If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Foiled "dirty-bomb" attack
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
btw, Sir, fwiw... we both got is wrong, according to my Webster's dictionary...
tis spelled: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y
However, I'll certainly not argue that I am more educated nor literate than you, sir...
(damn... where IS that spellcheck function? :rolleyes: )
Oh wait... you have. You're not on anymore. Ah well, there's always tomorrow
Yes sir, it is clear as day you are an American through and through. I suspect MOK's error was a typo as he as far more literate than you are. There are so many errors found in your above quote it isn't even funny if you want to nitpick.
BTW, what does fwiw mean? In the above context it should have been FYI (for your information) but we'll see.
I predict a thorough whooping by numerous posters tomorrow....
Not bloody likely.
The only time that I post/lurk on this forum is when there is nothing happening elsewhere, the bbs's that I call "home"...
Been covered more than enough times, but you asked, so I'll respond...
Was in college on a jock scholarship, and had a "student deferment"... which got lost at the draft board. Got an "invitation to the dance"... said "Hell, NO! You can't draft ME!", and enlisted in the Marine Corps.
My nation had signed treaties, and commitments made to SEATO were treated no differently than NATO. Commitment being the operative word. Involves responsibility. Someone has to fight: not all can turn their backs and cower. When the bill comes due, SOMEONE must stand up and pay the tab.
btw... there were more Canadians who crossed the border south and fought for the US in Vietnam, than there were cowards who fled north. Not generally known within the mythology
Current friends include a couple of Brits who fought within Aussie units... damned fierce they were, too. :eek:
At least you realize that the bulk of those who fought in Vietnam were volunteers, not draftees... twice the per centage as in WW2. Again, rather divergent from accepted mythology. But then, you might be one of the few who actually read the "myths debunked" thread...
Anyway, to paraphrase "someone famous"... without the blood of patriots to nurture the tree of liberty, it whithers and perishes.
Many are called; much fewer answer...
Terribly archaic, isn't it, to value a concept more than yourself?
For What It's Worth...
Wow... such a threat. To be over-run by "warrior wordsmiths". The concept causes me to tremble!
Care to come to my playground?
Better yet, on another bbs, Greenhat invited another self-proclaimed Keyboard Kommando (of the black knight ilk) to come on a "field trip" in Thailand. Up for the edifying experience?
I was actually hoping you'd say something patriotic like, my country needed me or something, but you didn't so I'll let you off.
As long as everything has calmed down I hope to later pick up where the discussion left off (before it took a nose-dive) but I'm oh so very tired so I doubt I'll be of any use at the mo. I'll just wander the boards and do some more catching up on what I've missed lately.
Thanks for the vote of confidence dude, but it was a spelling mistake. I have a blindness for certain words...
His handler is alledged to have given hime up. You say this is because there is little honour, but under what duress? Do you honestly believe that he started singing like a canary as soon as he was caught? Or is yours the only Govt above using "persuasive" interrogation techniques? Every man has a breaking point.
I have no problem with patriotism per se, I just have a problem with blind patriots. Like I said, you only attack Clinton on these boards and it appears that this is motivated by political affiliation (ie GW is a good ole boy, Clinton isn't), but you have never suggested that your country has done anything wrong, at any time, in any situation. You seem to lack any level of skepticism which I would have expected from an [apparently] educated man.
A knife is lethal... A sword is lethal... A gun is lethal...
Which you gonna ban, huh? (And good luck taking either of the last two off someone who doesn't want to let go of it.)
Respectfully, MacKenZie... good luck with the first one, too. If the person holding the knife is moderately skilled, you ARE going to get cut up, perhaps fatally.
Been there, done that, on both sides of the knife...
I thought we were supposed to be ignoring each other? It seems that you just can't post anything sensibly. This topic has nothing to do with yours, or anybody elses experiences in Vietnam or wherever.
It is about the capture of a suspect. Because the US govt doesn't have enough evidence to convict him in a court of law, they have handed him over to the military. Hardly befitting of a society built on freedom, and the understanding of innocence before guilt.
But wait, your society is nothing but a contradiction, you use the constitution everytime it suits you, but whenever it doesn't you just pretend it doesn't exist. It isn't worth the paper it is written on.
There is a chance that the guy they caught is guilty, however you don't have any evidence apart from hearsay and 3rd hand accounts. And what do you always tell us you despise on this board, and you argue with us about, wait.....it's our lack of first hand information! The US government has no firm evidence of guilt, and neither do you. All you have is a few people's testimony that he had an IDEA to detonate a device. Maybe you should rethink your posistion again, are you now saying that it's acceptable for you and your government to use third and secondhand information, but we aren't?
Oh.....and next time you bring up my personal life, don't. It makes you look like a small child and not the 60 year old bigoted idiot that you really are.
Actually, there is much about GWB that I do not like. I did not so much vote for GWB as I voted AGAINST the Gore imbecile. Gore would have been little more than an incompetent Komrad Klinton. With the both of them, their only morality is their need to stay in power. Gutless neutered cowards.
Much of the quandry that the US finds itself mired within today is the result of the idiocy that elected Klinton, but it did not start in just the last decade.
Is GWB that "savior" of the US? ROTFLMFAO! However, he IS a step in the proper direction from where this country has been, and he IS my CIC. Time in service taught me the difference between blind, mind numbing obedience, and the requisite discipline to "get the job done". When everyone is rowing in a different direction, you remain lost at sea, floating in circles...
Not ready to hand-cuff those who are elected or chosen to do the job of running/protecting this nation. I am not one of the May Day blithering idiots just seeking the forum to justify my existence...
Ever personally lead a team? In any endeavor? Do you delegate authority, or do you micro-manage? I have an appreciation for those who set the goal, then get the hell out of the way and allow the workers to get their assigned duties performed. THAT is the manner in which I lead. Military is the enforcement arm of the politicians. Politicians set goal, and then should get the fuck out of the way. Glory hound politicians led to the quagmire in Vietnam. If they had simply said "secure the country", and then left the military to do its job, the war would have been over in two years, tops. Instead, they wanted to micro-manage what they could not understand, and THAT fucked it up.
MUCH I do not like about the manner in which the US functions, but playing the role of the nihilist hardly proves productive...
Read the UCMJ. Subjects tried under the UCMJ have the same rights as those tried under civilian law. The difference is the security allowed for sources and personnel. OPSEC and PERSEC apply.
Denies access to a deadly weapon not .all.
You also missed the point which was that the US citizen has been imprisoned for what he might do - something which isn't possible under our gun laws. You cannot be imprisoned because you might own a handgun, only if you actually do
Actually, you don't know what he has been imprisoned for. Only what the media has reported. Given their track record, I'd say that is suspect.
Thank you, like I said, I had given you more credit than that.
*joins Thantos in the hysterical laughter*
Actually yes, I manage people. I work within our health "service" and my role requires good man management because I have to encourage people to make changes which they may not initially believe to be important. I am responsible to improving the "services" which we provide and this involves redesigning systems and processes. Anyone in management will understand that "change-management" is one of the hardest thing to effect with a degree of success.
You have, in fact, outlined my managerial approach. I can only point the directing in which my organisation can go, but I cannot make the changes myself. The people (workers) who do the releveant jobs must do that. My role is to make sure they have the resources to achieve what I have asked and to remove any barriers which are put up.
Like you said - if the person in charge gets in the way, you only end up with a FUBAR secanrio.
erm, it would be helpful if you actually said what the UCMJ is. Spouting out acronyms isn't befitting a man of your intelligence. It would also be helpful, if you could tell us WHERE we could read this. You have to remember, English libraries aren't exactly overflowing with information about the US judicial system.
Oh for fucks sake..
1 second on a search engine...UCMJ
Uniform code of military justice.
Had presumed as much, and the question was rather rhetorical in nature.
Although you may have missed it, I actually have gained a respect for you, even if we disagree most vehemently in "certain areas"...
That you could do a search on it? :rolleyes:
Perhaps it would be helpful if he ceased to presume that you possess a functioning intellect?
Youve been on the net for at least 2 years....You dont know how to use a search engine?
Thats the problem with this forum at the moment, people are jumping all over the way people post instead of what they post..
The fact that I'd never even heard of it till now kind of makes searching for it quite hard. Anyway, that doesn't matter.
The only possible clause in that which might cover a terrorist is prisoner of war. However, by your own classification terrorists are not enemy soldiers. They are civilians with a grudge. As such they cannot be detained by a military authority unless they have been witnessed bearing arms against US troops or military structures.
Until the terrorist does that, his crime, or not-yet a crime is covered by civil law, and not military law.
By detaining him indefenitely, Bush is breaking the law, something which an eagle eyed lawyer will pick up on. Now, I'm not arguing the morality of it, or wether it is right or wrong, but the law is the law. By detaining a civilian, in a military prison, for trial by a judicial system developed for soldiers, deserters and POW's Bush is breaking the law.
This clause alone, would be enough to set the terrorist free and have the case thrown out of court when it comes to trial.
Shut up you twat. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what PACE means? And under what articles people are liable for custodial sentence or community sentence under the CJA, and also what years if you think you can manage it?
No, you can't. There's a difference between not knowing something because you have never heard of it, and not knowing because you're a dumb ass. Which one are you?
Impressive.
*yawn*
Isn't there a pint somewhere, beconning to you?
Oh, I forgot... the line is long, even if undistinguished.
:rolleyes:
Carry on...
So, when I try to find out what something means, and the details of that, which I did, you think it is funnier to simply ignore it all and resort to petty, and quite pathetic insults?
Professional Association of Contract Employees?
or the ASCLS administrative system?
or Parents Advancing Christian Education?
As for UCMJ, it is the military tribunal system and provides the same fundamental legal protections to those tried under it as the civilian tribunal system, and very specifically protects Constitutional rights. In other words, your statement is false and has no bearing on the issue at hand at all.
And how is it you don't know what the UCMJ is but you think you know under what conditions someone can be tried under it? The UCMJ has been found by the US Supreme Court as protecting all essential Constitutional Rights. Your opinion doesn't count. Their opinion does.