|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 10, 2011 12:32:33 GMT -5
If you can get actual documents following a trail of money then you can get somewhere.......... but nobody can really do that because if it was a conspiracy your not going to find that evidence unless you get really lucky, even then it doesn't change the way the buildings and stuff fell. The physics make perfect sense. Now "them" could possibly be the ones that had it put together but it wasn't put together the way the conspiracy theorist say it was if "they" did because that would def leak out because TOO MANY people would be involved. So far nobody has stepped forward and said he I demolished the wtc, I fired a holographic missile at the Pentagon, I made real people disappear but crashed and empty plane and made it more complicated....ect...... Why make something so complicated if your gonna cover it up??? That would be the dumb and very sloppy way of doing it which would result in factual evidence coming out about it now on the other hand you have terrorist really crash planes into the Pentagon & WTC's then it destroys that building as a result of that then you just eliminated the people that you had do the deed which makes it very simple and very very hard to trace. The other "THEORIES" with no facts make it way to complicated and impossible to cover up.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 10, 2011 12:24:34 GMT -5
Explain in your own words what cover up there was with facts?? Not someones opinion but cold hard facts that are not peoples opinions. Provide the proof of this. I personally think the Terrorist did this. I think the buildings came down as a result of the planes it has facts backed by physics while the conspirators have nothing but opinions that do not hold up when tested. Now I didn't say the government was not involved. The US CIA is the one that made the terrorist back during the cold war to fight the Soviets "but not fight the Soviets". That is a fact. I don't know if Osama was the one personally working with the government but there is no physical evidence besides speculation and opinions on that no hard facts. Sometimes when you create something it will turn on you. Thats just my opinion. How come conspiracy theorist have to come up with more and more opinions trying to dispel facts that are laid right in front of them. There really is no point in arguing a point when someone will ignore facts backed by physics.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 19:14:38 GMT -5
Geneva code gives the law on someone who isn't visibly armed, they can even be retreating from you and you can still shoot them dead, only way it's a crime is if he surrendered. Last time I checked he had more than 10 years to surrender. I agree about the celebrating, you can look to my facebook for that, I never said that we should go out into the streets and celebrate that is where the line distinguishes between what the terrorist were doing and what we did. The action of him beling killed is justice in my eyes but the celebrating of it is wrong. I don't think it's right to celebrate over any human being killed. Relieved but not happy. Also Chris, so you also agree with Charlie's view that a pedophile should not be put to death then, not sure if you have kids but even if it was one of your own kids that was molested,raped,harmed,ect.... ? Johnny, as a mother and a grandmother, at one point in my life I would have said put a pedophile alone in a room with the children's parents for just 30 minutes. No weapons needed. Then, whatever was left of him, absolutely kill. Now, I don't want them killed. I want them in the prison system. There is a code in prison and pedophiles are looked upon as the scum of the earth that they are. In prison, they will receive treatment they justly deserve many times over. I do believe they should receive a life sentence without the opportunity of parole. I agree. But if I was left alone in a room with one for thirty mins I can't promise I wouldn't kill them.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:54:34 GMT -5
Very good discussion though. Im suprised some others haven't chimed in on this.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:53:47 GMT -5
We don't really know what order the SEALs receieved. I just know the way people view things and in the media from our view isn't always accurate of the situations. I agree there needs to be less secrecy but we also have to maintain national security and i do believe that is something important to protect. I haven't lost faith yet, I still think America can be restored to a GREAT country as it was before but we need the right people to do it. What would your decision have been in the matter? I see someone having my children killed, family killed, innocent people killed basically as any less bad than a pedophile. He had innocent kids, women, and men killed. He does deserve what he got but with that said we shouldn't gloat in the street about it. I think you guys try to stay in the middle ground to much on issues sometimes. Sometimes you have to take a side on and issue you can't always stay in the middle grey area and expect a concrete way to develope. But you saying you would go away from Charlies view on that, then you in essence don't agree with Charlie's view as you stated
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:31:35 GMT -5
key word being "want"
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:31:09 GMT -5
Now Charlie was posing a different perspective, but even he said it's not wrong to want to kill them. As far as a person's reaction.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:21:51 GMT -5
Gilani has said that future operations without their consent will result in action by them against us. But they stated they really wanted to continue working with us on rooting out terrorist instead of messing up our ties with each other.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:20:34 GMT -5
Geneva code gives the law on someone who isn't visibly armed, they can even be retreating from you and you can still shoot them dead, only way it's a crime is if he surrendered. Last time I checked he had more than 10 years to surrender. I agree about the celebrating, you can look to my facebook for that, I never said that we should go out into the streets and celebrate that is where the line distinguishes between what the terrorist were doing and what we did. The action of him beling killed is justice in my eyes but the celebrating of it is wrong. I don't think it's right to celebrate over any human being killed. Relieved but not happy. Also Chris, so you also agree with Charlie's view that a pedophile should not be put to death then, not sure if you have kids but even if it was one of your own kids that was molested,raped,harmed,ect.... ?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 12:15:07 GMT -5
Johnny, you have to read what Charlie is saying and look at it from all perspectives. You and I may not look at 911 as "legal kills" but others do. Period! Doesn't matter whether we agree or not or we like it or not, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. And, that in itself is what causes most of the violence in this world - beliefs! Were we "right" to kill bin Laden? Most people in our country will answer yes. Most people in other countries may answer no. Such is life. We justify killing him due to his involvement in 911 but was he tried, convicted, and sentenced? Sure - because we call it "war". We were "at war" with Osama bin Laden. But were we truly "at war"? All of our wars are basically declared and labeled. WWI, WWII, Korean War, etc. Vietnam was a "conflict" but it was still a war. Openly declared on a country and fought with casualties on both sides. We were not at war with a country, we were trying to cut off the head of the snake. I have said for many years that our CIA and Special Forces should have been doing what they do best. Seriously, how hard is it to find a man hiding in rock and sand? We should have crept in, in the dead of night, and slit his throat while he was sleeping. All under the cover of darkness and just simply kept our mouths shut. No major announcements, no bragging, no declaration of winning - just removed our enemy. But now that we have chosen to make our grand announcements, there will be fallout, that you can count on. We have decided to play the game, by our own rules, so we will have people that do not support our rule changing. In anything, there are always two sides - both of which believe they are right. We may not agree but we have to be open minded enough and honest enough to at least acknowledge we are no more right than they are. You do know there would be serious consequences for sneaking into another country and taking someone and then keeping it on the low. If they find out then it becomes an act of war, best to let them know your going to do it. I did look at both sides, I just didn't agree with the other, did you even read all we talked about??? It finally came down to what the Geneva codes have to say. Not everyones opinion of it. 9/11 was not legal kills and Osama had those done and our kill was a legal one according to the geneva codes, not my opinion. Also Vietnam was a war I agree but by the Geneva code it was a police action which follows slightly different guidelines. Terrorism can really be one or the other or both. I just don't agree that it was wrong to kill him, sneaking up and murdering him in the middle of the night by slitting his throat would be murder though lol and then yes that would be wrong in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:41:03 GMT -5
No I feel very bad for the people that lose lives in other situations. I have a friend that is a survivor of the events that went on in Bosnia, I am not saying other people in the world don't lose people because of violent acts, to say that would convey ignorance. Im not ignorant of the world around me, I am one of the people that will actually look at something from more than one angle. I feel for anyone that has to lose loved ones because of random acts of violence, war, terrorism, ect........ We don't live in a perfect world and to dream of one is to ingore reality. Now Im not saying don't dream we can all dream hopefully one day it will be peaceful, but the reality is there is always something bad going on in some part of the world. Your objective view on this subject was to say that it was wrong to kill Osama well you see it as a murder and lowering yourself to their level of violence. Your saying the reasons for believing that way is because no matter the cause violence is still violence in the end result and I can see that. But the reality is people were killed for a stupid cause. i would personally have liked to capture Bin Laden to gain valuable information for the military. Hussein was tried successfully so I can see that point of view
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:26:50 GMT -5
As long as the kill was legal under international law then that is the law. Opinion doesn't matter. I suppose thats really the last of the discussion. So far I have seens no war crime charges. I still don't know for a fact if he is even dead or not dead. I wasn't personally there and haven't seen any evidence. What is your view of the war on terror? Or terrorist in general? I know your against but how do you think it should be handled as a whole?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:24:08 GMT -5
Well your arguing a point of view that backs up a terrorist point of view? ? So what is someone to take from that?? I know your not a terrorist Charlie, your a really cool and a very friendly guy, Im just saying arguing the same things a terrorist would is a losing battle.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:22:32 GMT -5
War crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (Also known as International humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct includes "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1]
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:19:11 GMT -5
Your effectively saying that people in the WTC had carried out acts of war against a terrorst organization which is not even a state or country??? And gives their attacks legal justification??? The codes have to support, opinion doesn't. LMAO
|
|