 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) (rereading what I wrote) Nope, didn't say that. They all (...) Allegedly. Maybe. Maybe not. If they were, two years held without charges? Those in charge are incompetent or evil. Take your pick, we need to get rid of them either way. When I (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) There are so many different legal issues-- definitions of POWs and of being "at war" and the Geneva Convention and whatnot. It's lawyer stuff and I really try to avoid it. That doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who aren't on up (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) No wonder I didn't get it. I would never have thought that I needed a moral justification for freeing myself from 'evil oppression'. I'll think on this some more. (snip) (...) I am not sure that there is a useful difference between the concept (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) First off, let's not assume that those detained are "innocent". They all were captured fighting against our forces. When I said "all of the facts aren't in", I meant that I didn't possess all of the facts in order to comment-- and neither does (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) You have summed up the problem without realizing it, I think. If, for example, an administration wanted to quiet someone, all they have to do is throw them in the Gulag (I like Richard's appraisal of what it is) and simply refuse to divulge (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) Mmmmmm. Brevity being the soul of wit etc. 'namby-pamby PC touchy-feely' is a collection of adjectives I seldom encounter in relation to myself (I think if I was John I'd be offended ;-), and its not like the additional detail is helping very (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) I think Richard was talking about the "givens" that they have been held for up to 2 years without being charged, in the name of "security". Something that the administration would frown upon in the name of freedom. (...) Women, pregnant women, (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) hehe You are so predictable! (...) Try (URL) this> viewpoint! :-) JOHN (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) (snippage) (...) First, I think we all can agree that no nation is perfect, including the US. That said, I am reticent about commenting on Guantanamo because I don't believe that enough facts are about the interned are readily available. I (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
(...) De plane, boss, de plane! De fence, boss, de fence! Oh, sorry, defense. Ummmmmmmm, okay, maybe if I knew what I was supposed to be defending. Perhaps if I read on and not pick on a minor error... :-) (...) I find something ironic in that (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in defence here. Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign. This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so lyrical, but it is a deep and (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Perhaps our history has given us additional insights into the importance of freedom, and the lengths one might be prepared to go for it. Not to suggest our thinking is necessarily better, perhaps just a little different ;-) Richard Still (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Prove it. (...) So, apparently, does "gentleman's" war, if it's a useful objective. ROSCO (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Er-hem. I know what you are trying to get at, I'm just trying to point out that your examples aren't exactly the best for doing that (and mostly just to give you are hard time for humor's sake). In your example above, all that's true, but it's (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's my amazing prose, of course. (...) I don't know that it's two steps back. I can accept that Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are separate authors of the Gospels, just as I accept that, say, HP Lovecraft and August Derleth are separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) I don't have time for your endless tangentalizing-- as if I am obligated to comment on every new topic you toss out in the form of a 6 word question. JOHN (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I didn't say that I thought they were right, or wrong, just that I was amazed at your example. (...) Freudian equivalent of a banana peel? (...) So, within the universe of the Bible, Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are sufficiently separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Show me how that analogy is relevant. (...) Get a dictionary, and see what "condone" actually means. Then look up "cluster bomb"... a weapon of indiscriminate destruction. You are a (...) Did I say civilians were targets at any point? (...) (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) It is not me that is making the claim. (...) Hardly a credible objective viewpoint! (URL) About> the same pet group: "Some U.S. officials see Iran as a target for regime change and have suggested using the Mujahedin-e Khalq as a vehicle for (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Since they cannot be verified as independent sources and can instead be shown to borrow heavily from one another (in a manner quite similar to the process of editorial revisions of a single work), they cannot, to my satisfaction, be regarded (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
