Lawyers for Gitmo detainees endorse Obama

"The needs of the many...out weigh the needs of the few"???-Spock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

I'll go out on a limb and postulate that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have needed to restrict the rights of American citizens if our country had been threatened by these jihadistic baboons. They would have destroyed every last remnant of their religious extremist worlds before it got to the point of having to enforce new laws aimed at the general population of America.

---

I will go out on a limb and guess they wouldn't need to participate in false flag terrorism either : )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melodious fellow

I will go out on a limb and guess they wouldn't need to participate in false flag terrorism either : )

---

They wouldn't have needed to participate in "false flag" anything, but I'm not convinced that the threat of terrorism is a "false flag" myself. Maybe where you live it's not much of a threat, but for many of us it is. If a low-risk state such as Alaska does not want to participate in avoiding terrorism because they are not in a position of being a likely target, they should be excluded from receiving homeland security funding and protection so that the monies could be better appropriated to states that do need it, such as New York.

More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees
I am so sad to see you calling these individuals terrorists. You must not be capable of distinguishing between lawyers for the defense and the defendants. And BTW none of these detainees have been proven to be terrorists yet, Have they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

They wouldn't have needed to participate in "false flag" anything, but I'm not convinced that the threat of terrorism is a "false flag" myself. Maybe where you live it's not much of a threat, but for many of us it is. If a low-risk state such as Alaska does not want to participate in avoiding terrorism because they are not in a position of being a likely target, they should be excluded from receiving homeland security funding and protection so that the monies could be better appropriated to states that do need it, such as New York.

---

I don't really live in Alaska... yet

I was referring to the fact that our government just let 9/11 happen right under their nose... "O wow, look, an excuse to invade Iraq... the American people won't notice if we invade a different country than the one that harbored the terrorists that attacked us, as long as it is in the middle east they won't know the difference." :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melodious fellow

I don't really live in Alaska... yet

I was referring to the fact that our government just let 9/11 happen right under their nose... "O wow, look, an excuse to invade Iraq... the American people won't notice if we invade a different country than the one that harbored the terrorists that attacked us, as long as it is in the middle east they won't know the difference." :D

---

If it is true that the government "let it happen right under their nose", as in knowing that it was going to happen and doing nothing to prevent it, then there is reason for impeachment of, and criminal proceedings against, our leaders. I don't believe that the government knew exactly what was going to happen, or assisted it, but I do think that they took advantage of the situation in order get public support for an invasion of Iraq.

My own personal opinion is that we should have started boycotting Middle Eastern oil until bin laden was caught and the terrorist organizations were eliminated by the countries that they operate out of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

My own personal opinion is that we should have started boycotting Middle Eastern oil until bin laden was caught and the terrorist organizations were eliminated by the countries that they operate out of.

---

Yea, I wonder why we didn't just boycott middle eastern oil?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melodious fellow

Yea, I wonder why we didn't just boycott middle eastern oil?

---

Because Bush & Co. are in the business of making oil money.

The main argument against a Middle Eastern oil bocott is that it does not matter, because other countries would gladly buy all the excess oil that the Arabs can pump.

Bin laden had said numerous times that he and his supporters would cease their attack plans against the United States if we cut off all dealings with the corrupt Middle Eastern regimes. I believe that he would keep his promise. If we did that, the oil sheiks would have to go elsewhere - mainly to China and Inda. Now the terrorists would have new targets. You don't fuck with the Chinese. If the terrorists tried any attacks against the Chinese, they'd hang them from meathooks, burn down the villages that they came from, and slaughter everybody in the area. That would be the beginning of the end of Islamofascist terrorism, you can be sure of that, and we wouldn't have to lose any more American lives in the process.