[Vision2020] Gitmo

[Donovan Arnold]

Andreas,
 
No, it wasn't an invasion. It was an attack. Just like Pearl Harbor was an attack. How many people that attacked Pearl Harbor or planned the attack, got sympathies and access to Civil Courts in the United States?
 
Andreas, what happened to the rights of all the dead people and their families that were killed on the 9/11? How about those people forced to jump from a 100 story building to their death because of actions by the terrorists your sympathize with? How about the rights of the people that were alive with their flesh burnt off as they slowly wait for their death after the 9/11 attack, they have no rights? What happened to their rights, Andreas? I don't see you squawking about the children left without a mother or fathers because of these terrorists? Do they get to appeal three, six, eight times, the judgment rendered against them by this monsters? You show no outcry for them. You show more concern and empathy for the 170 terrorists that killed our people, then for the sick injustice done against their victims. Why is that exactly, Andreas?
 
Best Regards,
 
Donovan

--- On Wed, 6/18/08, Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gitmo
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "Chasuk" <chasuk at gmail.com>, "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com, "Tom Hansen" <idahotom at hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 9:11 PM

Donovan --

9/11 was a crime on a tremendous scale, but it was not an "invasion."
An invasion involves enemy troops on American soil.

-- ACS

On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Chas,
>
>
>
> "An invasion and an attack are different things, and Tom specified an
> invasion."
>
>
>
> True, but the clause he quoted stated attack or invasion. I think the
> meaning of the clause is clear except to lawyers that like to argue and
win
> impossible positions to advance their career.
>
>
>
> I agree we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, along with Afghanistan, and
> left Iraq contained as it was.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Donovan
>
> --- On Wed, 6/18/08, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gitmo
> To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
> Cc: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>, "Andreas
Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>,
> vision2020 at moscow.com, "Tom Hansen" <idahotom at hotmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 7:44 PM
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 19:26, Donovan Arnold
> <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What did you call 9/11? A welcoming party?
>
>> Sorry, but if the killing of 3,000 innocent Americans, and attacks and
>> attempted attacks on the the Pentagon, the White House, the Capitol,
and
> the
>> World Trade Center, is not an attack, please define to what you would
>> consider an attack?
>
> An invasion and an attack are different things, and Tom specified an
> invasion.  We have not been invaded by a foreign power, we have been
> attacked by terrorists.  Based on the nationality and the financing of
> the attack, our own terrorist response should have been against Saudi
> Arabia, not Iraq.
>
> Chas
>


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080618/b7f6a13b/attachment-0001.html