U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-05-2013, 11:59 AM
 
78,013 posts, read 33,265,332 times
Reputation: 15593

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Oh I see..he was just "collateral damage". No big deal here .....
IMO the son wasn't exactly the same thing but the attitude the government took is disturbing. The son as far as I know was not targeted. He was hit when he was with someone else that was and there will be times that is unavoidable.

But to basically say "too bad" shows the contempt the government has for it's citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,614,993 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Ok, but this guy was not convicted.
You move those goal posts, HT.



Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
That is the point we are trying to get across.
And the point we are trying to get across back is that enemy combatants don't need to be tried and convicted before we can shoot at them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:01 PM
 
78,013 posts, read 33,265,332 times
Reputation: 15593
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Well... the 14th grants citizens that right at the State level. The 5th grants it at the Federal level but to "any person," not just citizens.

Are you actually going to argue that the 5th applies to the battlefield? If so, we would be prohibited from even shooting at our enemies without first giving them each a trial.
I would be happy to answer as soon as you dispense with the stupid attempts at insults.

I know you're allergic to common sense on this issue, but give it a shot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:04 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,614,993 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Oh I see..he was just "collateral damage".
Oh... not at all. It was certainly a good kill, but a lucky one.

He just wasn't the intended target.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
No big deal here .....
Nope.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,326,058 times
Reputation: 27564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
You move those goal posts, HT.




And the point we are trying to get across back is that enemy combatants don't need to be tried and convicted before we can shoot at them.
Nor their children it seems.

I didn't move any goal posts. This whole thread is bout guilty by word of mouth with no trial/jury/conviction.
You posted that people are convicted of murder without having murdered. That means trial with evidence presented "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in order to convict someone of murder when they didn't pull the trigger.

What evidence did the government have beyond internet messages and a possible phone call ?
I guess you'll just have to "trust them" as they know what's best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,614,993 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
IMO the son wasn't exactly the same thing but the attitude the government took is disturbing. The son as far as I know was not targeted. He was hit when he was with someone else that was and there will be times that is unavoidable.

But to basically say "too bad" shows the contempt the government has for it's citizens.
Oh... it wasn't "too bad" at all. The son had thrown in his lot with Al Qaeda. He knew what he was getting himself into, his own father was the cautionary tale to end all cautionary tales.

He made his choices. Choices have consequences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:08 PM
 
1,597 posts, read 976,025 times
Reputation: 178
JFK was an enemy noncombatant.

It was deemed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,614,993 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I would be happy to answer as soon as you dispense with the stupid attempts at insults.
So, you're not going to give common sense a shot?

Okay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:10 PM
 
78,013 posts, read 33,265,332 times
Reputation: 15593
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Oh... it wasn't "too bad" at all. The son had thrown in his lot with Al Qaeda. He knew what he was getting himself into, his own father was the cautionary tale to end all cautionary tales.

He made his choices. Choices have consequences.
See, this is the problem. There is no evidence that the son had anything to do with AQ. He was with the guy that was targeted because he wanted to go see his dad and knew who to ask for him to help find him.

If there is solid evidence otherwise, present it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,614,993 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Nor their children it seems.
It depends on whether or not their children have chosen to follow in their parent's footsteps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
I didn't move any goal posts. This whole thread is bout guilty by word of mouth with no trial/jury/conviction.
Look... if you can't follow sub-threads in a discussion, that's okay. But don't pretend that changing the subject is a response to such a line of talk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
You posted that people are convicted of murder without having murdered.
Yes... in direct response to another comment that planning a murder is not murder. If you don't understand the discussion actually underway, don't jump in. It will be less frustrating for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:09 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top