Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

USA Politics - Hamster Wheel

Old 11th Dec 2014, 08:43
  #21661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Originally Posted by MagnusP
gf, I just checked Google Maps, and Realityville, New Zealand, seems to be missing. Any idea why?
I just checked Google Maps and couldn't find 'Islam' anywhere either! Exactly how the US would go about demanding an 'unconditional surrender' of Islam might therefore be a little problematic.

Of course, you could just round them all up in the US at least, regardless. It might be tough determining a 'full' Muslim from say a 1/2 or 1/4 Muslim, so it might be better to look back a generation or two just to be safe. Census information and birth records would help in this, especially given the marvel of the modern computer database.

There would have to be a new Government department to handle it, possibly the Department of Islamic Relations or something nodescript (it really wouldn't pay to call it say the Department of Islamic Cleansing etc, the looney left and the brainwashed press would have a field day).

What to do with them might be a problem too. I guess deportation might be an idea, but you need to find countries willing to accept the non-jihadists (if there are any) amongst them, and transportation of such large numbers would place a fair strain on the rail network at least. 'Transit Camps' would have to be built to concentrate them together for logistical purposes, and with a bit of extra labour these could easily be turned into more permanent accommodation.

Of course, all this would cost the taxpayer, so the options there would be a 'work for life' scheme where goods and services were produced at a profit by the camp internees thereby making the camps self-sustaining, or a more 'final' solution would have to be agreed to.

If you had a good PR department you could win an election on that platform..

Last edited by Hempy; 11th Dec 2014 at 10:31. Reason: typo
Hempy is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 11:10
  #21662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Like the British did to the Jews in the Channel Islands I guess....hand them over to the Gestapo for Deportation to Poland?
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 11:30
  #21663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Probably. I wouldn't know. A lot of bad things happened 70 years ago. I'm not sure of the relevance of your assertion though, unless you are suggesting that the US has a little experience already thanks to the Segregation that was prevalent there 70 years ago as well?

It amounts to the same thing in terms of relevance to life in 2014.
Hempy is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 11:46
  #21664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Well you were talking about deportation, labor camps, and all that. So I naturally thought you were talking about how the Nazi's dealt with the Jews and depended upon the collaboration of government in that goal.

You bring up such a notion then deny knowledge of it or it having any relevance today.....why is that?

We had our "segregation" and you had your "Class" system which worked pretty much the same but used different criteria for the distinctions between individuals.
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 12:48
  #21665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Bob, if you are too feeble, frail or just plain 1st percentile stupid to read the sarcasm into my post then....

you are right Bob, like always

Hempy is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 12:55
  #21666 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Differentiating the Sarcasm in your posts from other statements is impossible without a Score Card.

How about posting a Caution Note so we can do that will you?
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 13:01
  #21667 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere between E17487 and F75775
Age: 76
Posts: 723
Jews on Jersey CI - it's also worth noting that the British Government did as much as possible to expedite the departure of Jews living on Jersey before the Germans arrived. The handful (and it was a handful) who were deported were those who had chosen to stay.

I have a Bean in my family: she tells me that both the inhabitants of Jersey and the occupying troops were starving by the time the armistice was signed.
OFSO is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 15:38
  #21668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Patterson, NY
Age: 63
Posts: 436
Last night I was reading one of my books, the title of which is: "Jefferson Writings". Basically it's a book of letters which Thomas Jefferson wrote to family, friends, acquaintances, etc.

I found this one most interesting:

"[T]he States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore ... never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge William Johnson, 1823
rgbrock1 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 17:33
  #21669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
Galaxy Flyer, re 12741 v 91101. Not really the same at all.

In the case of 12741 the military forces of another country attacked the US at a time when the countries were not formally at war.

In the case of 91101 the attackers were not the military of any country.

Tragic though it was the appropriate action in response to 12741 was to declare war against the attacking country and the rest is history.

The appropriate action in response to 91101 was to initiate extradition proceedings against those suspected of the attack. The situation was complicated somewhat in that the US had previously attacked the country in question, again without declaration of war. History has not yet been written on the consequences of 91101.
John Hill is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 17:45
  #21670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,601
Originally Posted by John Hill View Post
The appropriate action in response to 91101 was to initiate extradition proceedings against those suspected of the attack.
Might want to check the history on the formal response of the Taliban government to said efforts from Washington after the WTC went down.
For those able to understand the transaction, the nose thumbing was pretty obvious.

Back to current events, the President and his team have just rejected a bid for a 120 million federal grant for Pre K education in Texas.

Why am I not surprised?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 17:48
  #21671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
Might want to check the history on the formal response of the Taliban government to said efforts from Washington after the WTC went down.
Like I said, complicated by the US having already attacked Afghanistan.

Besides, was there any formal request for extradition placed? IIRC demands were made with menaces.
John Hill is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 19:23
  #21672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,601
The previous attacks done under the Clinton administration included the previous problem of non assistance with the location of the gent who was behind the attacks in East Africa. When you provide comfort and housing to a fugitive, as in harboring him, you risk becoming an accomplice, or being viewed as such.

Mess about with that at your own peril.

I understand your need to be a US basher. I'll thus not waste further time with you on this.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 21:46
  #21673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
When you provide comfort and housing to a fugitive, as in harboring him, you risk becoming an accomplice, or being viewed as such.
For example, Luis Clemente Faustino Posada Carriles and of course Dillais, Louis-Pierre?
John Hill is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 22:13
  #21674 (permalink)  

Aviator Extraordinaire
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 73
Posts: 2,395
I really hate to rub this in, but of course I will anyway.

For a gallon of gas (petrol) here, today, as I post, this minute, is,

Drum roll please............................


$1.96.


con-pilot is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 23:08
  #21675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,336
John Hill,

All true about 12/7/41 and 9/11, but 9/11 was an attack under a previously issued "declaration of war" by bin Laden and his al Queda on behalf of Islam. The nature of war is that winning is achieved by defeating the will of the nations committed, not by defeating the fielded forces. We hold this idealistic idea of separating the combatants from non-combatants, but war is always about the destroying the will of the opposition.

The Yanks in the American Revolution were largely defeated in battle, but preservered long enough to wear out the King. The American Civil War ended by Sherman marching through Georgia and Carolinas destroying the Southerners willingness to continue. WW I ended in an armistice with German armies in France and Belgium. WW II, fought over the defeat in 1918, ended with Russian troops killing Germans in Berlin and Japan destroyed in depth including two atomic attacks. The NVA lost most battles when confronting American units in RVN, but eventually destroyed the American nation's willingness to wage war.

This dreary history shows only by "total war", defeating the opposing forces' home, results in a better peace. "War is hell" and Al Queda provoked war and total war should have been unleashed upon them and the nation they represent. They wanted war and we should have obliged far more forcefully than we did in 2001.

Perhaps, the US should have requested King George's, Jefferson Davis', and Hirohito's extradition for assaulting Americans. It comes down to this: was 9/11 mass murder or an act of war. Anyone for giving bin Laden 3,000 life sentences rather than a couple of rounds of 5.56?

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 23:14
  #21676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 508
Galaxy Flyer, war is a condition between states and Bin Laden did not represent any state and neither did he represent Islam. Bin Laden certainly did not represent Afghanistan.

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were mere common criminals until the US gave them status by attacking them with military force and promoting them to a state of 'war'. Things might have been different had the military forces managed to be effective at the time.
John Hill is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 23:21
  #21677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
The appropriate action in response to 91101 was to initiate extradition proceedings against those suspected of the attack.
Sorry, but can somebody at PPRuNe please put in a rolling around on the floor p!ssing yourself laughing emoticon?
rh200 is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 23:29
  #21678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,336
John Hill,

So, 1648 of you. Have you followed any history? Most wars of the last 200 years did NOT involve nation-states, but one opponent was a non-state actor.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 11th Dec 2014, 23:43
  #21679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were mere common criminals until the US gave them status
Define "Common" would you?

It must be a very special dialect you speak on that small island you live on so far away down south at the near end of the known World.

Nothing "common" about AQ, Bin Liner, and 911, Sport!
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2014, 03:11
  #21680 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 808
Thats the whole point that is missing in this dare I say debate. What are these things?

Some here would like them regarded as soldiers, they are not soldiers, the terrorrist would like you to regard them as soldiers, gives them some credibility.

Others work on the Utopian view that they are simple criminals, and deal with them as such. They really like that, lawyers have a field day. They are terrorists, the technicality of which you can decide, but unlawful combatants seem to fit, but even I think thats to good for them.
rh200 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.