[OZZ]

Originally Posted by HappyOldGuy

Okay, I just looked. The book doesn't say one fucking word about any orders from washington. The liberal in question was himself, because he decided not to kill those shepherds,

You are pretty stupid, aren't you?
You know you haven't read the whole book..so why go and pull out a particular quote to try and shoot down an argument? "The book doesn't say...." after reading , what, two pages?
You are an ignoramus.Now I see what everyone else has been saying.I gave you too much credit.
Try reading pgs. 40-44 genius, and the specifications for ROE as per orders from Washington.

[HappyOldGuy]

Originally Posted by OZZ

You are pretty stupid, aren't you?
You know you haven't read the whole book..so why go and pull out a particular quote to try and shoot down an argument? "The book doesn't say...." after reading , what, two pages?
You are an ignoramus.Now I see what everyone else has been saying.I gave you too much credit.
Try reading pgs. 40-44 genius, and the specifications for ROE as per orders from Washington.

Pages 40-44 are freely available on B&N preview and are him reminscing about flying into afghanistan in a c-130. Stop digging yourself in deeper.

http://search2.barnesandnoble.com/Bo...=9780316067591

Anyhow, anybody who wants to read the part you think you are talking about can read it on pg 37, and then the account of the actual incident that you brought up and realize that they have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. The account you were talking about is really tragic, because it is so obviously his own conscience that lets those guys off, and he has to live with that every day.

[Lights Out]

Originally Posted by OZZ

I made it clear I wasn't referring to due process in the traditional sense.

I am making a point about how extrenuating circumstances can make it possible to consider suspending the right's of others an option.

Never mind...

So basically, you admit you brought an example that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Can't blame you, though, I'm all for thread derailing if it raises something interesting.

My beef with "extrenuating circumstances" is that it means jack shit. Extrenuating can be applied to almost anything.

Usually tyrants do not say "we're gonna opress the fuck out of people... and terrorists too, while we're at it".

An example, during Franco's dicatatorship, any sort of political opposition to the regime was considered treachery. The thing is, words like "traitor", "terrorists" and "extrenuating circumstances" can have their meanings expanded to almost whatever stretch the people using it want. And if they get enough support, well, that can lead to pretty fucked up situations.

Excuse me, but I'd rather not give the government more power to forfeit my individual rights, specially those that secure my very basic freedom and form the base of many other rights.