Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Targeted assassinations are legitimate when used against terror subjects. For example, Israel's assassination/justified attack on terror mastermind "Sheik" Yassin was so remarkably justified it's not even funny.

---

At 7/13/07 02:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yeah, and you're too stupid to realize that a terrorist group doesn't fill those guidelines.

Cellar-- I really do agree with you, here. Unless:

"Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of War
Art. 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict."--- http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Otherwise, they're terrorists/criminals/whatever you want to call it.

---

-You justify the killing of Al Zarqawi because he resisted arrest.

I did.

-Therefore, if you weren't a total moron who contradicts himself over and over again, you would therefore justify killing of suspected murders in the US if they resist arrest.

Yes. If you attempted to arrest a terror suspect (you know, that thing your supporting NOT doing in place of assassinating them) and he resists arrest, or anytime ANY police officer attempts to arrest a dangerous suspect and he resists, you have the right to kill him. As I have already pointed out, that's not the definition of assassinate.

But you certainly won't will you? Thus showing that you contradict yourself, and that your entire take on this matter is pretty damn stupid. And that's not a scarecrow argument as much as you'll want to pretend it is order to ignore the REALITY of your repeated contradictions.

Actually, the points only contradict your scare-crows.

Haha I love it. Even though I made what YOU KNOW was an entirely legitimate point, you know you can't respond to it without even further making yourself look like a moron, so you refuse to reply with anything other than "scare crow, ad hominem".

No, smart stuff. Scare Crows and Ad Hominems AREN'T legitimate point. Once again: "You are stupid and support Osama Bin Laden". Counter that without pointing out the fact that its a scarecrow and a blatant personal attack.

That shows that you can't argue, that you don't want to respond to something because you know you can't and still perpetuate your stupid stance. That's what it shows.

No, actually. The refusal to get into a flame war doesn't show the lack of ability to debate. It shows that I'm not a troll.

We specifically condemn terrorists, therefore obligating people who conduct terrorism to turn themselves in or face death if they don't.

Not neccesarilly face death; simply get arrested by force. If you somehow manage to survive, you get tried.

Hmm... that must mean that killing other suspected terrorists is the same, thus showing you contradict yourself.

No, it doesn't. Theres a difference between not turning yourself in because your avoiding arrest and not turning yourself in because theres no warrant for your arrest or and you have no way of knowing the governments investigating you.

Yeah and murderers change their identity and get passed cops without admitting who they are. Does that mean to you that they can be killed without a trial and without a ruling of guilty?

You completely skipped the point. Your good at that. Obviously, him being in the custody of Iraqi forces gives him the opportunity to submit himself to authorities. Instead, he lied about his identity.

Hmm? Why can't you answer a simple, entirely applicable question? That's right, because your argument has devolved into a ridiculous charade where once you're incapable of responding to something, and justifying your stupid views, you have to reply with "scare crow".

And what question didn't I respond to?

You can't own up to your stupid views, so you selectively reply to only things that are convenient for you to reply to.

Huh, funny; I've quoted every single thing you've said. YOU'VE quoted every single thing that doesn't directly go against what you say.

Yeah and at the time that was the only thing you said for justifying killing him.

No, I didn't link that with justification for killing him ONCE.

No you didn't.

Yes, I did. It's one of those things you didn't quote.

So everyone who resists arrest should be killed via airstrike huh?

If an air strike is what it takes to kill an arrest resister, then yes.

And you think you haven't contradicted yourself? HAHAHAHAHA you're so full of crap.

Actually, I didn't since once again that's not what an Assassination is. You'd known that if you hadn't not quoted that part of my argument do to it proving you wrong.

In a court? Thus contradicting a contradiction that you made of your previously contradicting statements.

That makes no sense.

Yes and many people have warrants out for their arrest for murder for years. So according to your logic that means you would support killing them. Contradictions abound.

No, because, BUM BUM BUM BUM! That's not the definition of an assassination.

Prove it

"2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war"

There; Geneva just proved that you don't need to belong to a recognized nation to be considered a military. Of course, you'll still argue the point after me having directly offering solid, internationally published evidence. You'll probably accuse Canas of being part of the conspiracy.

Terrorist groups after all are just people with guns and bombs. So does that mean that if you started a militia group with a bunch of your friends, that you'd be entitled to Geneva convention rights? Didn't think so.

If I followed the rules, then yes. Besides, as I already said, for the point of argument I already ceded that Zarqawi's group was considered illegal; that still doesn't change anything. The lack of legal membership to a militia simply barres you from rights given to P.O.W's, not the rights given to average citizens. A right to trial is one of those things regular citizens get.

---

At 7/13/07 02:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I said that your analogy was wacky because you used the existence of parents of terrorists as some way of negating the validity of killing terrorists. Then when I said that, your way of responding was "Of course. Terrorists having parents is wacky"

Actually, all I did was ask how you would feel if your own child was a suspect. That's whats known as a "hypothetical"; a made up event designed to get you to stop being a close minded cunt and think.

You're using the emotional appeal to the feelings of a parent of their child to criticism my view that killing suspected terrorists is a good thing. I never said that I think all suspected terrorists should be killed, I didn't say that they should be killed if they can't be captured easily. I agreed with the German interior minister because I believe that in order for those suspected terrorists to be killed, they must first have sound evidence against them. Just like Al Zarqawi, who was never give a trial or found guilty, was killed.

Except that if you have the ability to secretly search their computers, you have the ability to sent the local PD to arrest and question themselves. And once again, Zarqawi wasn't assassinated; he had the opportunity to surrender.

No, because that's what you did.

Actually, I never claimed the emotions of the terrorists as a reason not to kill them.

You made the issue of killing terrorists for national security, an issue of how the parents of the terrorists would react to it.

No, I didn't.

That's INCREDIBLY STUPID. And since you have so little personal accountability in your argument that when it becomes obvious how stupid your analogy was, you can't actually respond reasonably, you have to say "scare crow".

Because that's what you do when someone makes a scare crow; you say "Thats a scar crow". Obviously you can't defend a point you never made or believed in. So lets turn the tables.

Cellar, you claimed to love Osama Bin Laden. Defend your statement without pointing out the fact that that's a complete and utter scarecrow argument.

Then if you weren't using that as an analogy to apply to this situation (I already said it was inapplicable) then why did you bring it up?

Because the situation isn't as black and white as "everyones guilty".

Oh yeah, that's right, because you're basing your stance on emotion, which you say you're not.

Actually, I'm basing that one using emotion instead of ignoring all the points and resulting to personal attacks.

When there is something that you can't respond to because you know the point I made is entirely sound,

You called me stupid. That's not a "point", thats an Ad Hominem, and therefor impossible to respond to with a logical counter.

you have to entirely avoid replying to it coherently

Because the only "coherent" way to respond is to personally insult you back. And even though you seem to think that's a "logical point", it's not.

and resort to discounting it as "Ad Hominem". Nevermind the FACT that you used an appeal to emotion of a parent having their child killed, in an argument about the rational policy of homeland security.

What? I never claimed that was an Ad Hominem. The part I quoted was clearly the part of you calling me stupid. THAT'S an ad hominem. YOUR full of shit.

We try to arrest every terrorist. Every terrorist is free to turn themselves in, therefore according to you, the fact that they don't means they are resisting arrest, and therefore we can kill them, according to your logic. Thus, for probably the 50th time, you've entirely contradicted yourself considering you said repeatedly that all terrorists have to be given a trial first.

Now your obviously mis-stating my argument. Obviously, if I hold a gun to your head a police has the right to shoot me, even if I didn't get a trial. When you are wanted by the military, you are obligated to submit. If you don't, you are resisting arrest. This means they TRIED to give you a trial, and YOU declined them the ability. Now, that's not the case when you assassinate some guy who isn't wanted, and has no way of knowing he's supposed to turn himself in. In case you didn't realize, Germany keeps list of terrorist suspects private.

Seriously, you're actually entirely aware that your analogy was stupid. You're just continuing to defend it because you're desperate to continue an argument that you already sabotaged with your utter stupidity.

Once again, your magical ability of mind control! No, just kidding; your right. This is all a big conspiracy. Canas is in on this one to. Honestly, the whole idea of you referring to "arguing after you know your wrong" is pathetic after the whole Grammer incident.

No, actually that is what you said.

No, I didn't. Once again, all I said was that Osama was more then a suspect because he admitted it. However, for the umpteenth time, we still give him a trial if he's arrested.

-You think terrorists deserve trials before they can be killed, just like US citizens deserve trials

Before they can be assassinated. Obviously, if they pose an imminent threat then take them out, like (as you put it), "US citizens". I refer again to the gun-to-your-head argument.

---

At 7/13/07 02:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

It's getting a little old. But it's become apparent now what your strategy is. Whenever you can't reply to something that totally refutes things you say. Whenever something is presented to you that you're too stupid or dishonest to reply to, you get yourself out of replying to it by saying "scare crow".

If it's getting old, stop making scare crow arguments. It's that simple.

And you contradicted yourself because you said that his admitting it justifies killing him,

No, I didn't. Let's quote, something you don't seem to be able to do:
"
Yes, he has been proven; he admitted to it. And yes, if we had him imprisoned, it WOULD be illegal to kill him without a trial."

Hey look; it's me SPECIFICALLY stating we couldn't just assassinate him, and would have to give him a trial. In other words, I've remained consistent, you lied the multiple times you claimed I said otherwise, and your arguments a scarecrow.

after you said that all terrorists have to be given trials first. So therefore, if that is your wacky, double-standard, then that must mean that you would think punishing anyone for a crime that they only "admit" to is fine.

Scare-crow-ww-w-w-w.

But you won't say that, therefore you contradict yourself.

Once again; no.

Um yeah you did. So now you're going to contradict yourself yet again and suggest that you wouldn't support killing Osama right now with a laser-guided bomb if we knew where he is? So you're saying that we HAVE TO bring him to court?

Find me a quote. Oh wait; I already did, and it said your wrong.

Yeah you said that because you don't know what you're talking about.

Apparently your the one who doesn't have a clue, as the quote directly refutes your claim.

Osama bin laden has never been proven to be guilty of terrorism in our courts of law. We haven't filled the prerequisite of giving him a trial like you have repeatedly said needs to be done before we can kill terrorists. Therefore he is technically still only a supected terrorists, and he can't be killed according to the guidelines that YOU yourself have said need to be followed before a terrorist can rightfully be killed.

Exactly, WHICH IS WHY I CLAIMED THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE HIM A TRIAL IF WE ARRESTED HIM, AND COULD ONLY KILL IF HE RESISTED. Does the larger letters make it easier to understand?

If that is your take then you would support killing people who run away from cops when they are pursued for murder.

Yes, I do believe that.

But you won't take that stance because you know how stupid it was, and how it shows how stupid your stance about killing terrorists is.

Actually, I do take that stance. And it's not "stupid", it's "Not being soft on crime". If you flee from the police, all bets are fucking off.

And you won't be able to address that either knowing it is entirely shreds your arguments, therefore, as expected, you're going to display more of your shear cowardice and say "Ad hominem" or "scare crow" in response to this.

Actually, I'm going to point out that you didn't manage to prove a single point just now.

What the hell, I'll go on a limb and except that.

Terrorists groups aren't militaries. Why don't you step into the realm of reality and accept that?

I just DID, dipshit. Are you honestly such a fucking troll that you continue to argue with someone even after they agree with you?

Yeah, a terrorist group... not a military you imbecile.

Hmmmm... I'm an imbecile for agreeing with you. Wouldn't that make you an imbecile too?

No, it would make you a troll, who argues for the sake of arguing instead of because he honestly thinks he's right.

Doesn't matter. Terrorists groups such as were lead by Zarqawi are NOT military groups.

I know. I already ceeded that point to you. Remember? Or where you to lost up making personal attacks to notice?

Those aren't required to be considered a military group. But what the hell, I'll even go out on another limb and say sure, they where Unlawful Combatants, as that still doesn't change anything.

Actually it does, because you just said that Al Zarqawi was the member of a military, when in fact, he was an unlawful combatant who was the head of a non-military, terrorist group that belonged to no country.

I would still say that he was the leader of a military, but from a purely Geneva standpoint, sure, he would be considered an Illegal combatant, not a legal one. However, that still doesn't remove his right to trial.

Yeah, and you're too stupid to realize that a terrorist group doesn't fill those guidelines.

Actually, I once again said that indeed, a terrorist group wasn't a military. This simply shows your a troll; you continue to argue and insult, even if you agree with what their saying; I know you agreed with what I said, since I agreed with you. The only way I could be in the wrong here is if you didn't even believe what you yourself said, which wouldn't insult me.

---

Cellardoor:
The first thing you need to think about is that these people are just suspects. That doesn't automatically make them guilty. Actually, for example, in Europe, muslims stood for the majority of terrorist SUSPECTS during 2006, while only one attempted terrorist attack was islamic in nature of the 498 terror attacks in Europe during the time (Source: Europol). That, if anything, proves that many people wasn't guilty while being suspects.
Second, why just terrorists? Terrorism is the use of violence or threat of violence with a political purpose without respect for, or targeted at, civilians. So it's political violence versus civilians, and with that in mind, what makes non-political violence so much better? If it isn't, wouldn't it be okay to assassinate everyone suspected of any violent crime?
Third, as the saying goes (at least here in sweden), "One mans terrorist, the other mans freedom fighter". The view of what is a terrorist can be very different, and to give the executive powers the right to decide who's guilty and not, is not democratic.
Fourth, you are aware that the only country found guilty of the crimes that are terrorism in the war tribunal of Haag is the US, right? That would mean even BEFORE you were found guilty, it would had been okay to assassinate the U.S. government.
Fifth, it has been shown over and over again that meeting political violence with violence only increases it.

---

At 7/13/07 02:42 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 7/13/07 02:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yeah, and you're too stupid to realize that a terrorist group doesn't fill those guidelines.

Cellar-- I really do agree with you, here. Unless:

"Section II. Combatants and Prisoners of War
Art. 43. Armed forces

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict."--- http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Otherwise, they're terrorists/criminals/whatever you want to call it.

You just love to use links and claim they mean something they don't, don't you? You do it all the time.

Terrorists are unlawful combatants, this is a term that the US has used to describe people that, within the outlines of the geneva contention, do not fit this criteria of a prisoner of war and are therefore ineligible for trial, or release after a conflict such as a POW is:

Article 4
1. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Now, to elaborate on this.

Who is entitled to "prisoner of war" status? What is the consequence of failure to qualify for prisoner of war status?

a. In international armed conflict

As previously mentioned, in international armed conflict, members of the armed forces of the States involved (and associated militias) are lawful combatants. It should be borne in mind that in this type of conflict, there are lawful combatants on two (or more) sides: the armed forces of one State fighting the armed forces of another State.

The four Geneva Conventions apply to situations of international armed conflict. It is the Third Geneva Convention which regulates the protection of lawful combatants upon capture by the enemy. Its procedures for determination of entitlement to prisoner of war status by a "competent tribunal" in case of doubt are mandatory.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status.

Terrorists are unlawful combatants, they are not prisoners of war according to the geneva convention.

---

Since I'm bored of this argument, I'm going to resort to how Cuppa-LettuceNog deals with arguments.

IAt 7/13/07 02:50 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

Actually, all I did was ask how you would feel if your own child was a suspect. That's whats known as a "hypothetical"; a made up event designed to get you to stop being a close minded cunt and think.

Scarecrow.

Except that if you have the ability to secretly search their computers, you have the ability to sent the local PD to arrest and question themselves. And once again, Zarqawi wasn't assassinated; he had the opportunity to surrender.

That's a scarecrow.

No, because that's what you did.

Actually, I never claimed the emotions of the terrorists as a reason not to kill them.

That's a scarecrow

No, I didn't.

Scarecrow

Because that's what you do when someone makes a scare crow; you say "Thats a scar crow". Obviously you can't defend a point you never made or believed in. So lets turn the tables.

Scarey scarecrow

Cellar, you claimed to love Osama Bin Laden. Defend your statement without pointing out the fact that that's a complete and utter scarecrow argument.

Not as big as your scarecrow argument you're using right now, you scarecrow.

Actually, I'm basing that one using emotion instead of ignoring all the points and resulting to personal attacks.

That's a scarecrow, ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi, logical fallacy. I don't have to respond, because I'm Cuppa-lettuceNog.

In fact, I think that I don't actually have to respond reasonably to anything you say since I'm cuppa lettuce, everything you say is scarecrow, you scary, scarecrowish, scarecrow-ing, scarecrow man!

SCARECROW Hahahahah. It's fun when you can entirely avoid responding to things when its inconvenient and just say "scarecrow"

Oh and by the way:

I know. I already ceeded that point to you. Remember? Or where you to lost up making personal attacks to notice?

You know what I have to say about that, now that I'm behaving like you?

---

At 7/13/07 04:59 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You just love to use links and claim they mean something they don't, don't you? You do it all the time.

Of course; the link doesn't prove your own point, so it doesn't mean anything.

Terrorists are unlawful combatants, this is a term that the US has used to describe people that, within the outlines of the geneva contention, do not fit this criteria of a prisoner of war and are therefore ineligible for trial, or release after a conflict such as a POW is:

Actually, funny fact; not Legal Combatants (E.G Unlawful Combatants) still have the right to trial. They simply do not share the rights of a P.O.W.

Unlawful combatants do not qualify for prisoner of war status.

Your right.

Terrorists are unlawful combatants, they are not prisoners of war according to the geneva convention.

Yepps.

---

At 7/13/07 05:16 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Scarecrow.

Funny; I never claimed you said anything in that quoted section, regardless of whether you did or not. In other words, thats a physical impossibility for that to be a scarecrow.

That's a scarecrow

I never claimed you said anything in that quoted section, regardless of whether you did or not. In other words, thats a physical impossibility for that to be a scarecrow.

Scarey scarecrow

I never claimed you said anything in that quoted section, regardless of whether you did or not. In other words, thats a physical impossibility for that to be a scarecrow.

Not as big as your scarecrow argument you're using right now, you scarecrow.

Exactly. What I just said WAS a scarecrow. Meaning that by using the term "scare crow", you've effectively disproved the notion that you love Osama, because you never said that.

That's a scarecrow, ad hominem, ignoratio elenchi, logical fallacy. I don't have to respond, because I'm Cuppa-lettuceNog.

Funny; I never A) claim you said anything, B) Insulted you personally, Or B) Used any points to justify a conclusion incorrectly.

You know what I have to say about that, now that I'm behaving like you?

Oh, so you deny having personally insulting me?

It's funny, you've been completely proven wrong, and now your just embarressing yourself. After spouting off time after time after time about how I was a "hypocrite" and a "fucking idiot" because I claimed that it would be OK to assassinate Osama, then when I reposted the quote which SPECIFICALLY say's we would need to give him a trial, your completely in-able to respond. This doesn't surprise me, as it's not the first time; I made a bunch of other points proving you wrong, and since they where non refutable , you simply didn't quote them and hoped I would forget. Did you think I wouldn't notice you were leaving out chunks of my posts, the chunks that offer undeniable evidence you were wrong?

---

At 7/13/07 07:40 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: It's funny, you've been completely proven wrong

Proven wrong? Where was I proven wrong? Last time I checked this whole argument revolved pretty much around our personal opinions about the issue, dominated mostly by you contradicting yourself, me saying you contradicted yourself, and you saying you didn't, while contradicting yourself some more.

It's cute though, that you think you won an argument based around personal views.

---

At 7/13/07 09:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Proven wrong? Where was I proven wrong? Last time I checked this whole argument revolved pretty much around our personal opinions about the issue, dominated mostly by you contradicting yourself, me saying you contradicted yourself, and you saying you didn't, while contradicting yourself some more.
It's cute though, that you think you won an argument based around personal views.

It's not an "opinion". It's a fact that you spouted out, over and over again, about a dozen times, that I claimed it would be legal to kill Osama because he admitted guilt. I proved that incorrect by quoting the post in question, in which I say "Yes, he has been proven; he admitted to it. And yes, if we had him imprisoned, it WOULD be illegal to kill him without a trial.". See? I maintained it would be illegal to assassinate him if he was arrested, and never claimed other wise. Oh, and the fact that I refuted your definition of Assassination, you claimed I was incorrect. I then said I had three seperate dictionary entries backing me up, opposed to your zero, at which point you just glossed over that part the next time you quoted me. On a separate not, You also glossed over the fact that Zarqawi could have been assassinated before the Iraq, and the fact that Zarqawi was given medical help by U.S forces after the bombing. Oh, and the fact that you insulted my opinions and called me stupid for holding them, even though they were points YOU said, and I was simply confirming as correct, hence proving your a troll.

---

A terrorist isn't like any type of enemy that the average westerner has ever heard of, or known historically about dealing with.

It's not somone who's following orders from another countries leader

it's not somone who works in a standing army

it's not somone who broke the law for material gain

it's not somone who will stop fighting if a law is changed [Depending on the terrorist this might proove untrue]

It's somone who kills for the sake of killing as many people as humanly possible before dying himself; [A rather noble prospect being that much of the terrorism is being done for religous purposes which thus entails the prospect of a glorious afterlife]

I might make a thread on this particular concept but i probably will only get 2 readers. Terrorism occured in the world at the wrong time; We had just started getting used to Tollerance and the idea of 'It's wrong to kill' Something that's clearly usefull when There's a mutual desire to not want to kill.

Unfortunatly, the concept of terrorism is; as i explained, getting a message across to the government by killing as many citizens as possible with the ending of death and the 42 promised virgins. It's not something that can be easilly combated with if you're incapable of Lowering your newly aquired insticts of mercy and tollerance.

---

At 7/13/07 09:48 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/13/07 09:31 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Proven wrong? Where was I proven wrong? Last time I checked this whole argument revolved pretty much around our personal opinions about the issue, dominated mostly by you contradicting yourself, me saying you contradicted yourself, and you saying you didn't, while contradicting yourself some more.
It's cute though, that you think you won an argument based around personal views.

It's not an "opinion". It's a fact that you spouted out, over and over again, about a dozen times, that I claimed it would be legal to kill Osama because he admitted guilt.

You did say that.

At 7/12/07 01:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Osama Bin Laden hasn't been proven or formally charged. So according to you it would be wrong to kill him when we get the chance right, it would be a totally "terrible idea" right?

Yes, he has been proven; he admitted to it.

See this is where it becomes debatable what you meant because your "yes" doesn't go along with the context of the question when you consider that you said "He has been proven; he addmitted it" right after.

I asked if it would be a terrible idea, you said "yes" and then went on to say that hes been proven to be a terrorist because he admitted it, as if that was evidence enough to kill him, which contradicts what you've said in response to my question:

And you're suggesting that in a war against terrorism, every body, every where suspected of terrorism has to first be deemed guilty in a court of law before authorities can act against them?

Yes, as per the law.

Thus you contradicted yourself. I don't understand how the FUCK you can't see that. You said that EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, suspected of terrorism has to first be deemed guiltly in a court of law before authorityies can act against them. Thus meaning, Osama Bin Laden, who HAS NOT been to court, has NOT been found guiltly of terrorism, can't be justifiably killed according to WHAT YOU SAID.

Get a fucking glimpse of reality. You contradicted yourself.

Oh, and the fact that I refuted your definition of Assassination, you claimed I was incorrect.

Nomenclature. You used one single take on the definition of assassination. Extrajudicial, targetted killings of militant leaders, outside of the heat of battle, are considered to be "selective assassination". The term was coined as "assassination policy" to describe Israel's policy of killing Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, it was considered "assassinating terrorists". Similar to how we killed Zarqawi, hence, assassination can be used to describe the act.

Regardless, that wasn't even the point of debate, and you providing a link that showed my use of the word didn't fit the letter of definition (even though my use of the word was reasonable) didn't "prove" me wrong in the actual debate, considering the debate consisted of 99% opinion.

---

To make the fact you contradicted yourself more easy to follow, I'm posting the quotes again because in the last post I didn't organize it very well:

At 7/12/07 01:25 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 01:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Osama Bin Laden hasn't been proven or formally charged. So according to you it would be wrong to kill him when we get the chance right, it would be a totally "terrible idea" right?

Yes, he has been proven; he admitted to it.

At 7/12/07 05:01 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Except that I didn't support the Extra-judicial killings of Osama, and we ATTEMPTED to detain Al Zarqawi.

Hmm, killing Osama without him being found guilty in a court of law is an extrajudicial killing. But we "attempted" to detain Al Zarqawi, so that's not an extrajudicial killing either, even though they weren't found guilty in a court of law?

At 7/12/07 02:54 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 02:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yes and all terrorists everywhere have every opportunity to submit themselves to the US, and yet they aren't doing so... so that means we can kill them all right?

Yes, all listed terrorist. If you are listed as wanted by the U.S, we have the right to arrest you, or kill you if you resist.

At 7/12/07 02:31 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 01:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And you're suggesting that in a war against terrorism, every body, every where suspected of terrorism has to first be deemed guilty in a court of law before authorities can act against them?

Yes, as per the law.

BAM!

Contradiction. You supported the killing of Al Zarqawi because he resisted detainment. But you've said that EVERYONE suspected of terrorism EVERYWHERE has to be deamed guilty in a COURT OF LAW, FIRST, before authorities can act against them.

Was Zarqawi found guilty in a court of law? No?

CONTRADICTION.

---

At 7/13/07 10:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You did say that.

No. Once again, "it WOULD be illegal to kill him without a trial".

See this is where it becomes debatable what you meant because your "yes" doesn't go along with the context of the question when you consider that you said "He has been proven; he addmitted it" right after.

I meant that "Yes", as in confirming the fact the fact that he was found guilty. The only other possible explanation was that I was saying "yes" to your statement that it would be bad to kill Osama without a trial. Either way, I'm right.

I asked if it would be a terrible idea, you said "yes" and then went on to say that hes been proven to be a terrorist because he admitted it, as if that was evidence enough to kill him, which contradicts what you've said in response to my question:

Except that I specifically stated that we couldn't kill him.

Thus you contradicted yourself. I don't understand how the FUCK you can't see that. You said that EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, suspected of terrorism has to first be deemed guiltly in a court of law before authorityies can act against them. Thus meaning, Osama Bin Laden, who HAS NOT been to court, has NOT been found guiltly of terrorism, can't be justifiably killed according to WHAT YOU SAID.
Get a fucking glimpse of reality. You contradicted yourself.

Once again; we could only kill him IF HE RESISTS ARREST. Do you need me to quote it again? I claimed we had to legally charge him if we can. However, I went on the state that in reality, he WILL resist arrest, so he WILL get shot. Once again; If I'm wanted for murder, I must be given a trial before executed. However, if I have a gun to a cops head, he can fire back.

Nomenclature. You used one single take on the definition of assassination. Extrajudicial, targetted killings of militant leaders, outside of the heat of battle, are considered to be "selective assassination".

One selected take? I used the definition of 3 separate dictionaries to back myself up, and could find NONE to back you up.

The term was coined as "assassination policy" to describe Israel's policy of killing Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, it was considered "assassinating terrorists". Similar to how we killed Zarqawi, hence, assassination can be used to describe the act.

Except that Isreal really DID assassinate by the definition I offered.

Regardless, that wasn't even the point of debate, and you providing a link that showed my use of the word didn't fit the letter of definition (even though my use of the word was reasonable) didn't "prove" me wrong in the actual debate, considering the debate consisted of 99% opinion.

Yes, it did "prove" your point wrong. You contended that it was hypocritical to be against the German ministers proposal but for killing Zarqawi. This is not so, as Zarqawi wasn't assassinated. That's like saying that it's hypocritical to be against terrorist bombings, but for the death sentence. They are both COMPLETELY different.

---

At 7/13/07 10:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Ignoratio elenchi. The assertion "Osama is guilty" is NOT the same as "Osama is legally entitled to die".

Hmm, killing Osama without him being found guilty in a court of law is an extrajudicial killing.

Yes. And I specifically stated I was against killing him.

But we "attempted" to detain Al Zarqawi, so that's not an extrajudicial killing either, even though they weren't found guilty in a court of law?

Because he resisted. No more then its an "extrajudicial killing" when a police officer shoots a guy with a gun. When you are resisting a rest and posing a threat, its an authorities job to eliminate that threat, and sometimes that requires force. Thats just the basics of making an arrest. Theres still a difference between killing someone for resisting arrest and assassinating.

BAM!

Contradiction. You supported the killing of Al Zarqawi because he resisted detainment. But you've said that EVERYONE suspected of terrorism EVERYWHERE has to be deamed guilty in a COURT OF LAW, FIRST, before authorities can act against them.

Yes, and obviously that is the exception of people who are posing a risk to the safety of others. I felt you'd be smart enough to make that distinction; I apparently was wrong.

Was Zarqawi found guilty in a court of law? No?

We tried to find him guilty. He simply made that impossible for himself. So let me modify the argument so you can no longer deal in semantics; we don't have to give terrorists trials, we only have to do every single thing within our power to give them trials, so long as it doesn't endanger anyones life (e,g, sending a marine into a cave full of terrorists to try and hand-cuff them). If a terrorist simply makes it impossible for a trial, then we have to keep trying. However, if he also forces us to kill him whilst we are trying to give him a trial, that's his fault. If a man's awaiting trial, but is shot dead by police when he pulls a knife on one, he wasn't "denied" a trial. He voluntarily gave it up.

---

Oh, and I like how after specifically stating that you keep leaving out pieces of damning quotes, and after you SPECIFICALLY responding to it, your STILL doing it. After the multiple times of mentioning the previous possibilities for assassination and the medical care given to Zarqawi by U.S personell, you STILL haven't responding. Well, now I'm forcing you too, since we both know that not replying to this would make you look like a total ass.

---

At 7/14/07 12:48 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/13/07 10:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You did say that.

No. Once again, "it WOULD be illegal to kill him without a trial".

Which you said AFTER "he admitted it" as if that means anything.

See this is where it becomes debatable what you meant because your "yes" doesn't go along with the context of the question when you consider that you said "He has been proven; he addmitted it" right after.

I meant that "Yes", as in confirming the fact the fact that he was found guilty.

Who was "found guilty" in a court of law?

Hmm I thought that's where you find people guilty, in court. I didn't know that "admitting" or being on a wanted list replaces the ruling of a court, but obviously it does within the confines of your contradictory, pathetic logic that you use.

The only other possible explanation was that I was saying "yes" to your statement that it would be bad to kill Osama without a trial.

Which would be odd considering after you said "yes" you said what would normally be used as justification for killing him, "he was proved, he admitted it"

Either way, I'm right.

Actually either way, you're wrong. And you are wrong right now for suggesting you aren't wrong.

I asked if it would be a terrible idea, you said "yes" and then went on to say that hes been proven to be a terrorist because he admitted it, as if that was evidence enough to kill him, which contradicts what you've said in response to my question:

Except that I specifically stated that we couldn't kill him.

And now you're contradicting yourself again. So now we CAN'T kill him?

HAHAHAHAHAHA, please tell me you're joking there Captain Contradiction, you contradict yourself again by now saying that you stated "we couldn't kill him" even though you've repeatedly said we could kill him because he resisted arrest, and because hes on a wanted list, that we have the right to kill people on our wanted list that resist arrest.

CONTRADICTION.

Once again; we could only kill him IF HE RESISTS ARREST.

Which contradicts what you JUST said, which in turn contradicted what you said before.

Do you need me to quote it again?

No, but I think I need to quote you again, seeing as how you ignored the proof I provided, via your own quotes. You're so pathetic you try and play off the fact that you contradicted yourself by, guess what, contradicting yourself yet again.

At 7/12/07 02:31 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 01:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And you're suggesting that in a war against terrorism, every body, every where suspected of terrorism has to first be deemed guilty in a court of law before authorities can act against them?

Yes, as per the law.

Hmm...

I claimed we had to legally charge him if we can.

After you said that we have to find terrorists GUILTY in a court of law before we can act against them....

CONTRADICTION.

Nomenclature. You used one single take on the definition of assassination. Extrajudicial, targetted killings of militant leaders, outside of the heat of battle, are considered to be "selective assassination".

One selected take? I used the definition of 3 separate dictionaries to back myself up, and could find NONE to back you up.

Yeah, YOU couldn't find it, because well, YOU don't do anything right.

The term was coined as "assassination policy" to describe Israel's policy of killing Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, it was considered "assassinating terrorists". Similar to how we killed Zarqawi, hence, assassination can be used to describe the act.

Except that Isreal really DID assassinate by the definition I offered.

Terrorist leaders! Just like we killed Al Zarqawi, a terrorist leader! So if people applied the same standard to us, then our killing of Zarqawi could be considered assassination, and our policy of killing people in a similar situation to be a "assassination policy".

Regardless, that wasn't even the point of debate, and you providing a link that showed my use of the word didn't fit the letter of definition (even though my use of the word was reasonable) didn't "prove" me wrong in the actual debate, considering the debate consisted of 99% opinion.

Yes, it did "prove" your point wrong.

Actually it didn't, as I proved with my last post.

You contended that it was hypocritical to be against the German ministers proposal but for killing Zarqawi.

No I PROVED that you're a hypocrite for supporting the extrajudicial killing of Al Zarqawi, all while having repeatedly said that all terrorist suspects have to be found guilty in a court of law, after a trial.

Now, let's RECAP your contradictions

At 7/12/07 02:54 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 02:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yes and all terrorists everywhere have every opportunity to submit themselves to the US, and yet they aren't doing so... so that means we can kill them all right?

Yes, all listed terrorist. If you are listed as wanted by the U.S, we have the right to arrest you, or kill you if you resist.

Here you say we have the right to kill terrorists if they resist arrest, even though they haven't been in court, haven't been given a trial, and haven't been found guilty of terrorism. You used this to justify killing Al Zarqawi and the effort of Osama bin laden.

At 7/12/07 02:31 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 01:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And you're suggesting that in a war against terrorism, every body, every where suspected of terrorism has to first be deemed guilty in a court of law before authorities can act against them?

Yes, as per the law.

Here you say that all suspected terrorists have to go through court, be given a trial, and be found guilty in order for us to act against them. You used this to criticize my agreement with the German interior minister that Germany should have the right to kill suspected terrorists.

So you contradicted yourself, you taint your original arguments in order to perpetuate a faulty argument.

Good job there, Captain Contradictions.

---

HAhahaha you're so fucking dishonest. What you just said means NOTHING. YOU said that Osama could be killed.

Yet you have repeatedly said that all terrorists have to be found guilty in court first.

Captain Contradictions, to the rescue of his dying argument!

At 7/12/07 02:54 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 02:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yes and all terrorists everywhere have every opportunity to submit themselves to the US, and yet they aren't doing so... so that means we can kill them all right?

Yes, all listed terrorist. If you are listed as wanted by the U.S, we have the right to arrest you, or kill you if you resist.

Then.

At 7/12/07 02:31 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 01:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And you're suggesting that in a war against terrorism, every body, every where suspected of terrorism has to first be deemed guilty in a court of law before authorities can act against them?

Yes, as per the law.

Now:

At 7/14/07 12:58 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Ignoratio elenchi. The assertion "Osama is guilty" is NOT the same as "Osama is legally entitled to die".

HAHAHAHAHA

And you're the one who accuses people of resorting to semantics? HAHAHA

---

At 7/14/07 01:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Here you say we have the right to kill terrorists if they resist arrest, even though they haven't been in court, haven't been given a trial, and haven't been found guilty of terrorism. You used this to justify killing Al Zarqawi and the effort of Osama bin laden.

Here you say that all suspected terrorists have to go through court, be given a trial, and be found guilty in order for us to act against them. You used this to criticize my agreement with the German interior minister that Germany should have the right to kill suspected terrorists.

This isn't necessarily a contradiction, if and only if he's saying that assassinations aren't justified due to the lack of formal proceedings.

I think this is probably really a debate over the meaning of the term "suspects"

This is why in a debate, we should try to cover our asses by not using words like "all," "none," "always," "never," or "oil-based paint"

---

At 7/14/07 01:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Which you said AFTER "he admitted it" as if that means anything.

Which changes nothing.

Who was "found guilty" in a court of law?

Once again, scarecrow. I never said anything about a court of law, and you can't prove otherwise. I simply said he was guilty; once again, not mentioning court.

Hmm I thought that's where you find people guilty, in court. I didn't know that "admitting" or being on a wanted list replaces the ruling of a court, but obviously it does within the confines of your contradictory, pathetic logic that you use.

Except that I never once DID use that logic. That's why it's a scarecrow.

Which would be odd considering after you said "yes" you said what would normally be used as justification for killing him, "he was proved, he admitted it"

But I DIDN'T use that as justification for killing him, regardless of what people would "normally" do. I didn't use it to justify anything. I only used it to show that he was more then merely a suspect.

Actually either way, you're wrong. And you are wrong right now for suggesting you aren't wrong.

So; I'm wrong when I said he was guilty? So your saying he's innocent? So your saying you love Al Quida? Terrorist asshole.

(See, it's fun when others use scarecrows and ad hominems too)

And now you're contradicting yourself again. So now we CAN'T kill him?

If we arrest him, no. Only if he resists.

HAHAHAHAHAHA, please tell me you're joking there Captain Contradiction, you contradict yourself again by now saying that you stated "we couldn't kill him" even though you've repeatedly said we could kill him because he resisted arrest, and because hes on a wanted list, that we have the right to kill people on our wanted list that resist arrest.

CONTRADICTION.

Let's take a look at the facts. I claimed;
A) If he's arrested or otherwise in our control, he needs a trial.
B) If he's resisting, he needs to be shot. If he survives, and is taken to a hospital or some other facility in our control, and we have him, we need to give him a trial.

I've remained consistent on these points the entire thread.

Which contradicts what you JUST said, which in turn contradicted what you said before.

Only if you use scarecrows and ignore all sense of context.

Yes, as per the law.

Obviously barring instances of resisted arrest.

I claimed we had to legally charge him if we can.

After you said that we have to find terrorists GUILTY in a court of law before we can act against them....
CONTRADICTION.

What the fuck are you talking about? Finding someone guilty is what you DO when you charge them. You just quoted me saying the exact same thing in different words; we need to put him in court before executing him.

Yeah, YOU couldn't find it, because well, YOU don't do anything right.

Nice way of completely skirting the points that
A) I can find 3 to back me up, and
B) You have yet to give a single dictionary that backs you up.

Terrorist leaders!

Yes. By the definition I offered, they assassinated Terrorist leaders.

Just like we killed Al Zarqawi, a terrorist leader!

No. Once again, by the definition I offered, we did NOT assassinate Zarqawi.

So if people applied the same standard to us, then our killing of Zarqawi could be considered assassination,

Only if you disregard the definition of assassination.

and our policy of killing people in a similar situation to be a "assassination policy".

No. If someone runs from the police, it's not an assassination.

Actually it didn't, as I proved with my last post.

No, you didn't. You never disproved my definition of Assassinate, nor prove your own.

No I PROVED that you're a hypocrite for supporting the extrajudicial killing of Al Zarqawi,

Except, once again, that was bagging someone who resisted arrest, NOT an extrajudicial punishment.

all while having repeatedly said that all terrorist suspects have to be found guilty in a court of law, after a trial.

If they are to be assassinated, yes.

Here you say we have the right to kill terrorists if they resist arrest, even though they haven't been in court, haven't been given a trial, and haven't been found guilty of terrorism. You used this to justify killing Al Zarqawi and the effort of Osama bin laden.

Once again; if you pull a knife on a cop, he can shoot you. That isn't extrajudicial.

Here you say that all suspected terrorists have to go through court, be given a trial, and be found guilty in order for us to act against them. You used this to criticize my agreement with the German interior minister that Germany should have the right to kill suspected terrorists.

You seem to miss "as per the law". Legally, you need to give them a trial. Legally, if they resist, you can shoot them. That's completely legal, the very opposite of extrajudicial.

So you contradicted yourself, you taint your original arguments in order to perpetuate a faulty argument.

Only if you ignore context.
\

Good job there, Captain Contradictions.

No problem, Troll.

---

At 7/14/07 01:28 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/14/07 01:11 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Which you said AFTER "he admitted it" as if that means anything.

Which changes nothing.

Yeah, it doesn't change the fact that you contradict yourself and your whole argument is based on disregarding what you already said, and denying all facts, just evolving as you go along to perpetuate the argument you already lost.

Who was "found guilty" in a court of law?

Once again, scarecrow. I never said anything about a court of law, and you can't prove otherwise.

Hahahaha yeah you did:

At 7/12/07 02:31 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 7/12/07 01:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And you're suggesting that in a war against terrorism, every body, every where suspected of terrorism has to first be deemed guilty in a court of law before authorities can act against them?

Yes, as per the law.

Hmm...?

I simply said he was guilty; once again, not mentioning court.

He wasn't proven to be guilty.

Hmm I thought that's where you find people guilty, in court. I didn't know that "admitting" or being on a wanted list replaces the ruling of a court, but obviously it does within the confines of your contradictory, pathetic logic that you use.

Except that I never once DID use that logic. That's why it's a scarecrow.

Yeah you did, you used that logic to defend killing Osama Bin Laden even though he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law:

At 7/12/07 02:31 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

You know, Osama Bin laden is a "suspected" terrorist right? He has not been formally charged in a court of law, there has been no court ruling on his guilt, nobody has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Except that he admitted it.

Hmm...

Which would be odd considering after you said "yes" you said what would normally be used as justification for killing him, "he was proved, he admitted it"

But I DIDN'T use that as justification for killing him, regardless of what people would "normally" do. I didn't use it to justify anything. I only used it to show that he was more then merely a suspect.

Oh I see where you're going with it, you're now disowning things you said before by pretending the things you said were only additions to the argument, that the reason you said it had nothing to do with the fact that you were replying to an analogy, in which I was having you own up to your criticism of killing suspects, vs. your support for killing OTHER more prominent suspects.

Osama Bin Laden hasn't been proven to be guilty of the terrorist attacks we are trying to kill him for. There has been no court ruling finding that Bin laden was behind 9/11, he hasn't been put to trial, he hasn't been given the rights that YOU YOURSELF said needed to be given to suspected terrorists before we could act against them..

Therefore you contradicted yourself, by supporting killing Bin Laden and Zarqawi, while being dumb enough to criticize ME for supporting killing other suspected terrorists.

Actually either way, you're wrong. And you are wrong right now for suggesting you aren't wrong.

So; I'm wrong when I said he was guilty?

That wasn't the point of discussion an d you know it you deceitful idiot. You're wrong because you said he was proven guilty.

So your saying he's innocent?

Nope, I think he's guilty. But that's not the point of debate like you're trying to make it appear you disingenuous dipshit. You said that all terrorists have to be found guilty after a trial, in a court of law, before they can be killed. But then when i created the analogy of the question of terrorists like Bin Laden, you said "he admitted it" as if that was proof that can replace the ruling of a court, and therefore justify killing him. And now, instead of addressing the context, you have to make it about whether or not you and I think he is guilty.

And then you had to get even MORE pathetic by saying:

So your saying you love Al Quida? Terrorist asshole

Good job, you're making it obvious you KNOW you're wrong and I'm right when you have to say stupid shit like that.

(See, it's fun when others use scarecrows and ad hominems too)

Funny, you're the only person doing such a thing.

If we arrest him, no. Only if he resists.

Contradiction of previous statements you've made.

---

I've remained consistent on these points the entire thread.

HAHAHAHA no you have not. And funny, now that your contradictions have been PROVED via YOUR OWN QUOTES, you entirely fail to address them and selectively reply only other things.

Which contradicts what you JUST said, which in turn contradicted what you said before.

Only if you use scarecrows and ignore all sense of context.

No, actually it always contradicts what you say because YOU use scarecrows, YOU ignore the context of the situation.

Yes, as per the law.

Obviously barring instances of resisted arrest.

Obviously not what you said originally, which contradicted what you said, contradicting what you say now, contradiction after contradiction, after contradiction... and so on.

I claimed we had to legally charge him if we can.

After you said that we have to find terrorists GUILTY in a court of law before we can act against them....
CONTRADICTION.

What the fuck are you talking about? Finding someone guilty is what you DO when you charge them.

Yeah, and you said that this needed to be done before you can act against a terrorist, after having said that we can kill Osama and Zarqawi even though they haven't been in court.

You just quoted me saying the exact same thing in different words; we need to put him in court before executing him.

And now you're using "executing" like the dishonest moron that you are in order to ignore your contradiction when we were talking about "KILLING" people, not "executing" which are two different meanings. Wow, you have NO sense of integrity, your whole argument consists of the dishonest distortion of anything you can find to distort.

Yeah, YOU couldn't find it, because well, YOU don't do anything right.

Nice way of completely skirting the points that
A) I can find 3 to back me up, and

And I found a whole slew of links showing my use of the word assassination was entirely reasonable and applicable.

B) You have yet to give a single dictionary that backs you up.

I found links showing that the use of the word assassination CAN and IS used to describe the targeting killing of terrorist leaders. Therefore my use of the word assassination to describe the killing of Zarqawi was entirely reasonable, and accurate because not every word has to be used to the letter of its definition. Nomenclature evolves, that is the dictionary changes every year.

YOU KNOW that my use of the word assassination was proper.

But hey, if you want to pretend that no word can be used unless the dictionary describes it as used exactly that way... go find an actual dictionary entry where the word "dope" and "ill" are used as a positive to describe something that is agreeable to the speaker, like those terms are USED.

Terrorist leaders!

Yes. By the definition I offered, they assassinated Terrorist leaders.

And so, by the use of the term as shown by the link I offered, the death of Al Zarqawi could be similarly referred to as an 'assassination' as part of an "assassination policy" where terrorist leaders are killed in targeted killings.

Just like we killed Al Zarqawi, a terrorist leader!

No. Once again, by the definition I offered, we did NOT assassinate Zarqawi.

Yes, and the fact that the definition you used doesn't include it, doesn't mean that we didn't assassinate Zarqawi.

So if people applied the same standard to us, then our killing of Zarqawi could be considered assassination,

Only if you disregard the definition of assassination.

Only if you disregard the little fact about language in which words evolve, their meanings can be applied to things not explicitly referred to in the dictionary etc...

and our policy of killing people in a similar situation to be a "assassination policy".

No. If someone runs from the police, it's not an assassination.

If US forces kill a terrorist leader in a targeted strike, even though that terrorist was actively evading capture, it's still an assassination.

No I PROVED that you're a hypocrite for supporting the extrajudicial killing of Al Zarqawi,

Except, once again, that was bagging someone who resisted arrest, NOT an extrajudicial punishment.

Extrajudicial

1. Outside of the authority of a court.
2. Outside of the usual judicial proceedings

You supported the extrajudicial killing, of Al Zarqawi, who wasn't given a trial, didn't go through trial, and did not have a judicial ruling against him finding him guilty of the acts that were the pretext of his death.

Therefore, you are a HYPOCRITE for supporting his killing, yet criticizing me for supporting the proposition of a policy in Germany which would allow them to kill terrorists, just like Al Zarqawi, who have not been given a trial, or a ruling of guilt.

And you CONTRADICT yourself also, because you had previously SPECIFICALLY stated that ALL terrorist suspects, EVERYWHERE, must first be given trial and be found guilty before we can act against them.

You're not only a hypocrite, but you contradict yourself as you go along, in order to ease and minimize the damage done to your flawed arguments, and your pathetic little ego.

Here you say we have the right to kill terrorists if they resist arrest, even though they haven't been in court, haven't been given a trial, and haven't been found guilty of terrorism. You used this to justify killing Al Zarqawi and the effort of Osama bin laden.

Once again; if you pull a knife on a cop, he can shoot you. That isn't extrajudicial.

Zarqawi was SITTING IN A HOUSE! He wasn't posing an immediate threat to the pilots in the aircraft that dropped that bombed him.

Therefore, just like your stupid "but terrorists have parents!!" anology, an analogy of cops being able to kill people that pose a an immediate danger to them is INAPPLICABLE.

So you contradicted yourself, you taint your original arguments in order to perpetuate a faulty argument.

Only if you ignore context.

No, only because I address context, look at reality and facts, and don't distory everything desperately like you do.

Good job there, Captain Contradictions.

No problem, Troll.

Some more hypocrisy from you to top of your plethora of self-contradictions and hypocrisies.

---

and that will mean german will get their ass kicked out of the EU coz the EU banned execution

---

OK, we have now officially found a way to top the Salem Witch Trials. Rejoice at our progress in the past 300 years!!!

---

The united kingdom might as well Remove they're Skin for the sake of every paracite that could possibly infect them; get inside and cause havoc without fear of Harsh retribution.

---

At 7/14/07 12:16 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The united kingdom might as well Remove they're Skin for the sake of every paracite that could possibly infect them; get inside and cause havoc without fear of Harsh retribution.

Auf Englisch, bitte.

---

Europe has no hope; they should start converting they're citizens to islam because they're clearly not willing to take the steps necesary to Get a backdown from These fundamentalists.