Is the US becoming a "rogue state"?

[Flatlander]

I provided the data, you look it up - President Bush did!

Wrong, try again. Shall I define source provision for you?

I agree that Jessica Lynch being ganged raped and having her bones broken by Iraqi soldiers constitutes torture, no argument here.

No disagreement here either. Unfortunately, you missed the point, however I am not surprised. Common troll tactic.

My Constitutional Rights do not apply to Martialtalk? QUOTE]That is correct.

You might want to explain that one to a lawyer Flatlander!

I don't need to. I'm not the one crying about my rights. You are.

You need to bone up on American history and American jurisprudence Flatlander!

Perhaps, although I'm certain you haven't read the Geneva Convention yet. Humiliation is a form of torture. Admit you are wrong, it's not too difficult. I have shown that using sources which I have provided for all to share.

Good try though.

 

[Patrick Skerry]

Oh My God!
You are so wrong, I would laugh but it is just not funny.
* Bin Laden never admited being behind it. He admired it, but never say he did it. He's still a scum bag though.
* The money trail does not lead to Iraq. Close though, Try Saudi Arabia (Where most of the hijackers were from). Ladens a Saudi. So-Dumb couldn't stand Osamas goals.
* You obviously never head of the abuses and now murders being brought to light in both Cuba and Iraq that are pinned on US troops.

I would call you an utter imbecile, but that would be a compliment.
Why don't you go read some of the information in this forum and expand your world. Or are you too busy being booted from forum after forum to linger long enough to read more?

Bin Laden never admited it? He was on an Al-quaida video bragging all about it! The WASHINGTON POST in 1998 printed a letter implicating Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.
Are you a typical Orwellian fascist who makes a 'non-person' out of someone who threatens you with the truth? Are you going to ban me from Martialtalk for being a 'whistleblower' just like in corporate American? Give me a break.

 

[Flatlander]

:rofl:

 

[Patrick Skerry]

There is no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam. If you have some, I'd like to see it. No-one can find the evidence.

Really? Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law? How interesting. I completely disagree.

Sedition? I call it free speech, hug the First Amendment, and, on top of that, calling it like it is.

Hi Feisty,

I'm still waiting for your response, if you can provide one.

 

[Bester]

Patrick, or whatever your name is this week,

Saying "I applaud it" is not the same as "I did it".
I am glad that the Post had that connection in 1998. Maybe if Shrubaya had been reading the local papers we could have prevented a few thousand deaths in NYC, including some friends of mine. But it didn't and while I want blood, I want the right blood. That blood is Saudi, not Iraqi. You sir are a damn fool at best if you believe otherwise.

And, I can not ban you from anything. I am not a moderator.
Then again, neither are you.
But you are a troll, and a rather obvious one at that.

 

[Patrick Skerry]

Patrick, or whatever your name is this week,

Saying "I applaud it" is not the same as "I did it".
I am glad that the Post had that connection in 1998. Maybe if Shrubaya had been reading the local papers we could have prevented a few thousand deaths in NYC, including some friends of mine. But it didn't and while I want blood, I want the right blood. That blood is Saudi, not Iraqi. You sir are a damn fool at best if you believe otherwise.

And, I can not ban you from anything. I am not a moderator.
Then again, neither are you.
But you are a troll, and a rather obvious one at that.

Maybe if that scumbag Bill Clinton had read that article or paid a little more attention to his secretary of defense rather than to his little bimbo there would be no Americans dying in Afghanistan and Iraq right now ( and Jessica Lynch would never have been raped and tortured).

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Hi Feisty Mouse,

"no evidence linking Bin Laden to Saddam"?? Huh??? What is wrong with you?

President George W. Bush, the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, and most other Americans are extremely aware of former President Bill Clinton's defense secretary Bill Cohen's written and documented letter of Saddam Hussein to Bin Laden that "Al-quida will work cooperatively with the government of Iraq" source WASHINGTON POST 1998 article by Roland Scarborough.

So you are saying Saddam was in charge of Al Quida? Interesting.
Osama wanted to make a deal with Saddam, who said no.
He did not like Osamas view of Islam.

"Torturing and raping prisoners is within the bounds of decency and law?" of course not Feisty Mouse, that is why we did not do that. There is no evidence of torture or rape (except of Jessica Lynch, who was tortured and ganged raped at the hands of Iraqi soldiers!).
There is no evidence of US torture and rape! Show me the evidence, cite your sources, where is you proof for such a remarkable statement? Pantys on a mans face is not torture, nudity is not torture, and a black sack over a man's head is not torture - so show me your proof!

What say we do that to you and see how you feel about it afterwards? Those actions are in violation of accepted international law and treatys, treaties that this country is a member of. I posted some linkes in here on those laws. I suggest you read them.

"Sedition? I call it free speech..." and I was barred from Martialtalk.com for exercising my 'right' to free speech, but when screaming liberals, like fat slob Michael Moore, blatantly break the law - sedition - its free speech? HUH?

No, you were -suspended-, not -banned-.
You were suspended for violating our sniping policy. You are currently at risk of violating several other rules as well. Consider this a warning.

In addition, regardless of what you may incorrectly think, your right to "Free Speech" does NOT exist here.

As to "Free Speech":
Freedom of Speech is a worthy concept and one which we support wholeheartedly. Indeed it is one of the founding principles of MartialTalk. However, it is important to understand the limitations of this principle and not to abuse it.

You must understand that, especially in regard to website discussion forums, the argument "What about my right to free speech?" simply doesn't hold water either legally or morally.

Free speech does not give you the right to publicly say whatever you like -- it actually has many limitations. There are more laws governing what you can't say than what you can.

To put it bluntly, the only rights you have at MartialTalk are the rights we decide to issue. This is our website and we run it in the way we believe is most appropriate to facilitate our goals.

There is usually a way to express your opinion without breaking the rules or offending anyone. Sometimes you just have to work a bit harder to make it happen!

From our Rules:
"A member who is rude, excessively negative, or disruptive may receive a warning or may be suspended or banned immediately. Suspending and banning is done at the discretion of the administration team. "


Am I Clear?

I want some precise and educational answers from you Feisty Mouse! Right Now!

She does not have to answer you. Your answers lie in the links FlatLander and others have indicated. If you can not take the time to look, that is not ours or her problem.

Good Day.

 

[Patrick Skerry]

So you are saying Saddam was in charge of Al Quida? Interesting.
Osama wanted to make a deal with Saddam, who said no.
He did not like Osamas view of Islam.


What say we do that to you and see how you feel about it afterwards? Those actions are in violation of accepted international law and treatys, treaties that this country is a member of. I posted some linkes in here on those laws. I suggest you read them.


No, you were -suspended-, not -banned-.
You were suspended for violating our sniping policy. You are currently at risk of violating several other rules as well. Consider this a warning.

In addition, regardless of what you may incorrectly think, your right to "Free Speech" does NOT exist here.

As to "Free Speech":
Freedom of Speech is a worthy concept and one which we support wholeheartedly. Indeed it is one of the founding principles of MartialTalk. However, it is important to understand the limitations of this principle and not to abuse it.

You must understand that, especially in regard to website discussion forums, the argument "What about my right to free speech?" simply doesn't hold water either legally or morally.

Free speech does not give you the right to publicly say whatever you like -- it actually has many limitations. There are more laws governing what you can't say than what you can.

To put it bluntly, the only rights you have at MartialTalk are the rights we decide to issue. This is our website and we run it in the way we believe is most appropriate to facilitate our goals.

There is usually a way to express your opinion without breaking the rules or offending anyone. Sometimes you just have to work a bit harder to make it happen!

From our Rules:
"A member who is rude, excessively negative, or disruptive may receive a warning or may be suspended or banned immediately. Suspending and banning is done at the discretion of the administration team. "


Am I Clear?



She does not have to answer you. Your answers lie in the links FlatLander and others have indicated. If you can not take the time to look, that is not ours or her problem.

Good Day.

Hi,

Are you saying I cannot say that I do not believe the US is becoming a "rogue state", that I support President Bush, that I am a registered Republican, that I am a member of the Massachusetts Young Republicans, that I support our Massachusetts republican Governor Mitt Romney; and that forced busing and affirmative action is disgustingly RACIST as can be? That is not right.

 

[Bester]

Maybe if that scumbag Bill Clinton had read that article or paid a little more attention to his secretary of defense rather than to his little bimbo there would be no Americans dying in Afghanistan and Iraq right now ( and Jessica Lynch would never have been raped and tortured).

Yes, and maybe if Bush Sr. had finished the job the first time, we would not be in Iraq now. Then again, maybe if the CIA had not trained him, he would not have become as big a threat as he did.

Where is your information that says Lynch was raped and tortured?
The last I saw, she was out the whole time and that no mention of sexual assault had been found. My information is out of date however.

 

[Patrick Skerry]

Yes, and maybe if Bush Sr. had finished the job the first time, we would not be in Iraq now. Then again, maybe if the CIA had not trained him, he would not have become as big a threat as he did.

Where is your information that says Lynch was raped and tortured?
The last I saw, she was out the whole time and that no mention of sexual assault had been found. My information is out of date however.

Hi Bester,

Jessica Lynch's psychiatrist released a statement that there was anal and vaginal penetration and bone breakage 'after' the time of capture.

Also, Bush sr. had nothing to do with eight years of messed up liberal Clinton administration, under which Bin Laden stated on video tape he spent five years planning the 911 attacks.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Hi,

Are you saying I cannot say that I do not believe the US is becoming a "rogue state", that I support President Bush, that I am a registered Republican, that I am a member of the Massachusetts Young Republicans, that I support our Massachusetts republican Governor Mitt Romney; and that forced busing and affirmative action is disgustingly RACIST as can be? That is not right.

That is not what I said. You are entitled to your opinion.
But I personally find it to be somewhat 'uninformed' as have others here.

You are entitled to it however. It is the expression of it which will put you at odds against our rules.

"You are an *******"
"You are lacking in information"

1 will be seen as an opinion, the other will get you some time-off.

I'll let you folks hash the rest of this out, I'm watching RAW (which is so far proving to be more informative than the last debate)

 

[Bester]

Hi Bester,

Jessica Lynch's psychiatrist released a statement that there was anal and vaginal penetration and bone breakage 'after' the time of capture.

Also, Bush sr. had nothing to do with eight years of messed up liberal Clinton administration, under which Bin Laden stated on video tape he spent five years planning the 911 attacks.

Thank you.
I will look into that.

Regardless however of any violations of international convention, that does not excuse the US from its own violations which have been documented over the 3 years since 9/11.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Bin Laden never admited it? He was on an Al-quaida video bragging all about it!

For what it's worth, Bin Laden was praising the attacks, but never claimed responsibility.

The WASHINGTON POST in 1998 printed a letter implicating Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.

And sources from the 9/11 Commission through the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, have noted that Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden had no important ties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/

I know Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity aren't likely to point this stuff out, but it always helps to expand your horizons.

Are you a typical Orwellian fascist who makes a 'non-person' out of someone who threatens you with the truth?

It's pretty clear that you don't even know what the word fascist means.

You also can't define the word "sedition", apparently.

 

[Patrick Skerry]

FM talk radio 96.9 Very informative. And yes, bin laden did claim responsibility for the 911 attacks, and even bragged about it on video. Thank God for George W. Bush! Lesson learned: Never attack the United States during a republican administration! The attacks were planned under the Clinton/Gore administration, which their secretary of defense Cohen warned them about with the documented evidence of the Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein collaboration. Not only did Clinton deserved to be impeached by the republicans, he should have been shot for derilection of duty!

For what it's worth, Bin Laden was praising the attacks, but never claimed responsibility.



And sources from the 9/11 Commission through the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, have noted that Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden had no important ties.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180176/

I know Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity aren't likely to point this stuff out, but it always helps to expand your horizons.



It's pretty clear that you don't even know what the word fascist means.

You also can't define the word "sedition", apparently.

 

[PeachMonkey]

FM talk radio 96.9 Very informative.

As much as I'd like to fire up my magical Massachusetts-to-Indiana radio, I'm sure I can listen to cryptofascist nutbags on my local dial.

And yes, bin laden did claim responsibility for the 911 attacks, and even bragged about it on video.

I'm pretty sure he didn't claim responsibility. Can you produce a transcript?

The attacks were planned under the Clinton/Gore administration, which their secretary of defense Cohen warned them about with the documented evidence of the Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein collaboration.

First off, the article you claim to support your argument was in the Washington "Times", not the Washington "Post". See:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

Second, there is no new information in this article. It was known that Al Qaeda operatives and Saddam Hussein met. It is also known (and has been shown by the 9/11 Commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, and even Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld) that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no significant ties, and did *not collaborate on 9/11*.

Why are you so fixated on this one piece of information, and so unwilling to face the mountain of additional evidence?

Wait, I think I already know the answer to that question. (Whoops, hope I'm not impinging on your "free speech" rights!)

Not only did Clinton deserved to be impeached by the republicans, he should have been shot for derilection of duty!

Which Federal statute gives anyone the right to execute former President Clinton for "derilection" of duty?

 

[Patrick Skerry]

Here in Boston and the contiguous 'Peoples Republic of Cambridge' I have a dozen radio stations to choose for left-wing moronic dirt-ball Michael Moore seditious propaganda all day long.

As much as I'd like to fire up my magical Massachusetts-to-Indiana radio, I'm sure I can listen to cryptofascist nutbags on my local dial.



I'm pretty sure he didn't claim responsibility. Can you produce a transcript?

I'm pretty certain he did. Can you show he didn't?



First off, the article you claim to support your argument was in the Washington "Times", not the Washington "Post". See:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

Second, there is no new information in this article. It was known that Al Qaeda operatives and Saddam Hussein met. It is also known (and has been shown by the 9/11 Commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, and even Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld) that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no significant ties, and did *not collaborate on 9/11*.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY INFORMATION!

Why are you so fixated on this one piece of information, and so unwilling to face the mountain of additional evidence?

Wait, I think I already know the answer to that question. (Whoops, hope I'm not impinging on your "free speech" rights!)

If you already know, why are you asking?



Which Federal statute gives anyone the right to execute former President Clinton for "derilection" of duty?

Under the sedition laws, the commander in chief of the armed forces can be shot for dereliction of duty.

 

[Flatlander]

Under the sedition laws, the commander in chief of the armed forces can be shot for dereliction of duty.

According to www.wikipedia.com ,

Both the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act were repealed in 1921.

on this page.

Nice try, though.

 

[PeachMonkey]

seditious propaganda all day long.

se·di·tion n.
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.

Disagreeing with the administration does not equal inciting rebellion. Calling for people to vote out the criminals in our administration does not equal inciting insurrection.

I'm pretty certain he did. Can you show he didn't?

Actually, it looks like he did claim responsibility:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml

Under the sedition laws, the commander in chief of the armed forces can be shot for dereliction of duty.

Wow... are you really talking about the Sedition Act of 1798, that patently un-American piece of tripe which has been used by cowards and scoundrels to reinforce their power?

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING MY INFORMATION!

Actually, if you *read* what I posted, I gave further proof which discounted your assertion that Hussein and Al Qaeda collaborated on 9/11.

By the way, nothing in the sedition statutes mentions executing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. In fact, those statues *bolster* the power of the executive branch.

 

[Seig]

Which Federal statute gives anyone the right to execute former President Clinton for "derilection" of duty?

A little unknown fact is that as Commander in Chief, the President is accountable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While that has, to the best of my knowledge, never been enforced, anyone who has served in the United States Military as a commissioned officer and has received any type of seperation other than dishonorable can be recalled to active duty at any time via the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. Under current US law, tradition, and precedent, could Clinton be shot for his dereliction? No, but he could have been impeached and held criminally accountable; then again, so could every president we have ever had.....

 

[michaeledward]

No, but he could have been impeached and held criminally accountable; then again, so could every president we have ever had.....

He was.
He wasn't.

Which, of course, is a bit different than the treatment every other president has received.