Login to BatWeb
Forgot your password?
BatMUD Forums > Politics > Re: a bit scary as usual
I do woner when ppl will say enough is enough.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=810_1185162314
Criminalzing discontent ftw.
Trandar
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=810_1185162314
Criminalzing discontent ftw.
Trandar
Rating:
-1
Votes:
1
For being a professor, the author of this story about
"criminalizing discontent" sure is stupid. No wonder that no
media ran the story, as it isn't even news.
The executive order states clearly that only people who
"have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq" as well as those
that financially support them are targeted.
While I am certainly no Bush-fan, it is evident that this order
is to ban the material support for people who would go to Iraq
to attack western forces. It has nothing to do with "free speech"
or the antiwar movement, unless the antiwar movement sends
people to commit "acts of violence".
-- Gore
"criminalizing discontent" sure is stupid. No wonder that no
media ran the story, as it isn't even news.
The executive order states clearly that only people who
"have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq" as well as those
that financially support them are targeted.
While I am certainly no Bush-fan, it is evident that this order
is to ban the material support for people who would go to Iraq
to attack western forces. It has nothing to do with "free speech"
or the antiwar movement, unless the antiwar movement sends
people to commit "acts of violence".
-- Gore
Gore wrote:
For being a professor, the author of this story about
"criminalizing discontent" sure is stupid. No wonder that no
media ran the story, as it isn't even news.
The executive order states clearly that only people who
"have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq" as well as those
that financially support them are targeted.
While I am certainly no Bush-fan, it is evident that this order
is to ban the material support for people who would go to Iraq
to attack western forces. It has nothing to do with "free speech"
or the antiwar movement, unless the antiwar movement sends
people to commit "acts of violence".
-- Gore
"criminalizing discontent" sure is stupid. No wonder that no
media ran the story, as it isn't even news.
The executive order states clearly that only people who
"have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq" as well as those
that financially support them are targeted.
While I am certainly no Bush-fan, it is evident that this order
is to ban the material support for people who would go to Iraq
to attack western forces. It has nothing to do with "free speech"
or the antiwar movement, unless the antiwar movement sends
people to commit "acts of violence".
-- Gore
civilian population on a daily basis. The article mentions 'stabilization
efforts'.. what efforts does the government talk about? The starting of a
civil war? The cause of that lies directly on the shoulders of Bush & Co. As
far as iraqis are concerned, the americans are invaders and occupiers, and can
use any means in their possession for fighting the terrorist 'coalition'. Vive
la Résistance!
Rating:
-1
Votes:
1
Obviously my post was not intended to justify the invasion,
which ranks very high on the top of "10 must stupid things
the U.S. has done in the past 100 years" list.
I was merely pointing out that the crackhead professor who
wrote the op-ed piece, was intentionally distorting the
reasoning behind the executive order, and without any logic
somehow extending it to peaceful protestors and the anti-
war movement.
-- Gore
which ranks very high on the top of "10 must stupid things
the U.S. has done in the past 100 years" list.
I was merely pointing out that the crackhead professor who
wrote the op-ed piece, was intentionally distorting the
reasoning behind the executive order, and without any logic
somehow extending it to peaceful protestors and the anti-
war movement.
-- Gore
Quote:
For being a professor, the author of this story about
\"criminalizing discontent\" sure is stupid. No wonder that no
media ran the story, as it isn\'t even news.
The executive order states clearly that only people who
\"have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq\" as well as those
that financially support them are targeted.
While I am certainly no Bush-fan, it is evident that this order
is to ban the material support for people who would go to Iraq
to attack western forces. It has nothing to do with \"free speech\"
or the antiwar movement, unless the antiwar movement sends
people to commit \"acts of violence\".
-- Gore
\"criminalizing discontent\" sure is stupid. No wonder that no
media ran the story, as it isn\'t even news.
The executive order states clearly that only people who
\"have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq\" as well as those
that financially support them are targeted.
While I am certainly no Bush-fan, it is evident that this order
is to ban the material support for people who would go to Iraq
to attack western forces. It has nothing to do with \"free speech\"
or the antiwar movement, unless the antiwar movement sends
people to commit \"acts of violence\".
-- Gore
Iraq.
Its you defining that as vilolence against troops in the field.
and the phrasing
to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
Allso makes me a bit queasy and i know how protesters have been bundled
togheter with terrorists before.
Even here in sweden the laws against terrorists have been used against
demonstators.
Trandar
Quote the whole sentence of the executive order, not just
a part of it - the relevant section goes:
... "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary
of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government
of Iraq; or
(
undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and
political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance
to the Iraqi people;"
So in essence the person would have to have committed or is likely
to commit an act of violence for one of the reasons stated in (A)
or ( in order to be affected by this. Ofcourse, it suits a
leftwing agenda better to just scream bloody murder and forget to
include part of the (i) in the quotes.
-- Gore
a part of it - the relevant section goes:
... "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary
of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government
of Iraq; or
(
undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction andpolitical reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance
to the Iraqi people;"
So in essence the person would have to have committed or is likely
to commit an act of violence for one of the reasons stated in (A)
or (
in order to be affected by this. Ofcourse, it suits aleftwing agenda better to just scream bloody murder and forget to
include part of the (i) in the quotes.
-- Gore
Gore
A r c h w i z a r d
9y, 120d, 11h, 43m, 13s old
Level:
600 [Wizard] Gore wrote:
Quote the whole sentence of the executive order, not just
a part of it - the relevant section goes:
... "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary
of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government
of Iraq; or
( undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and
political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance
to the Iraqi people;"
So in essence the person would have to have committed or is likely
to commit an act of violence for one of the reasons stated in (A)
or ( in order to be affected by this. Ofcourse, it suits a
leftwing agenda better to just scream bloody murder and forget to
include part of the (i) in the quotes.
-- Gore
a part of it - the relevant section goes:
... "any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary
of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing,
an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government
of Iraq; or
(
undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction andpolitical reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance
to the Iraqi people;"
So in essence the person would have to have committed or is likely
to commit an act of violence for one of the reasons stated in (A)
or (
in order to be affected by this. Ofcourse, it suits aleftwing agenda better to just scream bloody murder and forget to
include part of the (i) in the quotes.
-- Gore
administration has a long history of ignoring the law or interpreting it in
the way that they see fit. Therefore I kind of see no point in saying 'the law
says this and not this', because i'm 100% sure that it'll be interpreted as
pertaining to demonstrators etc. when the situation 'demands' it.