RTSplayer doesn't have a bio yet.
By: RTSplayer , 3:46 PM GMT on September 11, 2012
just curious, but do you only advocate assassinations against radical muslims?
1, Domestic and International crimes that would otherwise be considered war crimes:
Anyone directly involved in terrorism, piracy, gang, or mob massacres or other killings related to their activities and other militia or para-militia criminal organizations; Organized crimes or terror attacks or mass shootings not involving any state's military.
2, Evil dictators who commit war crimes or atrocities against their own people or neighboring nations.
We should kill such organizations or rogue governments from the top down, rather than the bottom up as we have done in the past. Aim for heads of state, cabinet members, officers and other "appointed" officials first.
A tomahawk missile should have been up Ghaddafi's rear end decades ago, IMO.
Assad in Syria?
His entire government should be executed. We already know they are guilty war crimes and massacres against their own people, which started even before the two-way violence happened. They opened fire on unarmed protestors in some cases. It's public, world wide knowledge, so a "trial" is a joke and unnecessary.
If we're going to baby-sit the MIddle East then let's go ahead and do it, and off these guys immediately every time they do something like this, instead of letting it go on for decades.
After a few years of that policy, I think any potential Saddams, Ghadafi's, and Asads would think twice before doing this any more.
what about the radical conservative christians? pat robertson and his like? they are pretty radical in alot of aspects. so should we start assassinating them as well? or do you only hate muslims?
The majority of radical christians haven't bombed or shot anyone, and would never do unprovoked physical violence to anyone.
Comparing Pat Robertson to a terrorist or pirate, regardless of religion or non-religion, is completely absurd as they have nothing at all in common.
The reason I hate muslims is because radicals want me and all other "infidels" dead for no reason whatsoever, and make unprovoked terror attacks and massacres of innocents. meanwhile, the so-called "moderates" almost never confront the radicals or do anything about it at all.
Many of the so-called "moderates" were mad and complained that we killed Bin Laden.
He got better than what he deserved.
He should have been paraded around on a pike in the capital city of every nation that has been hit by an Al Quaeda terrorist attack, and let everyone, especially Muslims, watch while the birds picked out his eyes.
And anyone who wanted to should be given the opportunity to take a piss on his corpse.
That's more in line with what the crime was. Teh punishment should fit the crime, and his secret burial at sea was not fitting the crime.
As for non-muslims like this most recent guy who did the booby trap and distraction for police, while doing the mass shooting in the theatre, the punishment should fit the crime.
It was a para-military style attack with at least 3 layers of pre-planning: distraction, booby trap, massacre the unarmed.
That is not insanity, that is a calculated, rationally planned murderous attack.
He should get the same fate as any other "war criminal" type perpetrator, in a military tribunal, NOT a civilian court. They should not have the benefit of a plea bargain or insanity plea, as this is a deliberately calculated attack with multi-layers of planning, intended to maximized civilian casualties. In that case by distracting or attempted murdering the police with his booby traps, almost like "Jigsaw" from the "Saw" horror/thriller movies.
In cases like this where the guilt is already know and is not in any contestation, I think it needs to go farther even. The law should give the police officers the right and responsibility of executing the perpetrator on sight.
It's ridiculous that millions of dollars will be spent on a "trial" for somebody everyone already knows is absolutely guilty, and then the bastard will probably get away with it somehow on an "insanity" plea. It's a mockery to even the most basic concepts of justice.
It absolutely makes me sick the way our judicial system works for the majority of cases. We actually have another mass murderer, who killed 4 people and maimed a few others by driving over them in a car back in 2001, and he plead insanity (but was found guilty of the crime,) so they put him in a mental hospital, and now after 10 years he's been declared "cured" and is going to be released!!! If the SoB is "cured" then he can serve his 4 life sentences in prison, or take the death sentence, just like every other "sane" murderer or mass murderer.
Comments will take a few seconds to appear.