^ NVM. Clearly, you are a stupid fucking idiot.

Quote :

"You clearly believe it would be OK to kill Abdulmutallab with a missile in any manner used in conducting appropriate warfare, but without a trial preferably with a military tribunal."

Fixed.

Would you please try to stop trolling about the goddamned missiles? It is a fact that the United States kills in a variety of ways and on a routine basis--without any form of trial---al-Qaeda members who are setting bombs and engaging in other nefarious activities.

Now, I ask you once again. . .

Quote :

"What's the difference?"

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 6:40 PM. Reason : Answer the fucking question.]

1/8/2010 6:38:50 PM

lol, I'm the idiot for reading what you wrote, as you wrote it.

What do Abdulmutallab and KSM have in common with each other, but don't have in common with al-Qaeda members setting IEDs on the side of the road?

You should be able to answer that one yourself, because it's pretty fucking obvious.


As condescending as you are, you better be at least smart enough to figure that one out.

1/8/2010 6:47:38 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference?"

1/8/2010 6:51:54 PM

You can't think of one fucking thing that separates KSM and Abdulmutallab from some dudes setting up an IED on the side of a road?

Nothing at all?

Seriously?



Is this another one of your bullshit rhetorical/loaded question games you like to play?

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 6:56:50 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference?"

1/9/2010 3:37:26 PM

Now you're just trolling.

1/9/2010 4:13:27 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference?"

1/9/2010 4:41:51 PM

Have you ever participated in a conversation that involved an actual back-and-forth dialog and didn't involve you calling the other person names?

Just curious.

1/9/2010 4:45:24 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference?"

1/10/2010 12:04:23 PM

Do you carry a tape player around with you IRL to playback quotes of yourself?

1/10/2010 1:43:14 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference?"

1/10/2010 3:11:05 PM

When asked to describe yourself, do you hold up a picture of goatse?

1/10/2010 4:02:46 PM

Quote :

"What's the difference?"

1/10/2010 7:19:54 PM

Probably very little.

1/10/2010 7:39:33 PM

Finally! An answer worthy of note!

1/10/2010 7:47:29 PM

Yep, you guys are right.

There's no difference between killing someone without trial on a battlefield and killing someone we've held in custody (for years in some cases) without trial.

No difference at all.

What ever it takes to kill the terrorists, huh?

1/10/2010 8:33:03 PM

Actually, I was trying to make a joke to break up this stupid game.

1/10/2010 9:59:26 PM

The point is that al-Qaeda setting a bomb is al-Qaeda setting a bomb--and I support killing these terrorists anywhere that they are doing this. But if we happen to capture one, I don't have a big problem running him through a military tribunal--then immediately executing him. What's the problem?

1/11/2010 1:12:53 PM

What if the military tribunal doesn't assign execution as punishment? Should we shoot them regardless?

1/11/2010 6:29:02 PM

^ This is proof that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Will the Christmas Day bomber be executed?

1/12/2010 12:53:55 PM

Quote :

"This is proof that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about."

Great reply. Great explanation, very clear.

Quote :

"Will the Christmas Day bomber be executed?"

What kind of question is this? Are you asking if I'm omniscient?


Several times you've said something along the line of "run him through a military tribunal and immediately execute them". Are you playing another one of your semantics/word games? Or will every military tribunal return execution?

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2010 5:57:50 PM

The scenario given by hooksaw is not a new phenomenon.


The police will shoot a guy holding a hostage if the situation calls for it.

If they manage to apprehend hostage-taker without killing him, we will put him through a civilian court.


Any sane person can distinguish between two scenarios.

1/12/2010 6:36:12 PM

^^ I'll save you the trouble of straining your brain while Googling furiously. The Christmas Day bomber will NOT be executed--he's not eligible. But he SHOULD be treated as the terrorist he is, run through a military tribunal, and immediately executed.

^

Quote :

"The point is that al-Qaeda setting a bomb is al-Qaeda setting a bomb--and I support killing these terrorists anywhere that they are doing this."

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 6:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 6:37:20 PM

Where in Article III does it cover military trials for civilians? Just curious.

^ And likewise, a hostage-taker is a hostage-taker. They should either be shot in place, or shot immediately following a show trial.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 6:40 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2010 6:39:38 PM

^^ You're still assuming a military tribunal will always return a guilty verdict with execution. You used the same "military tribunal...then execution" with KSM (when you weren't stumping for summary executions).

1/12/2010 6:43:51 PM

^^ This should answer that question:

Barack Obama: US is at war with al-Qaeda

http://tinyurl.com/ydg7v3v

^ Twist it anyway you want--as long as it ends in another dead al-Qaeda terrorist. Martyrdom be damned.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 6:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2010 6:44:28 PM

We're also at war with drugs and poverty. Who do we shoot in those wars?

Quote :

"as long as it ends in another dead al-Qaeda terrorist."

What are you willing to pay to make this true?



...and I'm not twisting anything. Those are your words.

1/12/2010 6:48:20 PM

^ You may shoot drugs and poverty if (1) it makes you happy and (2) you can get these abstract constructs in your sights. The latter will prove difficult, no doubt.

1/12/2010 6:56:10 PM

They're no more abstract than the war on terror.

Last time I checked, Congress hasn't declared an actual war on terror.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 6:58 PM. Reason : gg ignoring the second question]

1/12/2010 6:57:33 PM

Terrorism is a tactic. It's even more abstract that drugs or poverty.

1/12/2010 7:02:29 PM

^^ and ^ It doesn't seem "abstract" to Obama:

Barack Obama: US is at war with al-Qaeda

http://tinyurl.com/ydg7v3v

And concerning cost, we must spend whatever it takes. If we can't keep this country safe, nothing else matters.

1/12/2010 7:04:14 PM

Quote :

"And concerning cost, we must spend whatever it takes. If we can't keep this country safe, nothing else matters."

hooksaw has been defeated by terrorism.

1/12/2010 7:07:02 PM

^^We've got Patrick Henry reincarnate in our midst!

And could you please formulate your own arguments? Citing politicians doesn't make an argument.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2010 7:07:27 PM

"Give me liberty, or give me death!"

Not

"Give me the United States, or give me death!"

1/12/2010 7:09:32 PM

^^ So, Obama is wrong? Say it if it's so.

^ We only have liberty if we can keep it.

1/12/2010 7:13:36 PM

And all of this is operating under the assumption that the underpants bomber was a threat to our government/society.

...a point which hooksaw has been refusing to address for about a week or so.



^I've yet to see Congress pass a declaration of war against al Qaeda, so I have to assume he's using "war" in the figurative sense.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2010 7:14:19 PM

Quote :

"^ So, Obama is wrong? Say it if it's so."

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 7:18 PM. Reason : "War" is a threat to our society, buffoon. Answer the question. ]

1/12/2010 7:14:54 PM

Again with the circular reasoning.

"They're a first-order threat because we're at war with them. We're at war with them because they're a first-order threat."

You keep bumping into this fallacy because you refuse to provide your own rationale.

1/12/2010 7:17:51 PM

Quote :

"^ So, Obama is wrong? Say it if it's so."

Incorrect.

1/12/2010 7:18:52 PM

So you're calling your own statement incorrect?

I've addressed your question, so I'm sure you aren't just responding to me with "incorrect."

Only a total douchebag would do such a thing.



Seriously-- I bet someone could write a script to replace hooksaw.

1. Quote random lines submitted from a list of TWW liberals and type "incorrect" beneath them.

2. Grab headlines from drudge, place them in bold tags, and place a rolly eyes beneath them.


Because that's literally all you do.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 7:27 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2010 7:24:13 PM

1.

Quote :

"^ So, Obama is wrong? Say it if it's so."

2. I don't read Drudge.

3. And see this thread for an explanation about al-Qaeda's motives:

message_topic.aspx?topic=584160&page=3

1/12/2010 7:47:17 PM

Quote :

"I don't read Drudge."

If such a script were created, no one would know the difference.

Quote :

"So, Obama is wrong? Say it if it's so."

Quote :

"I've yet to see Congress pass a declaration of war against al Qaeda, so I have to assume he's using "war" in the figurative sense."

Quote :

"And see this thread for an explanation about al-Qaeda's motives:"

This actually had nothing to do with al Qaeda's motives. It had to do with the underpants bomber's status as a first-rate threat to national security.

...you never answered that, actually.

I guess now would be as good a time as any to do that?

1/12/2010 7:57:18 PM

Quote :

"Seriously-- I bet someone could write a script to replace hooksaw. "

Hahaha, that's what I was thinking after reading this exchange. It's like arguing with SmarterChild.

1/12/2010 7:57:39 PM

^^ and ^ Incorrect.

1/12/2010 8:04:57 PM

That's it. I'm arguing against a more knowledgeable opponent from now on.


http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=is+obama+wrong%3F

1/12/2010 8:09:47 PM

^ Good.

1/12/2010 8:11:38 PM

hooksaw may be the greatest troll tdub has ever seen.

1/12/2010 8:14:50 PM

^^Of course it isn't too late for you to save face and actually argue your point.


^We all know his identity. Given that, he can't be a troll; only a moron.

[Edited on January 12, 2010 at 8:15 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2010 8:15:03 PM

In-cor-rect

1/12/2010 8:17:33 PM

It's not a script-- it's a virus

1/12/2010 8:19:00 PM