided to send 40,000 additional troops to fight in the war
against Fox News.
_____________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:3od2k5dqfae8qade7...@4ax.com...
>
> Paul G? Is it you?
>
> DaveM
Yes, yes, it's me! Hiya Dave. I was going to say hi earlier today, and
then I thought that maybe it was another Dave and I changed my mind. Yes,
long time no see and how have you been? Did you stop playing poker or did
you just get tired of this cesspool of a newsgroup?
Let me fill you in briefly. Ramashiva stepped down as Senior Coordinator.
When he stepped down I was promoted from Assistant Coordinator, and now just
recently Opie-Manager has filled in as the new Ass. Coordinator. Opie is
doing an excellent job so far. So now I took over as Senior Coordinator,
and Ramashiva just makes occassional appearences when he is not traveling to
Tucson to see his fiance at the strip club.
Yes, I know, there is a lot of important shit that has come down since you
left.
So I hope you decide to stick around a bit. We could use someone with a
brain such as yours, because as you can see there is a preponderance of
braindead morons here now. For instance, Jerry Sturdivant is their leader.
Coming in a close second is Beldin the Sourcerer. He's been here a long
time so you may remember what a complete idiot he is. Also, Clave is fairly
new here, so you'll get to meet him soon. He came over from alt.dr.laura,
and he is competing with Jerry Sturdivant and Beldin to become the new head
idiot of RGP. Yes, Dave, there are so many morons here now that I cannot
even begin to name them all. Just before Carl Sagan died, I remember when
he stopped by RGP once and his parting description of rec.gambling.poker
was, "like the stars of the cosmos, there are billions and billions, of
morons."
Ok, Dave, good to have you back. Well wishes in the New Year. And now I
have to get back to coordinating. It's a tiresome job, but someone has to
do it. And I am honored that RGP has welcomed me as their Senior
Coordinator and shown me their love. Fucking idiots!
-Paul Popinjay
Puppytoes
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:35:30 -0800, "Puppytoes" <a7e...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 3 2010 3:10 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:05:20 -0800, "Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >By Bill O'Reilly
> >> >
> >> >"
> >> <snip>
> >> >Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad
really
> >> >is.
> >> <snip>
> >> >"
> >>
> >> Right. It's not as if they've seen an example of it, is there?
>
> > So Dave, what is your take on the whole O'Reilly column?
> He's a Grade "A" idiot writing to a script with simple rules.
What a nonsense answer. Point out which part doesn't make sense or
you believe to be untrue. You don't like him so he's an idiot??? I
guess Napalitano makes sense to you!!!
------�
RazzO
WTF?
> > >
> > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:05:20 -0800, "Irish Mike"
<ad7...@webnntp.invalid>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >By Bill O'Reilly
> > >> >
> > >> >"
> > >> <snip>
> > >> >Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad
RazzO
------�
RazzO
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_tells_msn.html
WTF?
On Jan 4 2010 1:09 AM, RazzO wrote:
>
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
>
> WTF?
>
>
> > > >
> > > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:05:20 -0800, "Irish Mike"
> <ad7...@webnntp.invalid>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >By Bill O'Reilly
> > > >> >
> > > >> >"
> > > >> <snip>
> > > >> >Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad
>
>
>
> RazzO
RazzO
RazzO
WTF?
On Jan 4 2010 1:40 AM, RazzO wrote:
>
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.html
>
>
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_tells_msn.html
>
> WTF?
>
>
> On Jan 4 2010 1:09 AM, RazzO wrote:
>
> >
>
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
> >
> > WTF?
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:05:20 -0800, "Irish Mike"
> > <ad7...@webnntp.invalid>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >By Bill O'Reilly
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >"
> > > > >> <snip>
> > > > >> >Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad
> >
> >
> >
> > RazzO
>
>
> RazzO
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:gek717x...@recgroups.com...
> By Bill O'Reilly
>
> "It was puzzling to read opinion pieces in liberal newspapers like The New
> York Times and Newsday lamenting the Christmas Day al-Qaida attempt to
> blow up a Northwest Airlines jet. Most of the liberal press agreed: That
> was not a nice thing to do, and those terrorists should stop the attacks
> this very minute. But no actual solutions to stopping terrorism were put
> forth by the progressive press.
Actually they did, Cut & Paste & Run Mike. I'd discuss it with you but you
refuse to ever read post from people that keep proving you wrong.
I suspect you now only read posts from Travel A and PP.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Jerry Sturdivant
"Irish Mike" <ad7...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:gek717x...@recgroups.com...
> By Bill O'Reilly
>
> "It was puzzling to read opinion pieces in liberal newspapers like The New
> York Times and Newsday lamenting the Christmas Day al-Qaida attempt to
> blow up a Northwest Airlines jet. Most of the liberal press agreed: That
> was not a nice thing to do, and those terrorists should stop the attacks
> this very minute. But no actual solutions to stopping terrorism were put
> forth by the progressive press.
>
> Of course, 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a loser from Nigeria,
> was not exactly 007 in executing his mission. That might speak to how
> badly al-Qaida has been downgraded by aggressive measures put in place by
> the George W. Bush administration.
Put in place after he ignored actual, written threats and 3,000 Americans
died. Then his "aggressive measures" included actually abandoning hunting
for Osama and his men. "I don't care where he is." - Bush
> Now, the al-Qaida agents of slaughter are smuggling explosives in their
> underwear instead of trying to hijack the entire plane.
And shooting and blowing up Americans. They're not as stupid as you. They
did the hijack thing because Bush refused to do anything. Now that hijacking
is prevented, they have shoe bombers and underwear bombers. All because Bush
stopped going after Osama.
Instead of being
> handed over to the military, this Umar nitwit will be tried in civilian
> court so the world can understand that the U.S. justice system really,
> really works. Like the world cares.
First you wanted trials and executions. Now you don't?
> I am beginning to think we are in the "Twilight Zone" in this country.
They way the Bush administration was destroying the economy, I can
understand it.
> The liberal press screams all day long about closing Gitmo and providing
> civilian trials for captured foreign terrorists. Then when an overseas
> terrorist almost blows up 300 innocent people, the press goes, 'Gee,
> that's not acceptable."
You thought it WAS acceptable? You're making up positions for others, then
arguing those made up positions. But then, that what FOX does.
> Most Americans, I believe, have little idea how dangerous the jihad really
> is.
Yea, Bill, you're the only one that understands. You're writing is getting
rather desperate.
Jerry 'n Vegas
David Monaghan
wrote:
>> On the whole column? He's a Grade "A" idiot writing to a script with simple
>> rules.
>What, exactly, does that mean? Is there any thing in O'Reilly's article
>that you can point out as being untrue?
Condensing the piece down, he said the bomber is a Nigerian, trained in
Yemen, who will stand trial for his crime in the courts. He said Yemen was
being used as a base for Islamic extremism and several ex-Guantanamo Bay
detainees had either been sent there or had turned up there and he predicted
future trouble from the area. And, no, you're right, I don't have any
argument with a word of that. The trouble is, the facts took me half a
paragraph to state but he took nine, the filling being composed of
exaggeration, innuendo, and political diatribe.
DaveM
David Monaghan
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"David Monaghan" <monagha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3od2k5dqfae8qade7...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Paul G? Is it you?
>Yes, yes, it's me! Hiya Dave. I was going to say hi earlier today, and
>then I thought that maybe it was another Dave and I changed my mind. Yes,
>long time no see and how have you been? Did you stop playing poker or did
>you just get tired of this cesspool of a newsgroup?
A bit of both, I think. Hard to remember now, although that might just be
age catching up with me...
<snip>
>Ok, Dave, good to have you back. Well wishes in the New Year.
Thanks for bringing me up to speed. Best wishes for the new year to you, too
DaveM
Irish Mike
Well maybe you're just a better writer than Bill O'Reilly. In which case
you should write and publish your book immediately because O'Reilly's
books have been NY Times best sellers. You could make a bloody fortune
bucko.
Irish Mike
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other
people's money."
-------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
David Monaghan
wrote:
>On Jan 4 2010 5:56 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>>The trouble is, the facts took me half a
>> paragraph to state but he took nine, the filling being composed of
>> exaggeration, innuendo, and political diatribe.
>Well maybe you're just a better writer than Bill O'Reilly. In which case
>you should write and publish your book immediately because O'Reilly's
>books have been NY Times best sellers. You could make a bloody fortune
>bucko.
You're too kind, but I suspect Bill's books sell on the filling, rather than
the facts.
DaveM
Paul Popinjay
>
> A bit of both, I think. Hard to remember now, although that might just be
> age catching up with me...
>
It will all come back to you, I'm sure. Do you remember Chris Robin? He
still posts here. Chris is a self-avowed liberal who fancies himself a
knowledgeable champion of the Left. Do you know that this moron did not
know who Regis Debray was? What a fucking idiot!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22980481@N04/3823230822/
David Monaghan
I digress (I haven't heard of Regis Debray either), but who's the blond
totty on your flicker pic's? I thought I'd see those Maoist Nepalese babes,
but she'll do*.
Dave
*No doubt she's your daughter. Why can't I keep my mouth shut?
Paul Popinjay
> totty on your flicker pic's?
Dave, that's a photo of my wife taken an hour before I lost her in a tragic
auto accident last month. Is that the TOTTY you're referring to?
hanks
> On Jan 4 2010 5:56 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many best sellers were written by horrible writers such as Sarah
Palin.
Have you ever had an original thought to post?
If we wished to read the drivel that you post we are capable
of buying that newspaper or magazine and reading what we choose
to. Dummy!!
hanks
FL Turbo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama�s meeting with his top national security advisers does
nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism
is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and
treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our
nation�s security.
That�s what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September
11, 2001. This is a war on terror not an �overseas contingency
operation.� Acts of terrorism are just that, not �man caused
disasters.�
The system did not work. Abdulmutallab was a child of privilege
radicalized and trained by organized jihadists, not an �isolated
extremist� who traveled to a land of �crushing poverty.� He is an
enemy of the United States, not just another criminal defendant.
It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative
willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a
common criminal.
Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like
him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda
rights.
President Obama�s advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing
to agree to a plea bargain � pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a
suicide bomber.
John Brennan, the President�s top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely
claimed �there are no downsides or upsides� to treating terrorists as
enemy combatants.
That is absurd.
There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals:
terrorists invoke their �right� to remain silent and stop talking.
Terrorists don�t tell us where they were trained, what they were
trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with.
Giving foreign-born, foreign-trained terrorists the right to remain
silent does nothing to keep Americans safe from terrorist threats.
It only gives our enemies access to courtrooms where they can publicly
grandstand, and to defense attorneys who can manipulate the legal
process to gain access to classified information.
President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no
more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on
America.
Now he must back off his reckless plan to close Guantanamo, begin
treating terrorists as wartime enemies not suspects alleged to have
committed crimes, and recognize that the real nature of the terrorist
threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law
professor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely correct.
Who wrote that?
Sarah Palin, of course.
Jerry Sturdivant
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:0b5dk59f2g7hikd1a...@4ax.com...
Did you mean President Bush? Bush tried the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid, in
civilian courts.
> It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative
> willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a
> common criminal.
Actually it does. There is much more leeway for questioning and getting more
information out of him. Don't you think they thought of that? It's the very
reason they're doing it this way.
> Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like
> him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda
> rights.
You're wrong, once again, You'll note they got this information from him.
How do you think they did that?
> President Obama's advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing
> to agree to a plea bargain - pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a
> suicide bomber.
"Lamely?" Try explaining how there's less chance of getting MORE
information. Espcially with the information we've already got from him.
> John Brennan, the President's top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely
> claimed "there are no downsides or upsides" to treating terrorists as
> enemy combatants.
> That is absurd.
Only to you, pal. Oh, and apparently to President Bush when he did the Shoe
Bomber the same way.
> There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals:
> terrorists invoke their "right" to remain silent and stop talking.
So you believe that if a military tribunal is used, he'll start talking even
more? Explain that.
> Terrorists don't tell us where they were trained, what they were
> trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with.
Except THIS ONE ALREADY DID! --------------- HELLO?
> President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no
> more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on
> America.
Like President Bush when he sent 13 back and most of them rejoined the
military?
Looking forward to your replies and explanations.
Jerry 'n Vegas
FL Turbo
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we begin, the casual reader should note that the comments with
the '>>' quote thingies are those of Sarah Palin and not your humble
observer FL Turbo.
A fact that Mr.Sturdivant did not mention anywhere in his post.
Nevertheless, I have no problem at all defending the common sense
observations of Ms. Palin.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>> President Obama's meeting with his top national security advisers does
>> nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism
>> is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and
>> treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our
>> nation's security.
>
>Did you mean President Bush? Bush tried the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid, in
>civilian courts.
>
That was a big mistake.
(And yet another ButBush !! from you, I might add.)
One would think that President Obama would learn from the mistakes of
others.
>
>> It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative
>> willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a
>> common criminal.
>
>Actually it does. There is much more leeway for questioning and getting more
>information out of him. Don't you think they thought of that? It's the very
>reason they're doing it this way.
You gotta be kidding me.
How do you think they will get anything at all out of him with an ACLU
lawyer sitting right next to him telling him to STFU?
>
>
>> Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like
>> him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda
>> rights.
>
>You're wrong, once again, You'll note they got this information from him.
>How do you think they did that?
>
You'll note that this was before they read him his Miranda and got a
lawyer for him.
After he got lawyered up, he promptly STFU.
That was explained in the paragraph right above yours.
Can't you read?
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/01/here-we-go-judge-tossing-evidence-in.html#links
Friday, January 08, 2010
Here We Go: Judge Tossing Evidence In Gitmo Terrorist Trials
Here we go, folks. It has started. Our wonderful judicial system in
action. A federal judge has begun tossing evidence in the trial of a
terrorism suspect because the confessions or evidence were coerced.
A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence
against a tarrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced,
allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo
Bay.
In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also said the
government failed to establish that 23 statements the detainee made to
interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were untainted by the earlier coerced
statements made while he was held under harsh conditions in
Afghanistan.
Yes, the AP has trouble even spelling the word terrorism much less
being able to apply it. I didn't change it, that is how it originally
appeared.
This ruling, of course, will now be used by future defense attorneys
to get even more evidence against their clients thrown out. They will
continue to nibble away at it until terrorists like this one, who was
captured after a 2 1/2 hour firefight, are made out to be some sort of
momma's boys just walking home from the corner grocery with food for
his six orphaned siblings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even a jammie wearing fool understands what happens in an American
court trial.
Evidence is routinely tossed out if it wasn't obtained in accordance
with the Rules of the Game.
You ought to know that.
You were a cop weren't you?
>
>
>> President Obama's advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing
>> to agree to a plea bargain - pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a
>> suicide bomber.
>
>"Lamely?" Try explaining how there's less chance of getting MORE
>information. Espcially with the information we've already got from him.
>
The only reason he would ever have to give more information is under
some plea bargaining.
You know how that works, don't you?
>
>> John Brennan, the President's top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely
>> claimed "there are no downsides or upsides" to treating terrorists as
>> enemy combatants.
>> That is absurd.
>
>Only to you, pal. Oh, and apparently to President Bush when he did the Shoe
>Bomber the same way.
But Bush!! But Bush!!
>> There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals:
>> terrorists invoke their "right" to remain silent and stop talking.
>
>So you believe that if a military tribunal is used, he'll start talking even
>more? Explain that.
>
Too late for that.
There's no going back.
We even have the Big Cahuna himself, KSM, brought to New York for
trial.
At least with him, he was under custody long enough for the military
and CIA to squeeze his head and wring out every drop of information
that was there.
His trial is just going to be a big circus event.
I can just see all the ACLU lawyers piling out of the clown car.
>
>> Terrorists don't tell us where they were trained, what they were
>> trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with.
>
>Except THIS ONE ALREADY DID! --------------- HELLO?
>
Did he?
Do you have access to some information that I don't?
All I've heard is that he said that he was trained in Yemen with 25
other Jihadis.
Here's a big WELL, DUHH!! for that priceless information.
>
>
>> President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no
>> more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on
>> America.
>
You would think that he would have learned from the mistakes of his
predecessor, wouldn't you?
The big question is why he sent any detainees to Yemen in the first
place.
>Like President Bush when he sent 13 back and most of them rejoined the
>military?
>
But Bush!! But Bush!!
>Looking forward to your replies and explanations.
>
Thank me.
Jerry Sturdivant
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:lo9hk5h4du40720iq...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:23:05 -0800, "Jerry Sturdivant"
> <jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Before we begin, the casual reader should note that the comments with
> the '>>' quote thingies are those of Sarah Palin and not your humble
> observer FL Turbo.
>
> A fact that Mr.Sturdivant did not mention anywhere in his post.
>
> Nevertheless, I have no problem at all defending the common sense
> observations of Ms. Palin.
>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>> President Obama's meeting with his top national security advisers does
>>> nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism
>>> is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and
>>> treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our
>>> nation's security.
>>Did you mean President Bush? Bush tried the Shoe Bomber,
>> Richard Reid, in civilian courts.
> That was a big mistake.
How?
> (And yet another ButBush !! from you, I might add.)
Just to get you to dodge the fact there's nothing wrong with charging in
civilian court. Notice you couldn't answer?
> One would think that President Obama would learn
> from the mistakes of others.
You have yet to show where it's a mistake. The xmas bomber spilled his guts.
>>> It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative
>>> willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a
>>> common criminal.
>>Actually it does. There is much more leeway for questioning and getting
>>more
>>information out of him. Don't you think they thought of that? It's the
>>very
>>reason they're doing it this way.
> You gotta be kidding me.
I just showed it. You have yet to show why not.
> How do you think they will get anything at all out of him with an ACLU
> lawyer sitting right next to him telling him to STFU?
He's already spilled his guts. If he had more to spill, they can make a
deal. Now it's up to you to show how a military trial would be better. (I'll
wait over here).
>>> Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like
>>> him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda
>>> rights.
>>You're wrong, once again, You'll note they got this information
>> from him. How do you think they did that?
> You'll note that this was before they read him his Miranda
> and got a lawyer for him.
EXACTLY! What part of that don't you understand? It's exactly how I
questioned. It's how you get information.
> After he got lawyered up, he promptly STFU.
After spilling his guts. Now, if they think there's more, they can deal.
Once again, it's up to you to show they (and Bush) were wrong and how a
military trial would get more.
> Evidence is routinely tossed out if it wasn't obtained in accordance
> with the Rules of the Game.
>
> You ought to know that.
> You were a cop weren't you?
So you believe they're going to have to let him go? That a military trial
would convict and a civilian one couldn't?
>>> President Obama's advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing
>>> to agree to a plea bargain - pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a
>>> suicide bomber.
>>"Lamely?" Try explaining how there's less chance of getting MORE
>>information. Espcially with the information we've already got from him.
> The only reason he would ever have to give more information is under
> some plea bargaining.
Hello?
> You know how that works, don't you?
Just like Obama's and Bush's advisers said. Now let's hear your side...
>>> John Brennan, the President's top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely
>>> claimed "there are no downsides or upsides" to treating terrorists as
>>> enemy combatants.
>>> That is absurd.
>>Only to you, pal. Oh, and apparently to President Bush when he did the
>>Shoe
>>Bomber the same way.
> But Bush!! But Bush!!
"But" you have to explain why not for both presidents. How they were wrong
and you and Rush Limbaugh are right. Rush didn't tell you that part, huh?
>>> There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals:
>>> terrorists invoke their "right" to remain silent and stop talking.
>>So you believe that if a military tribunal is used, he'll start talking
>>even
>>more? Explain that.
> Too late for that.
> There's no going back.
There's no NEED for going back.
> His trial is just going to be a big circus event.
Just like the Shoe bomber, right?
> I can just see all the ACLU lawyers piling out of the clown car.
For what? The ACLU protects the Constitution. they do it for YOU.
>>> Terrorists don't tell us where they were trained, what they were
>>> trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with.
>>Except THIS ONE ALREADY DID! --------------- HELLO?
> Did he?
> Do you have access to some information that I don't?
Apparently I do. You just watch FOX, and Limbaugh, right?
> All I've heard is that he said that he was trained in Yemen with 25
> other Jihadis.
>
> Here's a big WELL, DUHH!! for that priceless information.
What else did you want? You actually thin the enemy's going to give this
idiot kid some top secret shit?
>>> President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no
>>> more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on
>>> America.
>> Like President Bush when he sent 13 back and most of them rejoined the
>> military?
> But Bush!! But Bush!!
WHA! HA! HA! "But" you're wrong.
>>Looking forward to your replies and explanations.
> Thank me.
For what? All you did is cry about Bush doing it and still have not shown
where they'd gain more by using a military trial.
Jerry 'n Vegas
bub
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
>Did you mean President Bush? Bush tried the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid, in
>civilian courts.
so george bush is now a genius and barry should follow his examples.
got it
David Monaghan
The president decides how someone under arrest in the US is tried? No
Supreme Court jurisdiction? No rights under the constitution? Or did you use
"genius" to mean George Bush was smart enough to understand his
constitutional limitations? I have to say that seems to me to be a minimum
requirement in a head of state.
DaveM
David Monaghan
Um, yes. Perhaps I should explain that "totty" is British slang for "fine
upstanding woman".
DaveM
susan
I think Bub was referring to Jerry's assertions.
David Monaghan
>I think Bub was referring to Jerry's assertions.
I'm not sure you're right. It was started by FL Turbo arguing Obama should
commit all these unconstitutional acts.
DaveM
Jerry Sturdivant
"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
news:77rhk55771ihkve7f...@4ax.com...
I, like you, have no idea what you 'got' but I hope you're happy with it.
FL Turbo
<jer...@cox.net> wrote:
Read on.
I don't mind explaining it once, or even twice, but I won't answer it
three times.
>
>
>
>> One would think that President Obama would learn
>> from the mistakes of others.
>
>You have yet to show where it's a mistake. The xmas bomber spilled his guts.
>
Read on.
>
>
>>>> It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative
>>>> willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a
>>>> common criminal.
>
>>>Actually it does. There is much more leeway for questioning and getting
>>>more
>>>information out of him. Don't you think they thought of that? It's the
>>>very
>>>reason they're doing it this way.
>
>> You gotta be kidding me.
>
>I just showed it. You have yet to show why not.
You claimed that the civil court system had more leeway in questioning
him.
That does not square with the typical civil court where a Perp gets
lawyered up, and his lawyer tells him to STFU.
You think that they will get any more information out of him with his
lawyer sitting there?
I say they will get nada, nil, nothing, zilch, zip more out of him at
this point in the game.
That's my opinion.
You may agree or disagree, but don't keep asking over and over and
over again for my answer.
>
>> How do you think they will get anything at all out of him with an ACLU
>> lawyer sitting right next to him telling him to STFU?
>
>He's already spilled his guts. If he had more to spill, they can make a
>deal. Now it's up to you to show how a military trial would be better. (I'll
>wait over here).
>
>
>>>> Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like
>>>> him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda
>>>> rights.
>
>>>You're wrong, once again, You'll note they got this information
>>> from him. How do you think they did that?
>
>> You'll note that this was before they read him his Miranda
>> and got a lawyer for him.
>
>EXACTLY! What part of that don't you understand? It's exactly how I
>questioned. It's how you get information.
Yes, EXACTLY.
They got the information from him before they introduced him to a
lawyer.
>
>
>> After he got lawyered up, he promptly STFU.
>
>After spilling his guts. Now, if they think there's more, they can deal.
>Once again, it's up to you to show they (and Bush) were wrong and how a
>military trial would get more.
>> Evidence is routinely tossed out if it wasn't obtained in accordance
>> with the Rules of the Game.
>>
>> You ought to know that.
>> You were a cop weren't you?
>
>So you believe they're going to have to let him go? That a military trial
>would convict and a civilian one couldn't?
No, I think that there is plenty of evidence to convict him in either
venue.
>
>
>
>>>> President Obama's advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing
>>>> to agree to a plea bargain - pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a
>>>> suicide bomber.
>
>>>"Lamely?" Try explaining how there's less chance of getting MORE
>>>information. Espcially with the information we've already got from him.
>
Sheesh.
I've already explained it more than once.
I'm needlessly add more wear and tear on my typing finger.
Now, we won't ever find out exactly what else he knew.
>
>>>> President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no
>>>> more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on
>>>> America.
>
>>> Like President Bush when he sent 13 back and most of them rejoined the
>>> military?
>
>> But Bush!! But Bush!!
>
>WHA! HA! HA! "But" you're wrong.
>
>
>>>Looking forward to your replies and explanations.
>
>> Thank me.
>
>For what? All you did is cry about Bush doing it and still have not shown
>where they'd gain more by using a military trial.
>
All I can do is offer my brilliant and substantive thoughts.
You can disagree, and give me your silly questions over and over
again.
I can do no more.
Jerry Sturdivant
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:vv8kk5hd8uu4rsbv7...@4ax.com...
No, that's not what I said or how I said it.
> That does not square with the typical civil court where a Perp gets
> lawyered up, and his lawyer tells him to STFU.
Or tells him to talk.
> You think that they will get any more information
> out of him with his lawyer sitting there?
You think they won't? You think torturing him will get good information?
You're hung up on this, "he won't talk," position.
> I say they will get nada, nil, nothing, zilch, zip more
> out of him at this point in the game.
Yet those in the know, seem to differ. Why do you suppose that is?
> That's my opinion.
> You may agree or disagree, but don't keep asking over and over and
> over again for my answer.
I won't. You still didn't say why he'd talk more under a different system. I
don't suspect you ever will.
>>> How do you think they will get anything at all out of him with an ACLU
>>> lawyer sitting right next to him telling him to STFU?
>>
>>He's already spilled his guts. If he had more to spill, they can make a
>>deal. Now it's up to you to show how a military trial would be better.
>>(I'll
>>wait over here).
>>
>>
>>>>> Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like
>>>>> him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda
>>>>> rights.
>>
>>>>You're wrong, once again, You'll note they got this information
>>>> from him. How do you think they did that?
>>
>>> You'll note that this was before they read him his Miranda
>>> and got a lawyer for him.
>>
>>EXACTLY! What part of that don't you understand? It's exactly how I
>>questioned. It's how you get information.
>
> Yes, EXACTLY.
> They got the information from him before they introduced him to a
> lawyer.
So? You STILL haven't explained what you don't understand about that.
>>> After he got lawyered up, he promptly STFU.
>>
>>After spilling his guts. Now, if they think there's more, they can deal.
>>Once again, it's up to you to show they (and Bush) were wrong and how a
>>military trial would get more.
>
>>> Evidence is routinely tossed out if it wasn't obtained in accordance
>>> with the Rules of the Game.
>>>
>>> You ought to know that.
>>> You were a cop weren't you?
>>
>>So you believe they're going to have to let him go? That a military trial
>>would convict and a civilian one couldn't?
>
> No, I think that there is plenty of evidence to convict him in either
> venue.
So?
>>>>> President Obama's advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing
>>>>> to agree to a plea bargain - pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a
>>>>> suicide bomber.
>>
>>>>"Lamely?" Try explaining how there's less chance of getting MORE
>>>>information. Espcially with the information we've already got from him.
>>
> Sheesh.
> I've already explained it more than once.
Nope. But I'll ask again: How will they get more information from him under
another court system?
> I'm needlessly add more wear and tear on my typing finger.
Yet still don't answer the question. Are you starting to understand why they
put him under the civilian system, now?
But no answers.
> You can disagree, and give me your silly questions over and over
> again.
>
> I can do no more.
But answer.
Jerry 'n Vegas