US Military Dictatorship?

[Rob W 0]

Think all the new laws which allow phone and internet spying as well as bank details in the U.S. are pretty shocking like seen as they drone on about freedom all day long.

 

You can say this and it's a fair point, but it is necessary for the intelligence services to do it, it is where modern communcations take place now. They don't put parcels and notes in holes in trees anymore. You know this Parky ?

 

 

which is why the FSB had those photos last year of MI6 agents in Moscow hiding stuff under a fake rock.....................

[ewerk 30682]

KSA, so far you've made 7 posts in this thread. Please point out one that relates to the question being debated?

 

I am not going to lower myself to 'debating' such a ludicrous proposal. You only take people seriously who you respect, and I can't respect people who obviously don't understand the basic construct of the U.S. government and its various bodies, and go on to claim that if we were to point out the differences between North Korea and U.S.A we would be splitting hairs. That displays a level of idiocy that is usually reserved for mentally retarded poultry. I shouldn't have to point out that the U.S. isn't a military dictatorship, as that is an axiom. The demographic who believe this nonsense to be the case is comprised of terrorist sympathizers, why would I bother engaging with those types, pointless exercise.

 

Wasn't one of the main ideals of the US political system that there would be a series of checks and balances between the executive, legislature and the judiciary?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

See first reply to OP.

[ewerk 30682]

Avoiding the point made entirely.

 

Why don't you answer my question?

[Toonpack 9479]

I haven't really read the entire discussion, so apolgies if this has been cleared up already, But am I right in thinking someone is being sentences to death without trial?

How can that be right?

 

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed.

[Happy Face 29]

See first reply to OP.

 

 

Rob's?

 

While I hope the Supreme Court will reject it, I'm not as naturally optimistic.

 

Elena Kagan (who just replaced the most liberal judge in the court) is supposed to be liberal, but she's pushed for further expansion of presidential power in areas such as extraordinary rendition, executive privilege, state secrets, and indefinite detention in the past.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Avoiding the point made entirely.

 

Why don't you answer my question?

 

The first reply to the OP addresses your flimsy and fatuous 'point'.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

See first reply to OP.

 

 

Rob's?

 

While I hope the Supreme Court will reject it, I'm not as naturally optimistic.

 

Elena Kagan (who just replaced the most liberal judge in the court) is supposed to be liberal, but she's pushed for further expansion of presidential power in areas such as extraordinary rendition, executive privilege, state secrets, and indefinite detention in the past.

 

I personally don't see it going through but we'll have to wait and see. If it does then we can start going crazy. Would be more interesting to talk about someone like Kissinger with regard to this but people insist on blathering on.

[Happy Face 29]

I haven't really read the entire discussion, so apolgies if this has been cleared up already, But am I right in thinking someone is being sentences to death without trial?

How can that be right?

 

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed.

 

Even if they got the right people, dp you believe that would that be the end of it? Would killing them mean victory and safety for all the innocent civilians? Or would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists, making the security services jobs harder and the threat more potent?

[ewerk 30682]

I haven't really read the entire discussion, so apolgies if this has been cleared up already, But am I right in thinking someone is being sentences to death without trial?

How can that be right?

 

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed.

 

Even if they got the right people, dp you believe that would that be the end of it? Would killing them mean victory and safety for all the innocent civilians? Or would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists, making the security services jobs harder and the threat more potent?

 

He clearly has no idea how 'successful' the state sponsored killings in NI were the last time round.

[Happy Face 29]

See first reply to OP.

 

 

Rob's?

 

While I hope the Supreme Court will reject it, I'm not as naturally optimistic.

 

Elena Kagan (who just replaced the most liberal judge in the court) is supposed to be liberal, but she's pushed for further expansion of presidential power in areas such as extraordinary rendition, executive privilege, state secrets, and indefinite detention in the past.

 

I personally don't see it going through but we'll have to wait and see. If it does then we can start going crazy. Would be more interesting to talk about someone like Kissinger with regard to this but people insist on blathering on.

 

I think the brief is noteworthy in itself, whether or not it is rejected.

 

Feel free to take the debate where you like....rather than having a pop at opinions while refusing to state your own.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists"

 

Though I don't agree with it, I doubt it would have that affect. It may radicalise some who had harboured terrorist sympathies but to suggest it would radicalise those who didn't previously is unrealistic. Lacking a basis in reality. Need to get into the real world really.

[tooner 243]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

 

I know who the good guys are. The bad guys wouldn't let you post what you say about them.

 

 

phew! what a relief, as long as YOU know.....

 

coming from a yank wannabee ....

 

i don't even understand your response....must be my percieved lack of real world experience, or your lack of geographical knowledge, of course it could be that you are an internet forum sooopa poster that reverts to what he knows best (name calling and the like) when his side of the argument breaks down.

fact is ,either killing is bad or it isn't, it can't be ok for one side and not the other. either you're for it or you're not.

i am against killing period.

 

fact is LM you haven't a clue, in order to get one you'd need to open your eyes and your mind to the miriad of other cultures and points of view that exist on our planet....tbh i dont even know i'm wasting my effort with this.

 

point is sunshine, you are a plastic yank coming on here trying to tell genuine lifelong supporters of the football club that have actively supported the club for anything between 20-45 years that you know better than we do.

 

You also insist you know more about the politics of the UK more than the majority of posters who have lived here and always have done to go with it.

 

You also are debating issues of National Security with me. You know fuck all about me, you know nothing of my backround or anything at all. You know nothing about my perception of the world, politics, cultures, how I have travelled. You know fuck all. What I do know about you though, is you are a plastic yank, like most Canadians. Like most Jocks who are English wannabees. You are the North American version of a mackem.

 

Killing is bad, but sometimes it is justified. Don't bother preaching to me that the killing of cunts who have terrorist links or even cunts who have sympathies with those who do active terrorism within the civilised western world from their caves in the middle east isn't justified, because it is.

 

Issues of National Security are basic common sense. You being a liberal minded tosspot, think you should be told certain things. But you should not. Certain things are highly confidential for a reason. If you don't agree then basically it's your tough luck. If you want to talk politics talk Canadian politics, not UK politics, because I for one don't give a shit what your opinions are of the UK if you have chosen not to live here and integrate into the community correctly.

 

 

...read the OP...we're talking about NORTH AMERICAN POLITICS.....i really don't give a shit about what you think of me.

 

your reply just goes to show how completely deluded and cluesless you are and the rancor in it belies i may have hit a nerve , is it a fear of books? is that why you dont read? . bitter much.

 

btw...killing is never justified

 

deluded = Not at all. As I said, you know nothing about me.

 

Hit a nerve = just showing you how to suck eggs.

 

 

....how about that OP...makes your rant seem, well in a word, demented.

[tooner 243]

Think all the new laws which allow phone and internet spying as well as bank details in the U.S. are pretty shocking like seen as they drone on about freedom all day long.

 

You can say this and it's a fair point, but it is necessary for the intelligence services to do it, it is where modern communcations take place now. They don't put parcels and notes in holes in trees anymore. You know this Parky ?

 

 

aye. Just adding a bit of homour to these anti-west rants

 

 

this is the same tactic used in the middle east by israel, just because the policies are being questioned or disagreed with doesn't make them "anti-west"

just as it isn't anti-semetic to say israel should get the fuck out of gaza.

 

you can't uphold the rights and freedoms afforded to us in a democratic state by suspending them

[Happy Face 29]

"would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists"

 

Though I don't agree with it, I doubt it would have that affect. It may radicalise some who had harboured terrorist sympathies but to suggest it would radicalise those who didn't previously is unrealistic.

 

While I see what you're saying I'm talking longer term. The problem is how the the cause a terrorist originally purported to be fighting changes for the following generations. Osama Bin Laden's cause of 2001 was a lot different (and a lot less prevalent) to a lot of the Jihadists he radicalised by provoking a middle eastern invasion by the US.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

I haven't really read the entire discussion, so apolgies if this has been cleared up already, But am I right in thinking someone is being sentences to death without trial?

How can that be right?

 

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed.

 

and who can argue with that ?

 

Oh. Wait a moment...........

[LeazesMag 0]

I haven't really read the entire discussion, so apolgies if this has been cleared up already, But am I right in thinking someone is being sentences to death without trial?

How can that be right?

 

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed.

 

Even if they got the right people, dp you believe that would that be the end of it? Would killing them mean victory and safety for all the innocent civilians? Or would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists, making the security services jobs harder and the threat more potent?

 

what would you prefer

 

1. Just let them get on with murdering people

 

2. Assuming the scumbags are shot first, insist on the names and addresses of those who do the dirty deed in the name of Freedom of Information ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

 

I know who the good guys are. The bad guys wouldn't let you post what you say about them.

 

 

phew! what a relief, as long as YOU know.....

 

coming from a yank wannabee ....

 

i don't even understand your response....must be my percieved lack of real world experience, or your lack of geographical knowledge, of course it could be that you are an internet forum sooopa poster that reverts to what he knows best (name calling and the like) when his side of the argument breaks down.

fact is ,either killing is bad or it isn't, it can't be ok for one side and not the other. either you're for it or you're not.

i am against killing period.

 

fact is LM you haven't a clue, in order to get one you'd need to open your eyes and your mind to the miriad of other cultures and points of view that exist on our planet....tbh i dont even know i'm wasting my effort with this.

 

point is sunshine, you are a plastic yank coming on here trying to tell genuine lifelong supporters of the football club that have actively supported the club for anything between 20-45 years that you know better than we do.

 

You also insist you know more about the politics of the UK more than the majority of posters who have lived here and always have done to go with it.

 

You also are debating issues of National Security with me. You know fuck all about me, you know nothing of my backround or anything at all. You know nothing about my perception of the world, politics, cultures, how I have travelled. You know fuck all. What I do know about you though, is you are a plastic yank, like most Canadians. Like most Jocks who are English wannabees. You are the North American version of a mackem.

 

Killing is bad, but sometimes it is justified. Don't bother preaching to me that the killing of cunts who have terrorist links or even cunts who have sympathies with those who do active terrorism within the civilised western world from their caves in the middle east isn't justified, because it is.

 

Issues of National Security are basic common sense. You being a liberal minded tosspot, think you should be told certain things. But you should not. Certain things are highly confidential for a reason. If you don't agree then basically it's your tough luck. If you want to talk politics talk Canadian politics, not UK politics, because I for one don't give a shit what your opinions are of the UK if you have chosen not to live here and integrate into the community correctly.

 

 

...read the OP...we're talking about NORTH AMERICAN POLITICS.....i really don't give a shit about what you think of me.

 

your reply just goes to show how completely deluded and cluesless you are and the rancor in it belies i may have hit a nerve , is it a fear of books? is that why you dont read? . bitter much.

 

btw...killing is never justified

 

deluded = Not at all. As I said, you know nothing about me.

 

Hit a nerve = just showing you how to suck eggs.

 

 

....how about that OP...makes your rant seem, well in a word, demented.

 

not really. You have no idea of the need for or basics of National Security. Your problem not mine.

[Happy Face 29]

I haven't really read the entire discussion, so apolgies if this has been cleared up already, But am I right in thinking someone is being sentences to death without trial?

How can that be right?

 

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed.

 

Even if they got the right people, dp you believe that would that be the end of it? Would killing them mean victory and safety for all the innocent civilians? Or would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists, making the security services jobs harder and the threat more potent?

 

what would you prefer

 

1. Just let them get on with murdering people

 

2. Assuming the scumbags are shot first, insist on the names and addresses of those who do the dirty deed in the name of Freedom of Information ?

 

I'd prefer they're dealt with like any murderers.

[LeazesMag 0]

I haven't really read the entire discussion, so apolgies if this has been cleared up already, But am I right in thinking someone is being sentences to death without trial?

How can that be right?

 

Well, as an example I reckon that the security services will have a very good idea who's behind the increased republican threat from NI BUt unfortunately we (the UK) won't have the balls to take them out, which would be right, before some real innocents get killed.

 

Even if they got the right people, dp you believe that would that be the end of it? Would killing them mean victory and safety for all the innocent civilians? Or would it radicalise more people who's sympathies had never previously been with terrorists, making the security services jobs harder and the threat more potent?

 

what would you prefer

 

1. Just let them get on with murdering people

 

2. Assuming the scumbags are shot first, insist on the names and addresses of those who do the dirty deed in the name of Freedom of Information ?

 

I'd prefer they're dealt with like any murderers.

 

those SAS guys who shot those IRA scum in Gib were murderers were they ?

[NJS 4389]

The US has been attacked by foreign terrorists on its own soil once in 60 years of fermenting conflict around the world.

 

Now either they have the best intelligence agencies in the world - almost perfect bar one slip-up - or the day to day threat is actually practically nil.

 

(The truth is somewhere in the middle but towards which end is open to debate)

 

Now why do you think they need to exaggerate the threat to the point where millions of people accept execution squads beyond the law without question?

[NJS 4389]

those SAS guys who shot those IRA scum in Gib were murderers were they ?

 

Given the fact they weren't "being open and wearing uniforms in a proper battlefield" or whatever it is you say about Muslims then I'd say yes.

[LeazesMag 0]

those SAS guys who shot those IRA scum in Gib were murderers were they ?

 

Given the fact they weren't "being open and wearing uniforms in a proper battlefield" or whatever it is you say about Muslims then I'd say yes.

 

they may have saved someone you know, or you, being murdered.

 

I suppose your reply says everything.

 

Further debate is pointless.

[The Fish 10876]

those SAS guys who shot those IRA scum in Gib were murderers were they ?

 

Given the fact they weren't "being open and wearing uniforms in a proper battlefield" or whatever it is you say about Muslims then I'd say yes.

 

they may have saved someone you know, or you, being murdered.

 

I suppose your reply says everything.

 

Further debate is pointless.

 

Their actions may have caused a retribution from the terrorists which lead to someone being murdered.

 

Your argument is weak as piss.

[tooner 243]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

 

I know who the good guys are. The bad guys wouldn't let you post what you say about them.

 

 

phew! what a relief, as long as YOU know.....

 

coming from a yank wannabee ....

 

i don't even understand your response....must be my percieved lack of real world experience, or your lack of geographical knowledge, of course it could be that you are an internet forum sooopa poster that reverts to what he knows best (name calling and the like) when his side of the argument breaks down.

fact is ,either killing is bad or it isn't, it can't be ok for one side and not the other. either you're for it or you're not.

i am against killing period.

 

fact is LM you haven't a clue, in order to get one you'd need to open your eyes and your mind to the miriad of other cultures and points of view that exist on our planet....tbh i dont even know i'm wasting my effort with this.

 

point is sunshine, you are a plastic yank coming on here trying to tell genuine lifelong supporters of the football club that have actively supported the club for anything between 20-45 years that you know better than we do.

 

You also insist you know more about the politics of the UK more than the majority of posters who have lived here and always have done to go with it.

 

You also are debating issues of National Security with me. You know fuck all about me, you know nothing of my backround or anything at all. You know nothing about my perception of the world, politics, cultures, how I have travelled. You know fuck all. What I do know about you though, is you are a plastic yank, like most Canadians. Like most Jocks who are English wannabees. You are the North American version of a mackem.

 

Killing is bad, but sometimes it is justified. Don't bother preaching to me that the killing of cunts who have terrorist links or even cunts who have sympathies with those who do active terrorism within the civilised western world from their caves in the middle east isn't justified, because it is.

 

Issues of National Security are basic common sense. You being a liberal minded tosspot, think you should be told certain things. But you should not. Certain things are highly confidential for a reason. If you don't agree then basically it's your tough luck. If you want to talk politics talk Canadian politics, not UK politics, because I for one don't give a shit what your opinions are of the UK if you have chosen not to live here and integrate into the community correctly.

 

 

...read the OP...we're talking about NORTH AMERICAN POLITICS.....i really don't give a shit about what you think of me.

 

your reply just goes to show how completely deluded and cluesless you are and the rancor in it belies i may have hit a nerve , is it a fear of books? is that why you dont read? . bitter much.

 

btw...killing is never justified

 

deluded = Not at all. As I said, you know nothing about me.

 

Hit a nerve = just showing you how to suck eggs.

 

 

....how about that OP...makes your rant seem, well in a word, demented.

 

not really. You have no idea of the need for or basics of National Security. Your problem not mine.

 

 

...typical LM..."you just don't understand" response.