Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
RyanH said:
Come on, Bocephus, I have specifically mentioned Jane Fonda, Reverand Jackson, and Ted Kennedy because I know how much you love all of the them.
I'm glad you support their execution.
Ryan.
KILLING the INNOCENT all over our WORLD...
- Thread starter RyanH
- Start date
spongebob
New member
RyanH said:
ryanh, please elaborate, where is the compassion that you show for andrea yates, the woman that just needs a good lawyer.
maybe bin laden has psycological problems as well, you know by some accounts his family has abandoned him too. tell me what distinguishes the two. one killed 5000, while the other killed 5, so is it the number of innocent lives that make the difference?
its ok to be hypocritical just dont try to hide it so hard.
i think you should answer your last question there.
T
THE STEEL BEAST
Guest
JANE FONDA IS AT IT AGAIN. Nearly thirty years ago, she went to North Viet Nam and aided a Communist anti-American propaganda campaign. (See www.Hanoijane.net.) Now, in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, she is once again undermining the United States — this time, by blurring a crucially important distinction.
Make Comments
View Comments
Printable Article
Email Article
On September 20th, Fonda reportedly told an Atlanta radio station that Americans should "try to understand the underlying causes" of the terrorist attacks which, in her view, must "be dealt with as a crime. And when there’s a crime, you don’t bomb a city or a country — you use very, very clever intelligence, undercover-type operations to get the criminals and punish them. . . ." It would be a mistake, she opined, for America to retaliate militarily.
Put aside that Fonda characterized American response as "saber rattling" and "calls for vengeance." Put aside her implication that the "underlying causes" of the attacks were poverty and hunger rather than hatred for Western values and culture. Put aside that Fonda knows nothing about intelligence operations. What Fonda is saying is that the terrorists are not soldiers to be attacked militarily, but mere criminals.
There is a profoundly important distinction to be made between an act of war and the commission of a criminal act. Indeed, that Fonda blurred this distinction is far less important than why she did.
President Bush has consistently characterized the terrorism as an act of war against the United States. By any customary definition of "war," he is correct. War is armed military combat, regardless of whether the combatants have issued an official declaration (which, incidentally, the terrorists have done). Let Fonda tell the dead, the missing, the wounded veterans from Korea, that they were not at war with the North Koreans and Chinese Communists. Let her tell the mourners at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall that their loved ones were not at war with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. And let her tell the dead beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center that they were not killed in a radical Islamic "holy war."
Declared or not, a war exists when armed belligerents mount an attack — as in killing stewardesses and pilots, hijacking aircraft, and crashing them into buildings filled with thousands of people.
A "crime" is very different. It is a violation of domestic law punishable by fine and/or imprisonment and sometimes death. It is prosecuted in court, and the proceedings are hedged with constitutional and other safeguards — notably, due process of law, non-self incrimination, search warrants supported by probable cause, etc.
It is this important distinction between a state of war and the commission of a crime that is being blurred by Fonda and likeminded Leftists. If the terrorist killings are not treated as acts of war but rather as the commission of mere domestic crimes, the terrorists would be entitled to the safeguards ensured by our criminal justice system — with the outcome as uncertain as O. J. Simpson’s trial for the brutal murder of two people. On the other hand, if the attacks on American soil are considered acts of war, military response, unhampered by the safeguards afforded criminals, is necessary and justified.
Based on this war/crime dichotomy, the radical Islamic terrorists would stand a far better chance in our criminal justice system than on the receiving end of the military’s smart bombs and special forces operations. That is what Fonda and people of her ilk want: an escape hatch for the terrorists. And that is why, when she equates the killing of thousands of Americans by the soldiers of radical Islam with the domestic crime of murder, and when she rails against a military response to an act of war waged against the United States of America, Jane Fonda stands exposed as being soft on terrorists
Make Comments
View Comments
Printable Article
Email Article
On September 20th, Fonda reportedly told an Atlanta radio station that Americans should "try to understand the underlying causes" of the terrorist attacks which, in her view, must "be dealt with as a crime. And when there’s a crime, you don’t bomb a city or a country — you use very, very clever intelligence, undercover-type operations to get the criminals and punish them. . . ." It would be a mistake, she opined, for America to retaliate militarily.
Put aside that Fonda characterized American response as "saber rattling" and "calls for vengeance." Put aside her implication that the "underlying causes" of the attacks were poverty and hunger rather than hatred for Western values and culture. Put aside that Fonda knows nothing about intelligence operations. What Fonda is saying is that the terrorists are not soldiers to be attacked militarily, but mere criminals.
There is a profoundly important distinction to be made between an act of war and the commission of a criminal act. Indeed, that Fonda blurred this distinction is far less important than why she did.
President Bush has consistently characterized the terrorism as an act of war against the United States. By any customary definition of "war," he is correct. War is armed military combat, regardless of whether the combatants have issued an official declaration (which, incidentally, the terrorists have done). Let Fonda tell the dead, the missing, the wounded veterans from Korea, that they were not at war with the North Koreans and Chinese Communists. Let her tell the mourners at the Viet Nam Memorial Wall that their loved ones were not at war with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. And let her tell the dead beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center that they were not killed in a radical Islamic "holy war."
Declared or not, a war exists when armed belligerents mount an attack — as in killing stewardesses and pilots, hijacking aircraft, and crashing them into buildings filled with thousands of people.
A "crime" is very different. It is a violation of domestic law punishable by fine and/or imprisonment and sometimes death. It is prosecuted in court, and the proceedings are hedged with constitutional and other safeguards — notably, due process of law, non-self incrimination, search warrants supported by probable cause, etc.
It is this important distinction between a state of war and the commission of a crime that is being blurred by Fonda and likeminded Leftists. If the terrorist killings are not treated as acts of war but rather as the commission of mere domestic crimes, the terrorists would be entitled to the safeguards ensured by our criminal justice system — with the outcome as uncertain as O. J. Simpson’s trial for the brutal murder of two people. On the other hand, if the attacks on American soil are considered acts of war, military response, unhampered by the safeguards afforded criminals, is necessary and justified.
Based on this war/crime dichotomy, the radical Islamic terrorists would stand a far better chance in our criminal justice system than on the receiving end of the military’s smart bombs and special forces operations. That is what Fonda and people of her ilk want: an escape hatch for the terrorists. And that is why, when she equates the killing of thousands of Americans by the soldiers of radical Islam with the domestic crime of murder, and when she rails against a military response to an act of war waged against the United States of America, Jane Fonda stands exposed as being soft on terrorists
Things can be changed. Don't any of you believe in the power of one? You know peole use to think the world was flat. I use to think people on this board had hope. i know i will always have hope.
And by the way, the solution is to love everyone. Believe in people. Be a good person. Will there ever be complete peace- no probably not, but why not stive for the immpossible even if it is unattainable; even our failures are succeses
And by the way, the solution is to love everyone. Believe in people. Be a good person. Will there ever be complete peace- no probably not, but why not stive for the immpossible even if it is unattainable; even our failures are succeses
RyanH
New member
SteelBeast:
What's so ridiculous about Ms. Fonda saying that we need to understand why terrorists do the things they do?
How can you solve hate without figuring out why you hate.
I think she makes perfect sense....she's offering a voice of reason in a sea of people wanting to use their guns on innocent civilians.
The people of Aghanistan have children just like we do. Children are children. You kill a child, you should know why you are doing so.
What's so ridiculous about Ms. Fonda saying that we need to understand why terrorists do the things they do?
How can you solve hate without figuring out why you hate.
I think she makes perfect sense....she's offering a voice of reason in a sea of people wanting to use their guns on innocent civilians.
The people of Aghanistan have children just like we do. Children are children. You kill a child, you should know why you are doing so.
B
BO-CEPHUS
Guest
RyanH said:
Still doesn't make her exempt from punishment.
Got a rope?
T
THE STEEL BEAST
Guest
WHAT DO YOU THINK RYAN H OF THE JANE FONDA ARTICLE.
THE MOST RIDICULOUS ITEM OF THE DAY
THE MOST RIDICULOUS ITEM OF THE DAY
T
THE STEEL BEAST
Guest
HOW ELSE DO YOU EXTRACT TERRORIST RYAN IF YOU DO NOT USE THE MILITARY. NEXT THING I KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO SAY GIVE THEM MILLIONS SO THEY CAN BECOME OUR ALLIES SO WE DONT HAVE TO TAKE ANY MILITARY ACTION.
THIS IS NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT MATTER.
THIS IS NOT A LAW ENFORCEMENT MATTER.
spongebob
New member
RyanH said:
when do you just snap?
you said that her husband contributed to her insanity.
there must have been events and circumstances leading up to her "just snapping" . you said yourself her husband ignored her cries for help.
bin laudens been complaining of us involvement in the middle east for yrs.
and nobody listened to him. he just snapped.
back peddle some more now!
T
THE STEEL BEAST
Guest
AMERICAN JUSTICE IS SHOULD NOT BE USED.
I AND NO ONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER WANTS TO GIVE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE "INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"
THAT WOULD BE A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL AS OUR WAY OF LIFE.
I AND NO ONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER WANTS TO GIVE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE "INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"
THAT WOULD BE A SLAP IN THE FACE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AS WELL AS OUR WAY OF LIFE.
RyanH
New member
THE STEEL BEAST said:
Why don't we just have the Taliban government overthrown by supporting the rebels with money, and go after Bin Laden specifically. BIN Laden and his terrorist netweek need to be found, that much I definitely agree with.
We should keep civilian causalties to a minimum. If we don't we will become like the terrorists who took humans lives from America.
We can't endorse American life while at the same time endorse the death of innocent people.
Steel Beast
The truth is none of us know what to do. We are all upset by what happened. We are all hurt. Not one of us did it not effect personally. No one said we should just forget about what happened. It would be hard to be a political figure right now. Personally i am torn between the want for justice and the want for peace.
The truth is none of us know what to do. We are all upset by what happened. We are all hurt. Not one of us did it not effect personally. No one said we should just forget about what happened. It would be hard to be a political figure right now. Personally i am torn between the want for justice and the want for peace.
TxCollegeguy
New member
The moment someone picks up a Weapon, wounded, supplies, or helps support combatants they instantly become a Enemy...To all those who dont follow warnings to leave an area that can possibly be used as a striking point for military actions should be prepare to accept the consequences. God help the innocent and may god forgive the ignorant
Re: Re: KILLING the INNOCENT all over our WORLD...
The difference is not the 5- or 6000 people alone. Bin Laden has not finished yet with his killing. He is still free.
As for the killers in Manhattan (since bin laden has psycological problems) maybe they needed psycological help as well.
Unfortunately, those killed have no message on this.
spongebob said:
The difference is not the 5- or 6000 people alone. Bin Laden has not finished yet with his killing. He is still free.
As for the killers in Manhattan (since bin laden has psycological problems) maybe they needed psycological help as well.
Unfortunately, those killed have no message on this.
Last edited:
musclebrains
New member
This thread attempts to reduce a complex concern to a game of cowboys and indians -- to identify a hero beset by villains.
It is possible to abhor America´s long history of supporting corrupt and murderous governments, and deplore Bin Laden´s actions too. The significant thing is to realize that this isn't a "new" war. We've been conducting it for years and we´ve just suffered a huge hit. Do you think all the bombs in Iraq just killed mice and terrorists? (Ryan´s figures are weirdly understated.)
The Guardian ran a map a few days ago that color-coded the world´s nations in terms of their orientation toward America and it was distressing to look at. If its analysis is correct, the vast majority of the world is anti-American. We have created a huge amount of enmity here in Europe (where I´m on assignment) because of our refusal to honor agreements (including UN ones), such as the Kyoto one. The Guardian observed that Bush´s effort to suddenly build an international coalition, after steadfastly taking the path of American individual economic interests, is a sudden reversal that causes a great deal of suspicion and cyncisim.
We are going to have to do something more than behead Bin Laden´s organizaton. That action, any rational person knows, is just going to inflame his followers and coalesce the jihad. The continued exploitation of the Third World, an American politic based on enlarging the interest of multi-national corporations, will have to end. We are going to have end our bizarre policy of economic globalization while we remain relatively indifferent to the suffering of the nations our economic interests exploit.
An all-out assault on the people of Afghanistan will only reiterate the very reasons we are hated.
It is possible to abhor America´s long history of supporting corrupt and murderous governments, and deplore Bin Laden´s actions too. The significant thing is to realize that this isn't a "new" war. We've been conducting it for years and we´ve just suffered a huge hit. Do you think all the bombs in Iraq just killed mice and terrorists? (Ryan´s figures are weirdly understated.)
The Guardian ran a map a few days ago that color-coded the world´s nations in terms of their orientation toward America and it was distressing to look at. If its analysis is correct, the vast majority of the world is anti-American. We have created a huge amount of enmity here in Europe (where I´m on assignment) because of our refusal to honor agreements (including UN ones), such as the Kyoto one. The Guardian observed that Bush´s effort to suddenly build an international coalition, after steadfastly taking the path of American individual economic interests, is a sudden reversal that causes a great deal of suspicion and cyncisim.
We are going to have to do something more than behead Bin Laden´s organizaton. That action, any rational person knows, is just going to inflame his followers and coalesce the jihad. The continued exploitation of the Third World, an American politic based on enlarging the interest of multi-national corporations, will have to end. We are going to have end our bizarre policy of economic globalization while we remain relatively indifferent to the suffering of the nations our economic interests exploit.
An all-out assault on the people of Afghanistan will only reiterate the very reasons we are hated.
If that much of the world hates us, then lets just return the favor.
I mean if not matter what we do, we get hated; then lets tell the other countries to bite the big one.
Our navy can run the Jolly Roger up and become pirates, taking over all shipping. Plundering the rich booty of the seas and killing anyone who gets in their way.
Arrrrrrr matey!, anyone care to join me, lest you end up in Davey Jones' locker.
I mean if not matter what we do, we get hated; then lets tell the other countries to bite the big one.
Our navy can run the Jolly Roger up and become pirates, taking over all shipping. Plundering the rich booty of the seas and killing anyone who gets in their way.
Arrrrrrr matey!, anyone care to join me, lest you end up in Davey Jones' locker.
Do you think there was another way to do it????
Considering what could have been, i think the US has done all in his power NOT to kill innocent people in Iraq. Unfortunately to succeed in this without casualties is impossible. i don't see another possibility to stop Iraq then. Furthermore Saddam Hussein should have been death, together with those who thought the same as he (those with power, not the brainless ones). So in the long run the new leader in Iraq would have been someone who was not against the free world.
musclebrains said:
Considering what could have been, i think the US has done all in his power NOT to kill innocent people in Iraq. Unfortunately to succeed in this without casualties is impossible. i don't see another possibility to stop Iraq then. Furthermore Saddam Hussein should have been death, together with those who thought the same as he (those with power, not the brainless ones). So in the long run the new leader in Iraq would have been someone who was not against the free world.
Re: Re: Re: Re: KILLING the INNOCENT all over our WORLD...
Yes, she would kill again. Also she is not alone in that situation.
There will always be people like her.
And yes i want Bin Laden dead. But i am not your normal guy. If i where the US president, he would already have been dead, dito Saddam. Don't give me the "it is impossible to get them".
Sometimes people like Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein are kept alive for other reasons. If it was my choice "fuck those reasons" and kill them.
spongebob said:
Yes, she would kill again. Also she is not alone in that situation.
There will always be people like her.
And yes i want Bin Laden dead. But i am not your normal guy. If i where the US president, he would already have been dead, dito Saddam. Don't give me the "it is impossible to get them".
Sometimes people like Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein are kept alive for other reasons. If it was my choice "fuck those reasons" and kill them.
Mr.Bo Janlges
New member
The innocent have always died as a result of war. Its nothing new, the only new thing is that people bitch and complain about it more now. As the secretary of defense said it won't be an anitseptic war, innocent peple will die, terrorists will die, and soldiers from many nations will die.
The main point is that the means must be justified by the ends, and in this case i believe they are.
The main point is that the means must be justified by the ends, and in this case i believe they are.
musclebrains
New member
Um, yes, they have. But there are international agreements that supposedly protect citizens. In any case, Bush hasn´t declared war on Afghanistan.
Exactly what ends are going to be achieved by killing the citizens of Afghanistan in an undeclared war to eliminate a hidden terrorist?
Exactly what ends are going to be achieved by killing the citizens of Afghanistan in an undeclared war to eliminate a hidden terrorist?
D
DcupSheepNipples
Guest
"Japan-------2 nuclear bombs. Thousands of civilians still pay the price for our actions.
Iraq-------Hundreds of innocent civilians killed
Aghanistan-----Hundreds of innocent civilians killed
New York, U.S.A---5,000 civilians killed.
Thus, killing innocent civiians is killing innocent civilians.
How do we justify killing the innocent in Afghanistan? Are we being consistent or just hypocritical? "
That doesnt mean shit. Civilians will be killed on both sides. It's part of War. Undeclared or not.
Japan- 2 nuclear bombs stopped WW2. marshall plan has created one of the most succesful countries in the world
Iraq- didnt finish the job. Many more will be killed until Saddam is asassinated or overthrown.
Aghanistan- in a civil war civilians being killed left and right. If we implement the marshal plan this will stop.
Iraq-------Hundreds of innocent civilians killed
Aghanistan-----Hundreds of innocent civilians killed
New York, U.S.A---5,000 civilians killed.
Thus, killing innocent civiians is killing innocent civilians.
How do we justify killing the innocent in Afghanistan? Are we being consistent or just hypocritical? "
That doesnt mean shit. Civilians will be killed on both sides. It's part of War. Undeclared or not.
Japan- 2 nuclear bombs stopped WW2. marshall plan has created one of the most succesful countries in the world
Iraq- didnt finish the job. Many more will be killed until Saddam is asassinated or overthrown.
Aghanistan- in a civil war civilians being killed left and right. If we implement the marshal plan this will stop.
D
DcupSheepNipples
Guest
"Japan-------2 nuclear bombs. Thousands of civilians still pay the price for our actions.
Iraq-------Hundreds of innocent civilians killed
Aghanistan-----Hundreds of innocent civilians killed
New York, U.S.A---5,000 civilians killed.
Thus, killing innocent civiians is killing innocent civilians.
How do we justify killing the innocent in Afghanistan? Are we being consistent or just hypocritical? "
That doesnt mean shit. Civilians will be killed on both sides. It's part of War. Undeclared or not.
Japan- Japanese soldiers raped, tortured, and killed citizens and soldiers through out Asia. 2 nuclear bombs stopped WW2. Marshall plan has created one of the most succesful countries in the world
Iraq- didnt finish the job. Many more will be killed until Saddam is asassinated or overthrown. What about the 10,000 people Saddam gassed?
Aghanistan- in a civil war civilians being killed left and right. Taliban skins people alive that do not follow their beliefs. If we implement the marshal plan this will stop.
Iraq-------Hundreds of innocent civilians killed
Aghanistan-----Hundreds of innocent civilians killed
New York, U.S.A---5,000 civilians killed.
Thus, killing innocent civiians is killing innocent civilians.
How do we justify killing the innocent in Afghanistan? Are we being consistent or just hypocritical? "
That doesnt mean shit. Civilians will be killed on both sides. It's part of War. Undeclared or not.
Japan- Japanese soldiers raped, tortured, and killed citizens and soldiers through out Asia. 2 nuclear bombs stopped WW2. Marshall plan has created one of the most succesful countries in the world
Iraq- didnt finish the job. Many more will be killed until Saddam is asassinated or overthrown. What about the 10,000 people Saddam gassed?
Aghanistan- in a civil war civilians being killed left and right. Taliban skins people alive that do not follow their beliefs. If we implement the marshal plan this will stop.
