Bush says to Terrorists "You can't be totalitarian, only *I* can be totalitarian!"
 

From the president who brought you:
<ul>
<li>The lack of enron prosecutions (where is ken lay today?)</li>
<li>The patriot act</li>
<li>The blatant flaunting of the Geneva conventions in Guantanomo</li>
<li>Crackdowns on legal protest by creating "protest zones" far from the event</li>
<li>The failed war in Afghanistan, where warlords still control most of the country</li>
</ul>
And a whole host of other national problems... We now hear that we need to FIGHT TOTALITARIANISM.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...h_dc&printer=1

Please tell me you aren't really equating the Patriot Act with blowing up children on a bus...

I fail to see what the problem is in Guantanomo Bay, there aren't declared combantants, they are foriegn terrorists and criminals. Furthermore I fail to see how the Warlords are his fault in Afganistan, they were there before Bush, and they'll probably be around in that shit hole of a country when he is gone.

Actually, I see the patriot act as far more Totalitarian than blowing up people on a bus.

From m-w.com:
totalitarian: 1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy

Blowing up people on a bus is terrorism. The Patriot act is totalitarian, it's all about removing civil rights and monitoring citizens. That's why I find sad humor in Bush's statements. While I don't support the terrorism of the Palestinians, I don't believe their goals are totalitarian, they want to have a homeland. Ashcroft, on the other hand, I believe has serious totalitarian goals.

Since they have no access to lawyers or family, and their names, in many cases, have not been disclosed, you have no way of knowing that. They could have your Saudi grandmother in there and the only thing you would know is that she was missing from her home.

mmm, k.

I guess my only comment is that it seems like you have two separate issues in one post and are somehow making a comparison that I'm not seeing.

If my Saudi grandmother is there then she is probably associated with Al Qeada or the Taliban, so let the whore rot for all I care.

Hmm, I don't see it that way. Bush is accusing terrorists of having totalitarian goals, when he has several totalitarian-leaning policies himself. To me, it's ironic.

"Probably" is the keyword there. So, based on a "probably", you're willing to let someone sit for years in a jail with no access to family, lawyers, or a fair trial. I guess you and I have different opinions on what constitutes justice.

Yes, I would rather have some extremist asshole who would slit my throat or fly a plane into a building for shits and giggles rot in hell the SOB he or she is.

we're becoming what we despise.

do we have to become evil to defeat evil?


and as for the guatanamo deal, they are being treated as guilty until proven innocent. isnt that the way that dictators act?

i can remember both the UN & the US condoning acts by dictators where they practiced the guilty until proven innocent doctrine.

i quote this from a UN human rights declaration

the "plain language version" part is also on the website.

http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/hu...aration/11.asp

arent we in blatant violation of that?

EDIT : sry, i missed the part where US is allowed to violate UN declarations!

Nope, but it's a hell of a lot more efficient. Besides, evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh, and I believe they're being held by military law or something like that so we're going around the UN declaration.

what is the purpose of the declaration then if countries can evade it by saying it's military law?

/me whispers to HarmlessRabbit: it's flouting, not flaunting. ;)

We aren't in violation of the Geneva Convention, the UN has to declare them (the terrorists) as combatants before anyone can do anything about Gitmo, which I don't think they'll do.

Without completely rehashing this topic, I'd just like to point out that that declaration would have to come from the U.N. Security Council, which the USA has a veto vote on.

Do you see a problem there?

Why do Liberals always insist on appeasing those who would destroy us? "We shouldn't stoop to their level, it isn't fair" honestly who the fuck cares. When you have fuckers like OBL running around you don't play fair, you hit them hard and hit them fast.

I can give you three reasons off the top of my head:
- The Declaration of Independence.
- The Constitution.
- The inscription on the Statue of Liberty.

And I can give you one that directly appeals to your interests:

It's more along the lines of "why do liberals always try to minimize the damage we might do to those not already opposed to us?"

We aren't arguing to appease the terrorists--we're worried that our actions are creating more of them.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The Declaration of Independence and Constitution only apply to AMERICAN CITIZENS.

My god, you don't really believe that do you? You're like a caricature of my dream conservative to debate against. :)

I do believe that, why would our country grant the same rights to those who aren't citizens??? If it is otherwise please be so kind as to inform me. It's like me being able to shop at Sam's Club even though I am not a member.

*Good discussion guys, keep it going*

Wow!

The Declaration of Independence was a treatise arguing for unaliable rights that humankind possessed to be free from political tyranny. Just so you know, it was written before there were, what we now conceive of as, "American Citizens." The notion of "citizenship" (that one had certain, unencroachable rights by basis of one's place of birth) was a marvelous construction--and by all accounts I've read--a gift we gave to the world.

So because it says that, it automatically applies to everyone across the world?

Yes.

Oops, I didn't mean to turn that into merely quoting the document.

Here's how it relates:

This document illustrates the beliefs the framers held in regards to the role governments should have with their populations--or citizens. This document shows that, at the very least, the writers viewed governments as being responsive to their citizens and that the people had a right to institute political structures for their benefit.

This indicates they would be loathe to step into the foreign affairs of a sovereign nation--one in which the people would be required as a matter of duty to overthrow a despot. In our current scenario, however, one might argue that we reluctantly engaged in the affairs of a foreign nation to protect the interests of our own nation. Even in this case, however, the framers would have been very explicit to limit the amount of unalienable rights we might take from people we simply detained.

And just to put a bee in your bonnet: the framers might have even supported the terrorists. They might have viewed our historical actions against the middle east as usurping the rights of a local population to govern itself. They definately would have argued (as they did in the quoted document) that a people has a fundamental duty to overthrow and dismantle a political party it viewed as unresponsive to its best interests.

They argued that exact point to the government on the other side of the pond and claimed that no foreign entity (an entity unresponsive to the needs and desires of the people it tried to govern) should have a stake in its affairs.

edit: A peopl, LOL, I'm leaving it. "People do it all the time; and you're a people, too."

You don't do anything, and the terrorists kill people. You do something, and terrorists kill people. You don't do anything, and terrorists recruit more terrorists. You do something, and you might create more terrorists.

We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. So it bascially boils down to two options:

1) Don't kill the assholes
2) Kill the assholes

I prefer the second option.

Your statement would be correct if we were, in fact, "doing nothing." But terrorists do not exist because we did "nothing." They have specific complaints and legitimate claims (not to say that all of them are); refusing to address such things is to our detriment precisely because such attitudes place us in this untenable situation.

You can't make everyone happy. Someone's going to hate you no matter what.

Wrong Jimmy4.

Terrorists do their actions FOR A REASON.

They do not go around killing people as a psycho might.

They do this for political gain - and terror is used as a tactic often in DESPERATION.

For instance, in the 70's, palestinian hijackers exploited situations in Israel with hostage situations to get the release of political prisoners.

now for instance, it is the actions of israel vs. palestine that have sparked revenge bombings

You people are getting blured between psychos and terrorists. A terrorist to one man can be a patriot to another. The British saw the Minutemen as being terrorists. THey saw George Washington as a terrorist, a rebel, a traitor. We see him as a patriot, a hero, a founding father.

They do these in desperation for a reason - now i'm not defending their actions, because they're using their zeal in the wrong fashion.

its true you cant make everyone happy but its wrong to say someone will always hate you - they won't if you put them at a parity or left them alone to solve their own issues.


America would never have been hit in the WTC if Osama didn't hate the U.S. - and why does he hate the U.S.? Obviously something we did that he felt we wronged him. Be it support of Israel or being anti-fundamentalist.

Iran had a wave of fundamentalism at the closing years of the 70's - why? They resented our support of the Shah of Iran.

They do these for reasons. If the U.S. was not involved in the Middle East, we wouldn't have these problems.

IMo the fact is, the U.S. doesn't like to admit its actions in the Middle East.

Think of hte 80's and the numerous U.S. involvements in countries they still deny to this day yet people have long come forth saying we were there. Actions to support dictators in Chile against the communists, actions in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and what not. Our own special forces were there telling people to execute "liberals."

Face it though, people don't like to admit we're wrong. Americans still see us as the country that has never lost a war or battle when it has.

Yawn. Same bs posted different day..

Bush, yada yada yada

evil, yada yada yada

tyrant, yada yada yada

fascism, yada yada yada

whine, yada yada yada

I offer no solutions, yada yada yada

USA's fault, yada yada yada

I dunno onetime2.

Ignoring the subject is fine, but hey, ignoring the subject is how people expoit the situation.

Its easy for people to say "bah i don't care same bullshit" - then later when it affects you, you care, but its too late.

Ignorance - ah how it makes the world go round.

Yet you are reading it?

I noticed.


It's not about offering solutions. It's a quest to understand what is happening in the world. Some of us are interested in this sort of thing. If you're not, why are you here wasting our time.

I guess you say it all in "It's not about offering solutions." I read it because I choose to and find it entertaining that you can claim that it's about understanding what's happening in the world when it's really about preaching what you think is happening in the world.

If I'm wasting your time then why don't you stop reading my posts?

Not ignoring the subject at all. If someone wants to discuss the war on terror let's go, wanna discuss Enron alright. If someone just wants to blast the President because he is from the "other" party and throw in a whole bunch of unrelated matters rather than offer up concrete examples of what they would do then I submit that it is not me that's ignoring the subject.

But hey, enjoy the thread. Blast Bush. Claim he's a dictator, ignore the methods that are available to oust him, insult his character or intelligence, whatever. While you are doing that he is laughing all the way to re election.

This thread was to discuss the implications of the article. If you want to start a thread about solutions, or Enron, or whatnot, why don't you start one instead of hijacking the discussion?

My comments were directed at Harmless Rabbit's thoughts on the article as well as the other things (including Enron) that he/she threw in. Sorry if you think it's off topic but the original post seems to be more about claiming Bush and his actions are totalitarian. I won't bother to comment anymore since I wouldn't want to hijack such a wonderfully productive discussion.

So what are your thoughts on Bush, onetime2?

Do you like him? Hate him? Think he's ok? Do you like his record on terrorism? Support the war?

Negation is easy. Putting up an opinion and defending it can be difficult.

To the extent that this isn't a discussion, it's because people aren't discussing. I've put forth an opinion that bush/ashcroft's policies are more totalitarian in spirit and in action than random acts of terrorism, which Bush brand's as "totalitarian".

What do you think?

you have as much right as him to start a discussion on this board. feel free

So, to stop the attack, we had to make one guy like us. We need to go out of our way and make sure one guy approves of everything we do, otherwise, he'll fund terrorists acts against us?

Fuck that. Kill his ass.

Well I can't tell if you're being facetious since Al-Qaeda has cells in over 60 countries; regardless, at least we have come full circle to the original subject of the thread.

After all, killing political dissidents forms the core of totalitarianism.

I don't even need to comment on how ludicrous statements are these days.

Just not worth the time. This is doomed shit.

Just trying to shake the hornet's nest here...

1) Osama wants the world to become one big fundy Muslim state. The only way he can be appeased is by giving him that state. Israel and the US doing "bad stuff" is just an excuse used to gain popular support.

2) Osama is not a political dissident. He is an enemy, trying to destroy civilization as we know (and like) it. Political dissent is one thing, terrorism is quite another.

3) I don't give a rat's arse how desperate anyone is; terrorism (as in: blowing up innocent civilians, on purpose) is wrong, period. If it's the only way you can fight, then DON'T FIGHT. Take a look at non-violent solutions, like Gandhi did, for example. Terrorism is just taking the easy (and evil) way out.

Well said Dragonlich. Those who would say otherwise and try to humanize and legitimize terrorists are no better in my eyes, as well as being equally dangerous.

exactly. I feel the same way about bush's invasion of iraq.

I'm glad we're on the same side for once. :) :)

Funny how you can twist my words to suit your argument, even though it's perfectly obvious I didn't even come close to saying that.

Or are you suggesting the US military deliberately blew up innocent civilians?

Crusades, the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.

{sigh} Only if they had done it right then. :p

JBX, you forgot to mention that the crusades were a direct response to the Muslim invasion of Europe...

...which is often ignored by people accusing Christianity/the west of being evil/having been evil.

Yes, thank you for the clarification.

Sorry to burst into your masturbation circle, you two, but justifying the crusades? :crazy:

Yes.

Also, note that the USA had reasonable non-violent (or at least less violent) solutions available in Iraq that were supported by the rest of the free world.

I'm glad to hear you support non-violent options during wartime.

It won't be just the United States that would vote against something like that. Russia would vote against making terrorists combatants because of their situation with Chechnya. Great Britain would vote against it because, well let's face reality, we tell the Brits what to do (I say that tongue-in-cheek because our policies are very similar, very rarely do we differ). France, I'm not sure about because I don't read too much of their policies. China, who knows, they can be a wild card sometimes. Trust me, it wouldn't be just the United States voting against making terrorists combatants.

Yes, we are justifying the crusades...

What, you think it's okay for Muslims to invade Europe, and then think it's unreasonable for Europeans to kick them out again? *THEY* started it... And now they're bitching about us defeating them.

And Harmlessrabbit:
1) stop twisting my words around.
2) The US did NOT deliberately target civilians. Your suggestion that they did is rather insulting, actually.
3) The US did not have reasonable "solutions" to the problem of Saddam Hussein - or do you think the UN would have voted to remove him?
4) Of course I support non-violent options during wartime. That does not mean that I think countries should *always* refrain from violence, if the situation warrents it. However, *deliberate* attacks against innocent civilians are wrong.

<b>And Harmlessrabbit:
1) stop twisting my words around.</b>

Sorry, it's hard to me for follow you when you advocate non-violence in some cases and not in others. I just got confused.

<b>2) The US did NOT deliberately target civilians. Your suggestion that they did is rather insulting, actually. </b>

Your suggestion that they didn't is rather amusing. Quiz: The military has an approval process for approval of bombing raids in Iraq when there is a chance that civilans might be killed. How many requests for approval using this process were denied approval?

<b> 3) The US did not have reasonable "solutions" to the problem of Saddam Hussein - or do you think the UN would have voted to remove him?</b>

yes, I think the UN would have removed him with much less death, destruction, and cost to the Iraqi people.

<b> 4) Of course I support non-violent options during wartime. That does not mean that I think countries should *always* refrain from violence, if the situation warrents it. However, *deliberate* attacks against innocent civilians are wrong.</b>

I agree.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam and his Baathist paramilitary group, place civilians in positions where they knew the U.S. was going to bomb, so as to stack the stats and make us look bad. So later on, if Saddam is alive he can say "Look! The U.S. kills civilians *aside to one of his advisors* pretty smart putting them there with armed guards to make sure they don't leave and survive." Bush isn't being totalitarian, we've had worse people than Ashcroft and Bush out there (McCarthy, HUAC, a whole nation paranoid of red haired people who might be communists) and we've made it through before. I didn't agree with Bush moving so fast, I thought that was a mistake, we probably should have waited until late September for better weather conditions, and more than likely, more international support. I want peace, but I don't want it at any cost, I'd like to have a backup plan incase some insane person decides to attack us again so that the options that are brought before the POTUS aren't just negotiations.

Sorry archer but McCarthy was removed pretty much because he fucked up by targetting the army, Eisenhower and what not had enough, plain and simple.

Bush doesn't have the ability to remove Ashcroft or whatever else just becuase he set em up there and he's willing to listen to them. Unless Ashcroft does something totally wild that the entire country is in an uproar about, it won't happen because people are buying into the shit. Its that simple.

And Dragonlich... you're trying to justify actions of centuries ago?

Come on, are you really that desperate sire? Putting the blame on anyone is just a waste of time.

"Oh no they attacked us so we must attack them back and butcher them 10x worse!!!"

see what happens in the world when it occurs? And in the end, the crusades failed. Sure they attacked Europe first, but guess what, they lost, we tried to take their land back, and in the end still lost.

What most people hate to acknowledge though is that the treatment the Crusaders gave to others compared to what the Muslims did at that time is very very different (well it partially depends on who was in charge for isntance Saladin..)


And in the end i think a point to all this though is that Bush was being just plain stupid in his word choice - "crusade" in other words he hints at a holy war or as many muslim extremists say, jihad

Wow look who is being the hypocrite there? "We'll stop your little jihad with our own"

Just a friendly note to say I'm watching...:D

/me waves at lebell

:)

There is a vast difference between targeting civilians, and bombing legitimate military targets that happen to be near civilians.


Again, when did US commanders sit down and decide to attack a bunch of civilians?

Why would you expend costly ordinance on a target that would gain you nothing by it's destruction, and hurt the standing of your country, and the prestige of your organisation.
Really?

So he would have just stepped down? Or would the UN forces bullets and bombs magically caused less "death, destruction, and cost" than US/British bullets and bombs? :rolleyes:

McCarthy was worse than Ashcroft will ever be. Bush does have the ability to remove Ashcroft from the seat of Attorney General. The question is, will he do it? Probably not. I was just pointing out the fact that we have major swings in government going from left, right, to the middle, and back again, and we're still here aren't we? My point is that we won't become totalitarian, despite what many may be crying wolf about. And debaser, wow, you and I agree, man is that ever a first.

:D

i really fear for the rule of law...this has been a carefully created idea, that has grown over the years...and the whole point is to create a society that cannot be torn apart by the fiat of a few individuals.

That said...i don't think it's fair sport to compare terrorism with totalitarianism. Bush is making some totalitarian moves, but it is only his abuse of the English language that links such a concept to terrorism. They are two distinct evils.

Injustice in Guantanomo
 

Bush says that those locked in Camp X-Ray are terrorists, "the worst of the worst". If this is the case why can't he simply prosecute them under US or international law. My government in Australia says that the two Aussies there, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, cannot be brought home because we cannot prosecute them in Australia and they would simply be set free. This is complete crap. If they have violated international law, then we can prosecute them in the supreme court. If they haven't violated international law or Australian law, or even Afghani law, then what right do the Amercian armed forces have to pick them up in Afghanistan and try them in an illegal court that even the general in charge of says won't grant fair and unbiased trials. The British have managed to convince Bush to release their nationals, and most of these are now free in the UK. Why can't Howard do the same here, or is he truly Bush's lapdog? :confused:

Agreed......and thus I continue to lurk

Examples of US targeting civilians

Hiroshima
Nagisaki
Dresden

We will gladly kill lots of civilians if it suits our purpose. Don't doubt this for a second.

here are some pictures of those terrorists were killing

**WARNING GRAPHIC PICTURE WARNING**

Terrorists

It violates human rights.

How so?

At any rate, I could honestly careless. The US hasn't kept everyone who has come in there, many have been released. As for the rest, they can rot in a cell for the rest of their natural lives.

article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

you can argue that they are not POWs, but then they are normal criminals and should be put on trial. detention them for years without charge is illegal and a shame for the so called "leader of the free world"

so your in favor of a lifelong sentence without a trial?

The USA only cares for human rights or the Geneva Convention when they want to. ..

Wow this is a bit of an old thread.

I want to address the issue of the guys rotting in Gitmo. Basically, they are damn lucky they aren't dead already. Military justice states that any armed combatant in disguise or out of uniform can be considered spies and aren't granted the rights a POW recieves. They can be tried by a military tribune and executed. The Administration won't give it a green light though, because they know there would be a massive uproar about it. The basic idea is don't wear a uniform and fight, then fight to the death. If you get captured, you're basically fucked.

A side note about the crusades. The first crusade started because the Byzintine emperor went to the pope and asked him to help fight off the Muslims, mainly the Turks. The pope saw a chance for Christians to reclaim the "holy" land, or Antioch, Tripoli, Edessa, and Palestine, nowadays know as Israel, Lebanon, the western coast of Syria and a little bit of Turkey. So the crusaders gathered up and headed out in a few different bands, the plan was to meet in Constantinople and go from there. Peter the Hermit roused what was basically a peasant crusade containing some 20,000 people, and his was the first to cross in to Turkey, without waiting for the real crusaders. Well, they encountered a Turkish army, and some 17 to 18 thousand of them were slaughtered. Most of the rest, young boys and girls, were sold into slavery, with a few escaping, including Peter the Hermit. Don't feel sorry about that lot, however. They generally acted like a bunch of thugs and dicks, and basically got what was coming to them. Anyway, when the real crusaders arrived and heard about what happened, they were a bit upset. Now the whole thing is off to a bad start and the crusaders have some scores to settle, bloody vengence being a quite expected thing during the early medieval period. So they took Antioch first, which was in Turkish territory. They proceeded to kill every Turk in the city. Edessa was taken without a fight, but later had to survive a series of attacks by the Turks. Jerusalem was taken after roughly a month long seige, even though the crusaders were vastly outnumbered by the city's defenders. Before the crusaders arrived, all Christians had been expelled from the city, only Jews and Muslims remained. Well, the crusaders killed them all, but for a couple of the Muslim leaders. Tripoli held out for 6 years before surrendering, and there was no slaughter once they gave in.

Well, that was rather long winded and just a bit off topic, wasn't it. My basic point is that in that time period, brutality was the rule, not the exception. Neither side was in the right, and each did horrible things. After one took prisoners or a city, it was normally an all or nothing affair. Either you killed everyone or no one. However, the past is the past, and it is silly to point fingers and accuse one another for transgressions that occured almost a millenia ago. One might as well argue with the wind.

The Patriot Act was supported by both sides of the aisle. It is now being portrayed as Bush's Patriot Act by those who are willing to sacrifice security for absolute freedom. Absolute freedom has never existed and cannot in a civilized society. I am on the side who says, I have nothing to hide and am willing to trade some of the privacy rights of those who do for my increased security.

What, you're not going to list the cities Japan, Germany, Russia, and the UK bombed in WWII? It was just us doing that, right?

That war was 60 years ago, in a different era when strikes against civilians were more acceptable and widely practiced. It was the horrors of that war that keep civilized nations from doing that again.

Yes, we've killed civilians in combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much every war since WWII. The difference is that they are not primary targets. We don't plan airstrikes that are designed to kill thousands of civilians in an attempt to demoralize our enemies. Terrorists still do that, though. I suppose I could dig up pictures of what's left of Israeli children and show you the "Zionist crusaders" or 9/11 victims, the "Great Satan".

Remember when we nuked/firebombed Tripoli and killed tens of thousands of civilians following Libya's funding and support of terrorists? Or Teheran after they took hostages? Or Beirut after the Marine barracks was destroyed? Oh right, we didn't. And that was under Reagan, who did far more to turn the US into a global power than Bush ever did or could.

Go ahead and believe that our President, my Commander in Chief, or our military leaders wake up every morning and wonder how many civilians they can kill by suppertime. I know it's "cool" to go against the government, and dissent for the sake of dissenting. If you want to take the stand that invading Iraq was wrong, I disagree but at least respect that point of view as the debate can easily be made. But trying to take the position that Bush and his cabinet are nothing more than wannabe dictators who wipe their asses with the Constitution is insane. We face a new threat from al-Qaida that requires new methods to defend ourselves against. A released Gitmo detainee has already stated his intent to rejoin the fight against the Russians in Chechnya. But I guess it's a good thing we let him go, right? Since now he can go blow up a school or bus or airplane full of Russian civilians to try to get those Russian imperialist dogs out of Chechnya, right? Because it's okay for TERRORISTS to kill civilians by the dozens. Besides, he's gotta be the only one who intends to return to his former life as a terrorist. The rest of the detainees who were released, I'm happy to report, have returned to their former countries and taken up gardening and crocheting.

-Mikey

I just can't wait for Kerry to get elected. With W out of the way, we'll never be attacked by terrorists as long as he's in charge. Just like when Clinton was President. Well, except for the USS Cole. And the barracks at Dhahran. And our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the first WTC attack.

Oh wait...

-Mikey

first, he never said that.
second, does it make it better if someone else did it too? why cant you admit that you did something wrong without pointing the finger at others?

No, you just make sure that there is a "shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. this could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease"
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassd...11rept_91.html

The "bombing of of all major dams, most major pumping stations and many sewage treatment plants so that Sewage flowed directly into the Tigris River, from which civilians drew drinking water" is of course much better then target them directly...

no, just about 60.

Exactly, and for all you who piss and moan there is no such status, do yourself a favor and read some of the post threads were this has came up
Rekna's: what's a terrorist? http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ighlight=hague

Anywho, to pull up this old shit.

Ex Parte Quirin 1942:

What has he done to try and spread Islam to other parts of the world? I wasn't under the impression that "turn the USA Muslim" was part of his game plan.

This was a sniping thread then and I don't see that it has changed any.

Locked.