Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[BillA]

mx6

anon ? here ? ME ?
christ you are truly uninformed
I am well known here, and most other venues that have exposure to watercoolning

try Bill Adams, VP of Engn at Swiftech
phone and address are also very well known, google it

so JoeK is now a fool too ?

why use a shovel when a dozer is at hand (your ignorance)
you'll need a ladder to climb out of your hole

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Joe

Lothar, not true, Threatening to kill someone is a violation of law. There are atleast 5 different fines that can be thrown at you for doing such a thing.

That may be true but none of them include threats made in public. Generally those laws apply to schools (K-12), workplaces and domestic partners (under limited circumstances) etc…

[BillA]

not so at all
widely applied to gang members all the time, and others as well
JoeK is (in a) part of that system, why do you not want to believe him ?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by unregistered

not so at all
widely applied to gang members all the time, and others as well
JoeK is (in a) part of that system, why do you not want to believe him ?

Like most officers I had to do a staff tour and one of my staff assignments was as a legal officer. I had to deal with civilian and military law.... Not that I am a lawyer but I did get a great deal of legal experience. LOL, needless to say “I’m going to kill you bitch” or “I’m going to kill you, you son of a bitch” is said quite a bit in base housing and off base.

[BillA]

and when one says "I'm going to hunt you and your children down" they can be put away
it is a question of prosecution perhaps, but the law is clear

The petitioner, a citizen of Ukraine, was paroled into the
United States in 1992 but was never admitted for lawful
permanent residence. In February 1998, he was charged by
criminal complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie
County Pennsylvania with the crime of making terroristic
threats, in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. S 2706 (1998).2
The complaint charged that the petitioner had threatened
to kidnap and kill the child of a police officer. It stated that
this threat was made "in an attempt to stop [the officer]
from taking official action in his capacity as a police officer,
to wit: arrest the defendant on outstanding warrants." App.
at 56. In October 1998, the petitioner pled guilty to this
offense and was sentenced to imprisonment for 11 to 23
months.

In October 2000, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service instituted expedited removal proceedings against
the petitioner under INA S 238(b), 8 U.S.C.S 1228(b), by
serving him with a Notice of Intent to Issue Final
Administrative Removal Order ("the Notice"). App. at 7. The
Notice recited the following:

You were, on November 22, 1999, convicted in the
Court of Common Pleas for Erie County, Pennsylvania
for the offense of Terroristic Threats in violation Section
2706 of the Pennsylvania Criminal Code for which the
term of imprisonment imposed was 11 and one-half
months to 23 months.

App. at 7. Under the caption "Charge," the Notice stated:
"You are deportable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the
[INA], as amended, because you have been convicted of an
aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) (G) of the
Act, 8 U.S.C. S 1101(a)(43)" (emphasis added). App. at 7.
Thereafter, a final administrative removal order was issued
under INA S 238(b). App. at 1. In this order, the acting
district director found, among other things, that the
petitioner had "a final conviction of an aggravated felony as
defined in section 101(a)(43)(G) of the[INA], 8 U.S.C.

Minnesota Statutes 2004, Table of Chapters

Table of contents for Chapter 609


609.713 Terroristic threats.

Subdivision 1. Threaten violence; intent to terrorize.
Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly,
to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize
another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly,
vehicle or facility of public transportation or otherwise to
cause serious public inconvenience, or in a reckless disregard
of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience may be
sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. As used in
this subdivision, "crime of violence" has the meaning given
"violent crime" in section 609.1095, subdivision 1, paragraph
(d).

Subd. 2. Communicates to terrorize. Whoever communicates to
another with purpose to
terrorize another or in reckless disregard of the risk of
causing such terror, that explosives or an explosive device or
any incendiary device is present at a named place or location,
whether or not the same is in fact present, may be sentenced to
imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a
fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

no need to go on and on, the law is very clear
the times have changed, freedom of speech is not freedom to threaten

[nexxo]

Well, it didn't take long for this thread to deteriorate into some pretty vicious, petty verbal warfare, did it? Makes my "grow the f*ck up already" comment, expressed in a moment of frustration, seem quite reasonable, all of a sudden... and perhaps quite apt.

The price of being the good guys is that you have to be the good guys. People here have been arguing that we went into Iraq to bring an oppressed people democracy, and the values of a truly civilised society. Well, aren't we being civilised and democratic here. Other people have been saying how no reasoning can justify the war and violence that has been happening over there. Aren't we noble and wise. I wonder what those people would have to say if they saw all of you bickering the way you do now. Making viscious threats, racist comments, calling each other offensive names. You dare to set an example to other nations? You dare to lecture each other on the right and wrong of this war? Start behaving the part, all of you.

I am a moderator on two forums and I can tell you this sort of posts wouldn't be happening on my watch.

[BillA]

huh ? "it didn't take long for this thread to deteriorate" ??
what page are you on ?
this is 29 for me
can you define for us poor vicious petty fools what a long thread might be ?
(since you are a moderator on 2 other forums we will consider you an EXPERT)

this is a different place, and this is most certainly a different thread
the Japanese pos had his day, and L5 was (almost always) reasoned and polite
I chose to (eventually) be my obnoxious foul-mouthed self
and then some jerk chose to threaten the same jackass I'd had enough of

now to your point:
"The price of being the good guys is that you have to be the good guys."
freedom for one has to mean freedom for all
and that too is what I proceeded to do (go after an advocate of violence)
I am not this nation, nor do I speak for it; I am an example, no more
- if you think I am a representative example, such is your error
and that you would consider me a 'bad example' reflects your values/experience, no more

you know, you never chose to answer some previous questions - what is your motive now ?
just wanted to sling some shit ? (this is an old song now eh ?)
go ahead, tell us how long it took for Britain to achieve 'democracy'

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by unregistered

and It stated that
this threat was made "in an attempt to stop [the officer]
from taking official action in his capacity as a police officer

As a legal officer I had to screen for things like the above. This is a key element. The threat was not against Joe Six-Pack but an on duty officer and the threat was used in an attempt to stop the officer from performing an official duty.

[BillA]

no
Subdivision 1. Threaten violence; intent to terrorize.
Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly,
to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize
another or . . . . "

thats all it takes, police officers, on or off duty - not relevant at all
was the intent to terrorize ?
mx6 is dead in the water (he stated that was his intent !)

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by unregistered

huh ? "it didn't take long for this thread to deteriorate" ??
what page are you on ?
this is 29 for me
can you define for us poor vicious petty fools what a long thread might be ?
(since you are a moderator on 2 other forums we will consider you an EXPERT)... (etc.)

I was counting from the recent resumption of this thread.

Scathing sarcasm is unproductive (and not even very original). I was talking to all of you, but I certainly do not consider you a fool. You are one of the most intelligent, and most respected, posters on this forum and that does come with some responsibility. You may have your valid reasons for not liking the "Japanese pos" but your post to him was worded... poorly. Your response to my post now sounds, well, a bit immature. This is beneath you. You are brighter and more eloquent than that.

My motive? To point out that we need to practice what we preach, and lead by example, not by might.

By the way, I'm Dutch but never have I tried to compare my country, or the UK, favourably to the US. Note that when I dished out the critisism on this war I generally say "we".

[BillA]

reasonable discourse requires reasonable restraint and a modicum of logic and intellectual honesty
and for lacking such I grew tired of the endless caterwauling from the Japanese pos (I do intend to continue using this descriptor)

while I agree completely that leadership must be by example (do you want to hear what I think about that pos Clinton ??), that does not imply a social consensus, let alone a global one

a Dutch friend was visiting when Pims (sp) was murdered, and she burst into tears - things like this do not happen in Holland she said
since then more of the same, so ?
I regard the Dutch as eminently sane, but why the Serbia (Croatia ?) massacre ?
some problems have no facile solutions, and this should be recognized when cudgeling others for their lack of perfection

[Kobuchi]

This is a ripe forum for hateful people to express their feelings. They project their own inner enemies onto a poster, regardless of what he actually says or what his real position is. Then flame away at their strawman. Their little voodoo doll.

They don't need to quote the Zurui chibi, or ask its position, because they just know what it is - they can even go further by paraphrasing what it would say:

"he was calling us pussies, I mean you had to have seen that he was saying we had no balls, right?"

No. I did not attack his balls, or say US Marines have no balls. In fact I'm sure those guys in Iraq have balls. I was never asked about it, and didn't know he needed reaffirmation that yes he has balls. That's just his own issue, acting out. I don't care about that guy's balls like he does.

To be absolutely clear: by balls I mean personal bravery under fire.

I managed to extract some good debate from Lothar5150, when he wasn't also stating my position, and then refusing to back that with a quote. I basically respect him though obviously I think he's confused about what he's really saying about himself with his posts.

Am I spoiling this doll-play with "the Zurui chibi", just by interrupting as a man to fellow men?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by unregistered

no
Subdivision 1. Threaten violence; intent to terrorize.
Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly,
to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize
another or . . . . "

That’s all it takes, police officers, on or off duty - not relevant at all
was the intent to terrorize ?
mx6 is dead in the water (he stated that was his intent !)

I can understand that the statute says....but what has happened under judicial review? The courts have likely narrowed this very broad wording down to specific instances such as officers on duty etc... The fact is we have a mixed legal system and the reason for lawyers is that the law is never cut and dry. State laws HAVE to hold up in federal courts. State legislatures pass all kinds of laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Or have there scope narrowed to meet Constitutional interpretation. One its face, under your Minnesota statute I could be in violation for threading to spank my kids.

Let’s take the Constitution as an Example

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

On its face this says that NO law can limit speech but the Supreme Court has said under certain very narrow conditions speech may be limited. For example you can not yell "fire in a movie theater"

Alright I'm done...I use to have to explain this same thing to Colonels...if the law was as straight forward as you think it is then you wouldn't need lawyers.

[bobkoure]

I'd be sorry to see this thread either disappear or keep going the way it's been.
Personally, I'm glad to hear all points of view - particularly ones I disagree with (or at least think I do).
Up to a short while ago, this thread was a (although sometimes a bit heated) pretty rational exposition of different points of view. Somehow it devolved into name calling and threats.
I wonder if we could, after all taking a deep breath:
- avoid making threats
- avoid any kind of name calling that lumps someone in with a particular race, nationality, religion, whatever. If someone's pissing you off that's who's pissing you off - not everyone with that same race or whatever.

As far as the "two bombs", there's still an ongoing historical controversy over whether they were actually necessary to end the war or not. On the one hand, we'd already lost a lot of troops to what were essentially suicide fighters - and were facing the prospect of losing up to a million (!) more. On the other hand, we hadn't told the Japanese that we were not going to kill their Emperor and did not ask for a surrender either before the bombs or even just after the first one. There's one conspiracy theory that the bombs were simply to put a fright into the soviets (would'a frightened me).
Finally, if you've been to Japan, you know there's been a big change since the loss and the MacArthur days. IMHO they've taken much more responsibility for having started a war than, say, the Germans.

Oh - and yes I've lived in parts of the world where some people automatically didn't like me because I was from the US. I'm sure it was a very faint shadow of what Lothar goes through because of his skin color - but it gave me a hint of what it feels like.

Thanks for listening...

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

No. I did not attack his balls, or say US Marines have no balls. In fact I'm sure those guys in Iraq have balls. I was never asked about it, and didn't know he needed reaffirmation that yes he has balls. That's just his own issue, acting out. I don't care about that guy's balls like he does.

To be absolutely clear: by balls I mean personal bravery under fire.

I managed to extract some good debate from Lothar5150, when he wasn't also stating my position, and then refusing to back that with a quote. I basically respect him though obviously I think he's confused about what he's really saying about himself with his posts.

I could care less if you said Lothar you are a coward but don't ever again say that the Marines I had the honor of leading are cowards.

Kobuchi, if you are ever in combat you will realize that all men in combat are brave. I don't care what side of the fight you are on, EVERYONE is very scared and everyone still showed. That’s what you don’t get and you will never get.

[BillA]

no L5, again
I have known a number (many more than 1) of individuals jailed for making terroristic threats,
nothing to do with 9/11 - everything to do with making a threat with the intent to terrorize
(and I thought that it was a shame they would not spend the rest of their lives in the joint)
-> this is exactly what mx6 described his motivation as being
why he included the children, eh ? he wanted the Japanese pos to feel afraid
in our society this is wrong, and rightly so

suggest you stop counseling individuals that it is ok to threaten violence against another,
they may hold your bad advice against you (those kind do just that)
but I can't see any with the balls to swing at you, lol

bk, your discourse is/was fine - notwithstanding my strong disagreement with just about everything you promote (different frame of reference)
but you just said "Up to a short while ago, this thread was a (although sometimes a bit heated) pretty rational exposition of different points of view."
I disagree.
the Japanese pos's statements were rational ? (try the last 10 pages - and I only see what others quote !)
I am compelled to suggest that you view anything supporting your position as ok, despite its not being so

I now leave this well tilled, and fertilized, field to the better people

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by unregistered

no L5, again
I have known a number (many more than 1) of individuals jailed for making terroristic threats,
nothing to do with 9/11 - everything to do with making a threat with the intent to terrorize
(and I thought that it was a shame they would not spend the rest of their lives in the joint)
-> this is exactly what mx6 described his motivation as being
why he included the children, eh ? he wanted the Japanese pos to feel afraid
in our society this is wrong, and rightly so

suggest you stop counseling individuals that it is ok to threaten violence against another,
they may hold your bad advice against you (those kind do just that)
but I can't see any with the balls to swing at you, lol

If you have some more case law I'd be happy to read it. But the instance you posted involve an officer on duty. I'm not trying to be glib but, I'd like to see the elements in a "Joe Six-Pack" case.

[BillA]

over several beers, later
but it is quite real and a bugger to get out of when there are wittinesses
think selective enforcement; a bald head, a history of violence, tats - you're down
I suggest that Joe 6-pack is not making those threats

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I could care less if you said Lothar you are a coward but don't ever again say that the Marines I had the honor of leading are cowards.

Quote please, with context. I may have said this unintentionally, but I doubt it. No twisting either; if I said someone has to run from time to time, that doesn't mean I labelled him a Runner. You certainly want me to have said it.

Contrast how I responded to your comment about knocking over my country's Armed Forces with your Cub Scouts, and such taunts.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Kobuchi, if you are ever in combat you will realize that all men in combat are brave. I don't care what side of the fight you are on, EVERYONE is very scared and everyone still showed. That’s what you don’t get and you will never get.

Wrong. I understood that before, despite your wish that I never will. Get yourself some bad-guy action figures, and make up speeches with them. It may be therapeutic.

You're trying to shift the issue of bravery from the operational level (is that the right term?) I was talking about (e.g. mining roads, timing convoys, bombing hospitals) to what individual Marines feel in their guts during idealised firefight combat. I didn't say anything about that, and I agree you know it better than I. But bravery and cowardice exist on many levels: an entire war can be judged "brave" for example. One needn't be a combat veteran to have informed opinions in this.

***

Don't you ever presume to understand cowardice, Lothar5150, a thing of which you have no experience. I, on the other hand, have first hand experience. I have an expert opinion. I know who the real cowards are, and who they aren't. And just remember Lothar5150, that were it not for fear and worry you and all your comrades would have been run though bullets and under tanks long ago. Thank the military institution of cowardice that keeps forces protected.

[Brians256]

Umm.... are we getting anything useful out of this thread anymore? The people that I know are still contributing are: bk, billa, kobuchi, and lothar. Speak up please. I am sorely tempted to close this thread, as it seems that the ideas have been fully explored and it now comes down to refusal by each side to accept the other side's base assumptions.

Anyone want to keep going on the merry-go-round?

On a good note, I do appreciate the willingness of Lothar to give in-depth answers to what he has experienced as a marine, and all the others who have been willing to share their viewpoint. Whether I agree with them or not, it is interesting to see how people arrive at and then justify their viewpoint.

[BillA]

count me gone, interest replaced by aggravation

[Lothar5150]

he's no longer worth my time

[Kobuchi]

*bang*

Well, the thread's dead now.

[nexxo]

But don't worry, it was done very humanely.