[Vision2020] Gitmo: And The Invasion of Pearl Harbor?

[Dan Carscallen]

Vizzz peeps,
 
While I don't really want to get drug into this conversation, and I find
myself agreeing with our Donovan that Pearl Harbor was attacked and not
invaded (semantics, really), I must say to Donovan (and anyone else)
that I'm not sure I'd cite Wikipedia as the be-all, end-all of internet
reference material, especially since anyone and their dog can
"contribute" to it.
 
your pal,
 
DC

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Donovan Arnold
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 12:12 AM
To: Chasuk
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com; Tom Hansen
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gitmo: And The Invasion of Pearl Harbor?



Chas,

 

Does this sound familiar:

 

"December 7th <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_7> , 1941
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1941> -a date which will live in
infamy-the United States of
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> America was suddenly and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor> deliberately
attacked by naval <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy>
and air
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy_Air_Service> forces
of the Empire of  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan> Japan."

 

It should, because it was said by President Roosevelt.

 

Notice the word attacked. Japan never invaded, it attacked. Just like
the Terrorists, terrorist from varies countries in the Middle East. 

 

"Attack on Pearl Harbor" is in Wikipedia, and the encyclopedia.
"Invasion of Pearl Harbor" is not. 

 

So, sorry to say, your statement, "Peral (Pearl) Harbor was an invasion,
clear and simple.  It isn't arguable, though you will probably try." Is
not supported by the existing facts and opinions of those in better know
over you and me. 

 

Maybe in your universe, Pearl Harbor was invaded and taken over by the
Japanese. But in this one where FDR was President and Congress declared
war on Japan, they attacked. 

 

"following brutal rapes by our soldiers" Do you have any evidence of
such allegations? Or are you jumping to that conclusions?

 

"We responded by invading a nation that was not involved in the attack.
Since that
time, to use your shameful, morally bankrupt language, hundreds of
thousands of innocent Iraqis have died."

 

I didn't say I supported invading Iraq, did I. I was against the idea
even when Tom Hansen, and half the other go along Marxists on this list
were gunning for Saddam in place of Bin Laudin.  Further, this has
nothing to do with terrorists being detained and having access to civil
courts. Many of the innocent deaths which you report, are the cause of
Terrorists which we once had in custody but were let go because of
terrorist sympathizers and lawyers in this country more concerned for
their rights then the survival of the nation. 

 

My argument is, that the rights of the victims, soldiers, and citizens
are denied when unlawful combatants and terrorists are released because
of US lawyers and terrorist sympathizers fight for their rights over the
rights of the people they kill and victimize. 

 

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: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>, "Tom Hansen"
<thansen at moscow.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com, "Tom Hansen"
<idahotom at hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2008, 10:43 PM


On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 21:47, Donovan Arnold

<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:



> 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?



Peral Harbor was an invasion, clear and simple.  It isn't arguable,

though you will probably try.



> 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?



How does all of this emotive language help your argument?  A group of

terrorists attacked our nation.  We weren't invaded.  We responded by

invading a nation that was not involved in the attack.  Since that

time, to use your shameful, morally bankrupt language, hundreds of

thousands of innocent Iraqis have died.  They have died, women and

children, by having their flesh seared off, in horrific explosions,

from starvation, following brutal rapes by our soldiers, or after

months of hideous torture.  What happened to their rights?  While that

is an emotive, interesting question, it hasn't nothing to do with the

actual subject of this conversation.  You show more concern for

winning an argument than with investigating the truth.  Why is that

exactly, Donovan?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080619/462dbfea/attachment.html