Spc. Ryan G. Anderson: a bigger loser than any one of you

[American]

All-American Boy Now a Terror Suspect (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111324,00.html)

When he moved to Seattle after graduating, he connected with the local Muslim community by joining an e-mail group used by hundreds of Muslims to exchange ideas, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.

"He immediately e-mailed the group telling people he was an expert marksman, and he wanted to teach people how to shoot," said Aziz Junejo, a local community member. "Right away that was a red flag."

The newspaper reported that Anderson described himself as an Army officer cadet of "German/Irish decent who was raised in a 'zombie Lutheran' home."


A "Zombie Lutheran home". Oh the oppression! 26-years old, and he's still got parent issues to cope with.....

In other words, he was rebelling. He is a cyber kitty, not much different than the many idle teenagers who post here and usually get banned by the time they figure out that wasting one's life on the internet will not change the world or make one happy.


Anderson, it appears, then tried to tell the agents how they might be successful in attacking U.S. armor in Iraq and provided information about "vulnerabilities" of equipment the U.S. Army was using in Iraq or is about to ship over with newly deployed troops.

The irony is he could have killed many more of our own troops just by voting for democrats.

[Luke T.]

A clear case of treason if he is guilty. He's lucky they don't put him in front of a firing squad. He's certainly eligible.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by American
All-American Boy Now a Terror Suspect (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111324,00.html)

The irony is he could have killed many more of our own troops just by voting for democrats.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

A virulently anti-American netizen now moves through the bowels of military justice...on his way to a well earned appearance before a firing squad! Gee, maybe there IS a God?!
:big:

"Mr. Anderson, it seems that you've been living two lives. One of them has a future,.....one does NOT."

-z

[Evolver]

Originally posted by American
All-American Boy Now a Terror Suspect (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111324,00.html)
The irony is he could have killed many more of our own troops just by voting for democrats.

Leave it to you to end a good post with a stupid comment.
We get it, you are part of the rabid right.
I think your buddy Bush has killed more Americans than the last 2 Democratic presidents combined. And lied to do it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Evolver


Leave it to you to end a good post with a stupid comment.
We get it, you are part of the rabid right.
I think your buddy Bush has killed more Americans than the last 2 Democratic presidents combined. And lied to do it.

What do you mean "I think". The numbers are right there, there's no doubt, Bush has killed more Americans than the last two Democratic presidents.

He's also seen more out of work, more moving below the poverty line, more falling out of the middle class, and he's not moved to do squat all about it, he's just let the jobs fly away to places where OSHA and ERISA don't apply. He doesn't care. HIS buds will still be rich.

But "american" can be counted on to includ in any post with some kind of anti-freedom statement supporting the present totalitarian-wannabe regime. An UNELECTED regime, might I point out, run by an AWOL non-war-hero.

See, "American", two can play at that.

As to the twit who was telling people how to attack american armour, well, if he's consorting with the enemy, maybe he'd like to experience their justice, too. He ought to find out what extremist muslims think of traitors.

I don't know the legal issues here, if what he did was illegal, or "merely" traitorous but only in concept, not in law. (Note, having read the article, it appears they have a law that they think applies. If the reports are true, good thing, that.)

There is a line. When do you prosecute Jane's for the same thing?

---
edited to add, this quote in the article just galled me, too:



"He'd always been pro-Christianity and pro-American" in school, Seratte said.

----

Why would either one of those imply the other, pray tell?

[Richard G]

Hang him high.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by jj
What do you mean "I think". The numbers are right there, there's no doubt, Bush has killed more Americans than the last two Democratic presidents.


Uhhh...unless I missed the news, Bush hasn't killed anyone recently.

And as far as the military goes, well sorry, the whole job of the military is to protect or to kill. If one joins the military under the false illusion that they will never see combat or be in harms way, they should go work for UPS.

I knew those zombie Lutherans were nothing but trouble....but nooooooo....no one would believe me... ;)

[jj]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir



Uhhh...unless I missed the news, Bush hasn't killed anyone recently.

And as far as the military goes, well sorry, the whole job of the military is to protect or to kill. If one joins the military under the false illusion that they will never see combat or be in harms way, they should go work for UPS.

I knew those zombie Lutherans were nothing but trouble....but nooooooo....no one would believe me... ;)

You are, of course, right as far as you take that. Of course, the previous two Democratic presidents didn't kill anyone either, under those absurd standards.

Then again, I used to look out my kid's bedroom window at the trade center, too.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by jj


You are, of course, right as far as you take that. Of course, the previous two Democratic presidents didn't kill anyone either, under those absurd standards.

Then again, I used to look out my kid's bedroom window at the trade center, too.

Sorry jj, usually I know what you are saying but I just see no point in this post.

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Sorry jj, usually I know what you are saying but I just see no point in this post.

I'm replying to the point that 'bush didn't kill anyone', as included in the quote.

Someone else thought it was smart to point out that Bush didn't kill anyone himself. I thought that was an excessively clever and unwise way of missing the point.

I did not say that Bush killed anyone at the WTC. I do, however, have some doubts about dilligence of both the Bush and Clinton administrations proceeding the event, and I distinctly have doubts about the behavior of the Bush administration afterwards.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

And as far as the military goes, well sorry, the whole job of the military is to protect or to kill.

I thought the job of the military was to defend the USA.

That does not include the bullsh!t charges that our AWOL pres was making from bad intelligence (obvious joke, that one).

So... don't have to worry when Bush sends the Army into Canada, right? "Blame Canada, blame Canada..."

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by bignickel
I thought the job of the military was to defend the USA.

That does not include the bullsh!t charges that our AWOL pres was making from bad intelligence (obvious joke, that one).

So... don't have to worry when Bush sends the Army into Canada, right? "Blame Canada, blame Canada..."



Protect the USA and kill enemies of the USA.

Friday, October 11, 2002 - Congress has given President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in a major policy victory for the White House.

Bush didn't just say "hey guys send 200,000 troops to Iraq".

Congress approved President Bush's the authority to use military force against Iraq.

Congress gave him the approval, and if congress gave him the approval without due dilligence then blame the congress.

Bush only asked them for the authority....they approved it.


Anyhow... if we are going to invade Canada I want part of Banff! ;)

[jj]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Bush didn't just say "hey guys send 200,000 troops to Iraq".

Congress approved President Bush's the authority to use military force against Iraq.


Um, you really don't want to go down the "just following orders" path, do you?

I mean, now, I am NOT saying that there's any more or ethical parallel here, but didn't the Japanese Government give permission for Pearl Harbor? The German Legislature (I forget the proper name) for the attack on Moscow?

The fact that a legislature OK'ed something means only that, the legislature OK'ed it.

[bignickel]

Fine. The 'pres' gave Congress a bunch of bs, and they bought it. But they're ultimately responsible too. I'll give you that.

But enemy of the U.S.? I don't remember Iraq declaring war on us? Could you point out that link.

It certainly couldnt make them our enemy when they invaded Kuwait. After all, the U.S. has no problem with countries being invaded.

We invaded Panama ourselves just a few years earlier.

Was Panama the enemy of the U.S. as well?


Better watch out world: you may be next.

[zenith-nadir]

I appreciate you positions jj and bignickel.

All I am saying is if congress believed Bush on his word alone then he's a pretty darn good con man.

It was their responsibility to the people who elected them to use due dilligence before making that type of commitment.

My feeling is Iraq was really about establishing a democracy in the middle east. Not WMD or oil. And what better "fall guy" than the dictator who tried to kill Bush Sr.

Anyhow...what the hell do I know....let's get back to trashing 'zombie Lutherans'!. :D

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir


Congress approved President Bush's the authority to use military force against Iraq.


Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. The decision to use force was left to the President.

IIRC, the argument at the time was that Bush needed the approval to use force in order for the US to provide a credible threat behind the UN resolutions. The Congress was foolish to grant him that power, but I lay the responsibility for the war strictly on Bush.

[jj]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
All I am saying is if congress believed Bush on his word alone then he's a pretty darn good con man.


Well, that, or his party hacks have their hands around the throat of all the 'pub's campaign funding. Why that isn't extortion and bribery I really don't understand.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Congress gave Bush the authority to use force. The decision to use force was left to the President.


Ahhhhhh...but if congress didn't give Bush the authority, Bush could not have used force.

He could have asked, pleaded, screamed, layed in the corner in a fetal position and held his breath till he turned blue...but ultimately Congress decided Iraq was to be invaded.

Or can a president do this type of thing without congresses approval?

Anyone?


p.s. Zombie Lutherans and Al Qaeda...what a combo...

[patnray]

Congress did not go to Bush and ask him to go to war. Bush demanded Congress give him the authority and he pushed them hard to do it. And congress did not order Bush to go to war. They authorized him to do so. The final decision was Bush's and Bush's alone.

Not that congress is faultless. Over the last half century they have repeatedly abandoned their constitutional responsibility to declare war, a provision wisely included by our founders who were keenly aware of the folly that can ensue when the decision to commit to war rests with one person. When congress resists a president's demand for authorization for military adventures they are usually accused of being disloyal and of interfering with the president's ability as Commander-In-Chief. But that is their constitutional duty...

[patnray]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Or can a president do this type of thing without congresses approval?


Can any congress every say "No" when a president demands authority to wage a war? Has it ever happened?

Anyone?

[bignickel]

Well, I may be shooting, if not mine, than someone else in the foot with this:

G. W. Bush didn't have to ask Congress for any authorization.

Because we were still at war with Iraq since 1990. Congress gave it's authorization back then for the war to Bush Sr. Hostilities seized when a cease-fire was declared.

But in all the years that followed: no peace treaty was ever concluded.

Thus, since Congress already gave authorization for the war years ago, Bush doesn't have to ask permission to end the cease-fire and restart hostilities.

Although many wished he hadn't. But then again: the people of the US had over 10 years to ask their government for a peace treaty. It evidently wasn't deemed a high enough priority.

Maybe they were too busy downloading porn?

[patnray]

Technically, that's true, although it goes far beyond the scope of the original authorization. And congress didn't actually declare war, they just authorized Bush senior to wage one. American presidents have become adept at streatching congressional acts into authorization for military adventures or manipulating events to force congress to give them authorization (a la the Gulf of Tonkin "incident").

Also, presidents know it is better to get some kind of approval from congress so they can share the blame if things don't go according to plan (a la zenith-naidir)...

[The Fool]

Well Rik, Richard G, american and the rest of "execute first, ask questions later" gang should have a good look at themselves...If they are sugesting that being delusional on the web is a capital offence i fear They may end up on death row.
So far, all I have seen is someone sending bragging email to some muslim discussion group...well wooop de doooooo.... move over philby burgess and maclean.......

Sorry ricky boy no matter how horny you get you are not going to get your firing squad.

Hey Osama!!! If you are reading this board, American tanks armor is thinner at the back!!! there you go, firing squad ready?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Fool
Well Rik, Richard G, american and the rest of "execute first, ask questions later" gang should have a good look at themselves...If they are sugesting that being delusional on the web is a capital offence i fear They may end up on death row.
So far, all I have seen is someone sending bragging email to some muslim discussion group...well wooop de doooooo.... move over philby burgess and maclean.......

Sorry ricky boy no matter how horny you get you are not going to get your firing squad.

Hey Osama!!! If you are reading this board, American tanks armor is thinner at the back!!! there you go, firing squad ready?

The best way to trap an American bomb squad is to disguise your explosives as road-side bombs. When they go to defuse them, detonate them.

Now I'm a traitor. Wheeee!

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by bignickel
Fine. The 'pres' gave Congress a bunch of bs, and they bought it. But they're ultimately responsible too. I'll give you that.

But enemy of the U.S.? I don't remember Iraq declaring war on us? Could you point out that link.

It certainly couldnt make them our enemy when they invaded Kuwait. After all, the U.S. has no problem with countries being invaded.

We invaded Panama ourselves just a few years earlier.

Was Panama the enemy of the U.S. as well?


Better watch out world: you may be next.

I am not sure of your points.
There never was a declaration of war between the US and the USSR, but I think it is fair to say we were enemies.

At the time Panamma was indeed the "enemy" of the US,
Also,

Are all invasions equal?
Was bombing Serbs who never hurt any Americans a bad thing?

[American]

Originally posted by The Fool
Well Rik, Richard G, american and the rest of "execute first, ask questions later" gang should have a good look at themselves...If they are sugesting that being delusional on the web is a capital offence i fear They may end up on death row.
So far, all I have seen is someone sending bragging email to some muslim discussion group...well wooop de doooooo.... move over philby burgess and maclean.......

Sorry ricky boy no matter how horny you get you are not going to get your firing squad.

Hey Osama!!! If you are reading this board, American tanks armor is thinner at the back!!! there you go, firing squad ready?


I shall have to re-title my thread because of you as soon as I am given mod privileges, which I feel I have earned by now through redemptive works and model posting practices. Any day now.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Mike B.

At the time Panamma was indeed the "enemy" of the US,
Also,

Are all invasions equal?
Was bombing Serbs who never hurt any Americans a bad thing?

How the hell was Panama an 'enemy' of the US? What could they have possibly done to warrent such a status?

Do I have to point out that declaring someone an 'enemy' and then invading them is not very defensible.

Hitler did the same thing when he invaded Poland. He said he was defending the German people from Polish 'terrorism'. If that wasn't right, then how the heck was our invasion of the Philippeans (pre-ww1) right? Of Panama? Of Grenada?

As for 'ethnic cleansing' and genocide: that probably deserves it's own thread. But I don't think we ever declared the 'Serbs' our enemy, did we?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by American



I shall have to re-title my thread because of you as soon as I am given mod privileges, which I feel I have earned by now through redemptive works and model posting practices. Any day now.
You get my vote...I think you would make a fine Mod.

[jj]

Originally posted by The Fool

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by American



I shall have to re-title my thread because of you as soon as I am given mod privileges, which I feel I have earned by now through redemptive works and model posting practices. Any day now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




You get my vote...I think you would make a fine Mod.

Why did the intro to a song by Guess Who (I mean the Canadian intro, not the US airplay version, too) just run through my head?

[waitew]

Actually,I agree with alot of what this guy said in in a letter to the editor of a 'local' newspaper that was mentioned in another thread.He said..something to the effect,"I'm only loyal to the USA so long as it represents the freedoms in which I believe"..I would agree with that. Blind loyality is a bad thing.The patroit act..with it's scredding of constitutional rights is something that our young men & woman who have sworn an oath to,'"protect & defend the constitution of the United States of America" ought to think twice about enforcing.


Ps...If I end in prison for posting this,I'll try to let you know.It's really a shame that I seriously have to worry about that,BUT ..I do!!!Think about that...Please.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Friday, October 11, 2002 - Congress has given President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq in a major policy victory for the White House.

Bush didn't just say "hey guys send 200,000 troops to Iraq".

Congress approved President Bush's the authority to use military force against Iraq.

Congress gave him the approval, and if congress gave him the approval without due dilligence then blame the congress.

Bush only asked them for the authority....they approved it.

Bush misleads Congress with cherry-picked intelligence data and incites the nation into a jingoistic frenzy that no politician dare oppose. But it's Congress's fault for believing him. Uh huh.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Ahhhhhh...but if congress didn't give Bush the authority, Bush could not have used force.

He could have asked, pleaded, screamed, layed in the corner in a fetal position and held his breath till he turned blue...but ultimately Congress decided Iraq was to be invaded.

Or can a president do this type of thing without congresses approval?

Anyone?


I don't understand you. Congress shirked it's duty and let the President decide if the US should go to war. The President made the decision to go to war.

The responsibility for the war is the President's alone, as far as I'm concerned.

Congress is responsible for other things.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I don't understand you. Congress shirked it's duty and let the President decide if the US should go to war. The President made the decision to go to war.

The responsibility for the war is the President's alone, as far as I'm concerned.

Congress is responsible for other things.



So you are saying one man controls the entire United States government and can pull the wool over all the Democrats and Republicans eyes in the congress and the congress has no responsibility to their constituents for their actions?

I just want to make sure I understand you.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

So you are saying one man controls the entire United States government and can pull the wool over all the Democrats and Republicans eyes in the congress and the congress has no responsibility to their constituents for their actions?

I just want to make sure I understand you.

I think I made it very clear that Congress shirked it own duties and responsibilities.

The duty they shirked was the decision to go to war. They ceded that duty to the President.

Maybe you are remembering the recent events in history differently, but I remember the vote in Congress gave the President the authority to wage a war in Iraq, if he deemed it necessary.

Found this, here (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9843):

Now let us turn to reality. In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution which stated: "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United States Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.

Emphasis in original article.

The President then used that authority to invade Iraq. That decision was his, and he should bear the responsibility for it.

The start of this whole discussion was the irony of American's little malapropism, how does deflecting the blame to a Republican-lead Congress make his statements less ironic? Because Democrats voted for it, too?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
The start of this whole discussion was the irony of American's little malapropism, how does deflecting the blame to a Republican-lead Congress make his statements less ironic? Because Democrats voted for it, too?


I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I am not deflecting anything.

I don't play the Bush-is-responsible-for-everything game and I could care less. I am glad Saddam is gone. And I know that there are many other people who had a hand in forming Bush's opinion.

I just find it funny when congress gave Bush the authorization for his request... and then everyone in congress that doesn't like the way the war is going blame it all on Bush.

If they didn't believe him, or didn't trust him, they should have used due dilligence, that's all.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


The best way to trap an American bomb squad is to disguise your explosives as road-side bombs. When they go to defuse them, detonate them.

Now I'm a traitor. Wheeee!

Pssst... Mr. Manifesto. Those guys over there in Iraq...the ones wearing uniforms. They are probably American troops. Pass it on.... But keep it quiet.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I don't play the Bush-is-responsible-for-everything game and I could care less. I am glad Saddam is gone. And I know that there are many other people who had a hand in forming Bush's opinion.

I just find it funny when congress gave Bush the authorization for his request... and then everyone in congress that doesn't like the way the war is going blame it all on Bush.

If they didn't believe him, or didn't trust him, they should have used due dilligence, that's all.

Good for you, you don't play that game. Doesn't change my opinion on the subject.

We aren't in disagreement about Congress. Most of the people I voted for voted against that resolution.

[ktesibios]

Actually, this whole "authorization to use force" thing inverts the meaining of a declaration of war.

If you read the text of the declarations passed by Congress when the USA entered WWI & WWI, they turn out to consist of two distinct parts:

1. An official declaration that a state of war exists between the USA and whomever, citing the reasons for concluding this.

2. An order to the President in his capacity of Commander-in-Chief, to take whatever steps are needed to successfully prosecute the war which Congress has declared already to be in existence.

It's interesting because it seems to be one of the very few occasions when the legislative branch gets to give a direct order to the executive branch.

So, in less than sixty years we've gone from a situation where not only the authority to declare war but the initiative belongs to Congress to one where Congress has had to pass the War Powers Act to rein in an executive branch which had demonstrated a tendency to use the military purely on its own initiative, as an autocrat does.

Not a good thing, IMHO.

[hgc]

Further to ktesibios' point, this is a very important feature of a democracy: that they don't go to war except when it's really, really important. At least in theory. But that's the idea behind giving war-making power to Congress and not to the executive.

But I have to wonder, what's the real, practical difference between an actual declaration of war and these various "authorizations" given to the president by Congress over the last 60 years. Why didn't the U.S. declare war against North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, etc.? One distinguishing feature is that in the cases of Korea and Vietnam, we were getting involved in essentially civil wars, and in every case, we have positioned ourselves as coming to the rescue of the people of these countries (right or wrong) from their corrupt, totalitarian, criminal leadership. In the past, we were truly at war with the whole nations of Germany, Japan, Italy, etc, including their people. I think that the aftermath of WWII changed everything about the way the U.S. views itself in relation to the rest of the world, and declarations of war don't fit that model.

[hgc]

mistaken post, please ignore

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Luke T.
A clear case of treason if he is guilty. He's lucky they don't put him in front of a firing squad. He's certainly eligible.
If your post was serious Luke, then I'm really starting to worry about you. You seem to have lost some of your famous level-headedness. Do you really wish for the state to murder that guy because of what he wrote in some emails?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Iconoclast

If your post was serious Luke, then I'm really starting to worry about you. You seem to have lost some of your famous level-headedness. Do you really wish for the state to murder that guy because of what he wrote in some emails?

Yes.

Legal Reference

Uniform Code of Military Justice or UCMJ


904. ART. 104. AIDING THE ENEMY
Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.


This is a war. Spl. Anderson is a member of the US Armed Forces, and as such is subject to the applicable article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So, yes. He can be executed if found guilty. He canot be "murdered",...because a lawful execution for a crime is not a murder.

-z

[LW]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Yes.

Of course, since I'm not American I don't have any say on how you handle this situation, but I feel that a death sentence would be a teeny-weeny bit excessive in this case.

Did the guy cause any real damage? Or was he stopped before he managed to contact the terrorists? Under conventional justice an attempt to do a crime usually carries lesser sentence than actually committing it.

Spl. Anderson is a member of the US Armed Forces, and as such is subject to the applicable article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The bit you quoted ends with:


... shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.


So, according to law a death sentence is not mandatory. I confess that I don't know all the details of this case, but I don't really see why he should be executed instead of sentencing to jail for some time.

He canot be "murdered",...because a lawful execution for a crime is not a murder.

So I guess Saddam Hussein never murdered anybody, since he was the law in Iraq.

But anyway, few days ago I finished reading an interesting book called Treason by the Book that tells the story of a Chinese revolutionary plot in the 18th century. The book lists quite a lot of people who got beheaded for treason and their crimes. In one case the traitor had written a treatise where he expressed the opinion that the emperor shouldn't have pardoned a traitor A and that perhaps it would be enough to destroy only all traitorous writing of a traitor B instead of all his scholarly work. The only reason he wasn't executed for this heinous crime was that he died in jail before formal sentencing.

Those 18th century Chinese traitor executions were certainly lawful but I personally don't think that they were particularly shining examples of justice. In a same way I feel that a death sentence might not be the most just solution in this case.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Yes.




This is a war. Spl. Anderson is a member of the US Armed Forces, and as such is subject to the applicable article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So, yes. He can be executed if found guilty. He canot be "murdered",...because a lawful execution for a crime is not a murder.

-z
Calm down ricky boy....cold shower time, you are not going to get to execute someone today.

I'd like to see some evidence, any evidence, that this guy told anyone anything that they couldn't read about in a glossy military magazine. What sort of dark military secrets does America give out to all its low ranking footsloggers? I know how little having evidence concerns you ricky boy but its traditional to have some before you shoot people;) Would you be happy with an indefinite detention without trial or charge? you like that approach, how about trying it out on this guy?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir




So you are saying one man controls the entire United States government and can pull the wool over all the Democrats and Republicans eyes in the congress and the congress has no responsibility to their constituents for their actions?

I just want to make sure I understand you.

Yep, it's come to that. Kind of makes you worry, doesn't it.

[Zero]

This isn't treason, in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you think this guy deserves a firing squad based on a Fox News article, you are just nutty.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Zero
This isn't treason, in America you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you think this guy deserves a firing squad based on a Fox News article, you are just nutty.

That's not Rickzilla's point; the question is whether IF he is convicted of what he allegedly did (and is charged with), he deserves the firing squad.

Rickzilla is responding to the claim that spying for the enemy is no big deal and doesn't really deserve severe punishment. He isn't claiming that this soldier is or is not a spy.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Fool

Calm down ricky boy....cold shower time, you are not going to get to execute someone today.

I'd like to see some evidence, any evidence, that this guy told anyone anything that they couldn't read about in a glossy military magazine. What sort of dark military secrets does America give out to all its low ranking footsloggers? I know how little having evidence concerns you ricky boy but its traditional to have some before you shoot people;) Would you be happy with an indefinite detention without trial or charge? you like that approach, how about trying it out on this guy?

And "The Fool" has the gall to complain that other people misrepresent HIM.

Ah well.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic


That's not Rickzilla's point; the question is whether IF he is convicted of what he allegedly did (and is charged with), he deserves the firing squad.

Rickzilla is responding to the claim that spying for the enemy is no big deal and doesn't really deserve severe punishment. He isn't claiming that this soldier is or is not a spy. Mine was just a general post...Rikzilla is obviously willing to allow a court to decide what crime this guy is guilty of.

I like the quote from the Army official: "stupid". That's really what this sounds like, pure stupidity more than anything else. I'm not saying this guy didn't do anything illegal, but it really sounds less like treason or aiding terrorists, and more like a blowhard trying to sound "in the know" online. Heck, I could probably tell you the weaknesses in American military equipment after 30 minutes with Google, you know?

[Skeptic]

Mine was just a general post...Rikzilla is obviously willing to allow a court to decide what crime this guy is guilty of.

I like the quote from the Army official: "stupid". That's really what this sounds like, pure stupidity more than anything else. I'm not saying this guy didn't do anything illegal, but it really sounds less like treason or aiding terrorists, and more like a blowhard trying to sound "in the know" online.

From the information that is available, I tend to agree. In that case, naturally, a court would take it into account and not convict the soldier of treason (presuming they convict him of anything at all). But that was not the point of Rickzilla's post.

Heck, I could probably tell you the weaknesses in American military equipment after 30 minutes with Google, you know?

...and, of course, if it's on the internet, it HAS to be true!

[LW]

Originally posted by Skeptic

From the information that is available, I tend to agree. In that case, naturally, a court would take it into account and not convict the soldier of treason (presuming they convict him of anything at all). But that was not the point of Rickzilla's post.

In case you didn't notice, Iconoclast asked Rikzilla whether he thinks the guy should be killed.

Rikzilla answered: Yes.

I'm not a psychic or anything, but that seems to me a lot like Rikzilla wanting to see that guy being sentenced to death.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic


And "The Fool" has the gall to complain that other people misrepresent HIM.

Ah well.
which bit of this quote from ricky boy do you need me to explain to you?

"A virulently anti-American netizen now moves through the bowels of military justice...on his way to a well earned appearance before a firing squad! Gee, maybe there IS a God?!"


Once again I say that ricky boy will just have to have a cold shower, he is not going to get to execute anyone today...

Anyway..ricky boy can sleep soundly knowing that "skeptic" has rode in to defend his right to channel Jedi Knight.... Lol, Rik and skep...the rocky and bullwinkle of Jref.....

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
. . .Ahhhhhh...but if congress didn't give Bush the authority, Bush could not have used force. . .Or can a president do this type of thing without congresses approval? . . .

That's not entirely true. The president can deploy troops up to 90 days in a conflict without Congress' approval.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by LW


In case you didn't notice, Iconoclast asked Rikzilla whether he thinks the guy should be killed.

Rikzilla answered: Yes.

I'm not a psychic or anything, but that seems to me a lot like Rikzilla wanting to see that guy being sentenced to death.

Thanks Skeptic for answering in my absence. Thanks again Fool for being so predictable.

Perhaps Fool believes he is the only person allowed to make flip, off the cuff remarks? In all seriousness, a member of the armed forces who is found guilty of treason during a time of war is indeed deserving of death in my opinion. Why? We are at war and his information may have been used by the enemy to kill or wound our soldiers.

Other service men spying for foreign governments, such as John Walker and his son, have gotten life in prison only because they were able to barter for their lives with information about what they had disclosed to the enemy....otherwise they too could have been executed. Even Johnathon Pollard who spied for an ally has recieved a life term in jail.

So why should the military spare this guy? As long as he is found guilty by the Court Martial of relaying classified info to the enemy there is no reason to spare him....unless he too gives up needed information about his contacts. If he was just a blowhard on a forum and had no pertinent info to divulge, then I suppose he will not be found guilty of high treason at all.

This is my honest opinion....not Fool's spin.....and not a flip remark like I began this thread with. If you guys want to attack my stand on this please do,....just make sure it's my real opinion and not some Fool's strawman.

-z

[Crossbow]

For the ever folks who would like to see Anderson executed, I suggest that they actually read the article and consider their own opinions.

While it is still early, and certainly more details will surface in the future, so far it looks like Anderson fell very quickly into the hands of the authorities before he could pass on any data to a foreign power, therefore the Death Penalty may be a rather excessive punishment.

[Skeptical Greg]

Military officials told Fox News that Anderson made some contacts on the Web that made officials suspicious enough to start watching him. A sting was assembled, with some of the investigators posing as terrorists online.

Certain signs of intelligience notwithstanding, the kid seems to have developed a serious case of the dumb ass..

Let's hope a lot of would-be terrorists suffer from this same affliction...

[Skeptic]

In case you didn't notice, Iconoclast asked Rikzilla whether he thinks the guy should be killed.

Rikzilla answered: Yes.

I'm not a psychic or anything, but that seems to me a lot like Rikzilla wanting to see that guy being sentenced to death.

They key word is "sentenced". Obviously, in context, what Rickzilla meant was that he should be sentenced to death IF he is found guilty of treason. You might argue with that, but not with the silly misrepresentation that Rickzilla meant that he should be lynched without a trial.

Granted Rickzilla's original way of making the post was flippant, but he was being saracstic--namely, speaking this way merely to piss off the "usual gang of idiots" by playing the obviously over-the-top "bloodthirsty American" card. His point was that, since his belief that the death sentence for treason is justified would be ranted against by "The Fool" & co. as "bloodthirsty murder" anyway, he might as well pretend he's for bloodthirsty murderer from the start.

Naturally, "The Fool", lacking any sense of sarcasm (or humor), fell right into the obvious trap, and couldn't resist answering a deliberate caricature seriously. But, then again, "The Fool" chose a good name (and avatar) for himself.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In case you didn't notice, Iconoclast asked Rikzilla whether he thinks the guy should be killed.

Rikzilla answered: Yes.

I'm not a psychic or anything, but that seems to me a lot like Rikzilla wanting to see that guy being sentenced to death.

They key word is "sentenced". Obviously, in context, what Rickzilla meant was that he should be sentenced to death IF he is found guilty of treason. You might argue with that, but not with the silly misrepresentation that Rickzilla meant that he should be lynched without a trial.

Granted Rickzilla's original way of making the post was flippant, but he was being saracstic--namely, speaking this way merely to piss off the "usual gang of idiots" by playing the obviously over-the-top "bloodthirsty American" card. His point was that, since his belief that the death sentence for treason is justified would be ranted against by "The Fool" & co. as "bloodthirsty murder" anyway, he might as well pretend he's for bloodthirsty murderer from the start.

Naturally, "The Fool", lacking any sense of sarcasm (or humor), fell right into the obvious trap, and couldn't resist answering a deliberate caricature seriously. But, then again, "The Fool" chose a good name (and avatar) for himself.

Oh I get it...you are trotting out the old "I was only joking" excuse...

ok...you are a racist piece of *****....oops, only joking.

so you also behave like a racist prick simply to piss off the "usual gang of idiots"? Are you suggesting your whole collection of bigoted and racist rants on this board is one big sarcastic joke?

Lol.....the "i was only joking" backslide....what a loser.

[demon]

Skeptic:
"Granted Rickzilla's original way of making the post was flippant, but he was being saracstic--namely, speaking this way merely to piss off the "usual gang of idiots" by playing the obviously over-the-top "bloodthirsty American" card."

Thanks for that Skeptic. How wrong we have all been!
I`ve been worried over the past couple of years that Rick really was an "over-the-top bloodthirsty American".
Glad he was only playing the "blood thirsty American card" to piss people off.

You Americans...and they say you don`t understand irony!

Oh nearly forgot, don`t tell me, you have been playing the "blood thirsty American card" too?
I take back all those nasty things I said about you!

[Tricky]

I have been watching rikzilla a long time, and I agree with Skeptic (much as it pains me ;)) that he was deliberately overstating his case. Rik does this frequently on the board, trying to incite people to a frenzy, while appearing even more frenzied himself. That is not really him. That is his forum persona. I freely admit to going far beyond my usual stance here on these boards because I can! I'd call it hyperbole, not dishonesty.

This is not to say that Rikzilla is not an idiot. He certainly is. He's just not an *********.

Hey Rik! Clean out your damn mailbox, idiot.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Crossbow
For the ever folks who would like to see Anderson executed, I suggest that they actually read the article and consider their own opinions.

While it is still early, and certainly more details will surface in the future, so far it looks like Anderson fell very quickly into the hands of the authorities before he could pass on any data to a foreign power, therefore the Death Penalty may be a rather excessive punishment.
There are many in this country that justify any punishment by saying "Well, you should have known that before you did that."
Or, "He got what he deserved."
Why not have capital punishment for parking tickets? You sure wouldn't see any over parking.
Thinking is the hardest work of all that's why so few of us engage in it.
Much easier to execute the guy without knowing anything about him than analyze and dispense justice.
Kill 'em all and let God sort it out.

[Skeptic]

Oh I get it...you are trotting out the old "I was only joking" excuse...

Indeed so. Rickzilla's sarcasm was rather obvious to everybody--except for you, who (lacking any sense of humor or context) fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

This is to be expected, "The Fool". You don't care what people mean, or for context, or for their argument; you just scan their post to see if they might have used the "wrong word" somewhere and therefore "prove" their "racism" or "sexism" or "imperialism" or whatever.

Naturally, this means you walk right into parodies and tongue-in-cheek statements, having no ability to distinguish the serious from the sarcastic.

so you also behave like a racist prick simply to piss off the "usual gang of idiots"?

It's extremely easy to piss you off and get you to call people "racists", Fool: all one has to do is to post facts you don't agree with. Through overuse, your accusations of "racism" are less than meaningless by now.

Are you suggesting your whole collection of bigoted and racist rants on this board is one big sarcastic joke?

Sometimes they ARE obviously sarcastic (as in this case). More generally, though, most of these "bigoted and racist rants" are rather obviously simply your chosen word for "posts I disagree with", whether intended sarastically or not (as said above, you can't tell the difference).

Of course, this means that you see "bigoted racist rants" everywhere, but that doesn't make it so; it merely shows that you lack any sense of proportion or understatement. To paraphrase Lincoln, "calling a tail a 'bigoted racist leg' doesn't make it so."

You are like a four-year-old who has just discovered that the word "sh-t" tends to shock people, and now calls everything "sh-tty car" or "sh-tty mommy", etc. In your case, you discovered that the word "racist!" tends to shock people, so now you call everything you don't like "racist".

But since you use the word "racist!" ALL THE TIME ABOUT EVERYBODY, it quickly lost whatever shock value it might have had. Like people whose every second word is "sh-t" or "f-ck", the fact that your every second word is "racist!" quickly stopped shocking and became merely annoying.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by subgenius
Why not have capital punishment for parking tickets? You sure wouldn't see any over parking.


It’s not very likely this boy will get a firing squad, but would it be such a miscarriage of justice if he did?

Whatever the result of his actions, what he tried to do was to aid anti-US terrorists by passing along information. That he didn’t accomplish anything is has more to do with his incompetence than his intentions. Had he been smarter, he could have played a pivotal role in the deaths of a lot of people.

This is no parking ticket.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tricky
I have been watching rikzilla a long time, and I agree with Skeptic (much as it pains me ;)) that he was deliberately overstating his case. Rik does this frequently on the board, trying to incite people to a frenzy, while appearing even more frenzied himself. That is not really him. That is his forum persona. I freely admit to going far beyond my usual stance here on these boards because I can! I'd call it hyperbole, not dishonesty.

This is not to say that Rikzilla is not an idiot. He certainly is. He's just not an *********.

Hey Rik! Clean out your damn mailbox, idiot.

Thanks man!....er...um..I think :( DOH!

Wow! I think Tricky's compliment just gave me two black eyes...(man! I gotta watch out for that "back-hand" of yours in the future!) ;)

Luckily Fool, there are people here who recognise that ALL forum members can use flippancy or sarcasm....not just guys called Fool or Shemp.

So let's see, with forum members as diverse as Skeptic and Tricky recognising my flippancy as a ploy to piss-off the usual suspects, will those "suspects" now conceed that they have over-analysed my original post? Will they (gasp) admit they were WRONG???

[insert dramatic soap opera music]

Stay tuned!
-z

PS: Tricky, I had my PM's disabled...I've changed it so I can accept PM's now.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Mycroft


It’s not very likely this boy will get a firing squad, but would it be such a miscarriage of justice if he did?

Whatever the result of his actions, what he tried to do was to aid anti-US terrorists by passing along information. That he didn’t accomplish anything is has more to do with his incompetence than his intentions. Had he been smarter, he could have played a pivotal role in the deaths of a lot of people.

This is no parking ticket.
If I parked illegally someone could have died.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Thanks man!....er...um..I think :( DOH!

Wow! I think Tricky's compliment just gave me two black eyes...(man! I gotta watch out for that "back-hand" of yours in the future!) ;)

Luckily Fool, there are people here who recognise that ALL forum members can use flippancy or sarcasm....not just guys called Fool or Shemp.

So let's see, with forum members as diverse as Skeptic and Tricky recognising my flippancy as a ploy to piss-off the usual suspects, will those "suspects" now conceed that they have over-analysed my original post? Will they (gasp) admit they were WRONG???

[insert dramatic soap opera music]

Stay tuned!
-z

PS: Tricky, I had my PM's disabled...I've changed it so I can accept PM's now.
So your now telling me its not your fault that you are a troll? Its all actually a great big joke?
Your usual approach has been to issue a periodic apology before you commence a new cycle. Is the claim that it was really only a joke going to replace the periodic apologies?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]But since you use the word "racist!" ALL THE TIME ABOUT EVERYBODY, it quickly lost whatever shock value it might have had.

hmmm, I suppose its too much to ask for you to support this claim? I only accuse racists of racism "skeptic" I have used this term on very few people, can you give me an example of someone who didn't deserve it?
Sorry dude....no free rides for you, no matter how much you whine and cry.

but anyway...its all a joke now isn't it? You can say whatever you like about anyone you like as long as sometime after the event you rewrite history and claim it was a sarcastic joke? Hmmmm, maybe me calling you a racist is just a sarcastic joke? want to join in and have a good laugh about it?

So from now on, don't bother challanging or critisizing anything I say ok? Its all your fault for not getting the joke.....Lol, what a doofus (oops, sorry, only joking)

[Skeptic]

hmmm, I suppose its too much to ask for you to support this claim?

Well, in this thread alone, you used the term "racist" to describe your opponent's writing in, well, almost every post you made, including this one, which is essentially "how dare you say I overuse the term 'racist', you racist!".

I only accuse racists of racism "skeptic"

Or, more precisely, people you THINK are racists. But that's just the problem; you think everybody who disagrees with you is a racist.

I have used this term on very few people, can you give me an example of someone who didn't deserve it?

Yes. Rickzilla and me, for starters. Also Mycroft, Btox, Cleopatra (IIRC), and I won't be surprised if I forgot a few. Of course there are also hammegk, Tony, American, & co., in which you might have some more justification for the accusation, but still, you rarely make distinctions between all these "racists".

Who else? Well, MEMRI, the jerusalem post reporters (or was that "extremists"?) when they posted stuff you disagreed with on their web sites, all "zionists" and israelies in general, president Bush, the US government, the US military, Americans in general (or was that "imperialist" or "colonlalist" instead of "racist"?) ... gee, seems like you DO accuse of "racism" a hell of a lot of people, after all.

And that's just off the top of my head... I'm quite sure I missed a few.

Sorry dude....no free rides for you, no matter how much you whine and cry.

I'm sorry, you seem to confuse me with someone who cares what you think about them.

but anyway...its all a joke now isn't it?

No, it wasn't a joke, it was obvious sarcasm. Sarcasm which went right over your head, at 30,000 feet, heading out to sea. Everybody else seems to have gotten it, though.

So from now on, don't bother challanging or critisizing anything I say ok? Its all your fault for not getting the joke.....Lol, what a doofus (oops, sorry, only joking)

Your posts are indeed a joke, "Fool". But not exactly in the sense that you think.