What difference does it really make?

[Sandy G]

The only thing wrong w/Baltimore is that its FULL of Bawltimorons...My parents were stations at Edgewood Army Chemical Center right after they were married in '50. Mama was never in the service, she just was a civilian worker.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Sandy G

The only thing wrong w/Baltimore is that its FULL of Bawltimorons...My parents were stations at Edgewood Army Chemical Center right after they were married in '50. Mama was never in the service, she just was a civilian worker.

Well, that's mighty friendly of you, Sandy!

Edgewood Arsenal is actually about 15 miles north of Bawlmer on an island in the Chesapeake Bay. The area has been sorta absorbed by the Baltimore suburbs now but in the '50s it was pretty countrified, a mix of farms and inexpensive summer cottages along all the creeks and estuaries of the Bay.

John

[BlueStreak]

"There will, I fear, be Hell to pay before long and when it does all those responsible for fomenting it will do what Beck has already done and deny responsibility for the "nuts" who take his words to extremes.

John"

So, once these guys have sent their minions to their deaths trying to fight the U.S. Military with their small caliber arms, and they are brought to trial, will it be a Military Tribunal or Civilian Court?

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Workin' on it. Took me ten years to figure it out but I'm not cut out to be a Left Coaster, unless you're talking about The Great White North, (Coo Loo coo coo coo coo coo coo!). I love BC but I'm too old to emigrate, eh?

Mmmmm............. Nanaimo bars!

John

Hell I did it at 53, fell in love with this lady and she loved her country deeply so I thought I would give it a shot. Still working on it, the country that is. No question but that the lady is everything any man could ask for, but she is all mine so y'all are out of luck.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

I have some questions. Really. No comments, just a few questions.

What difference does it really make whether the 9/11 terrorists are tried in a millitary tribunal, or a Federal Court?

If either one ends in the same sentence, who cares?

Do you think the whole thing is just more rediculous political posturing?

Dave

To the best of my understanding, in a civilian court the military may be required to disclose sensitive information, which is not a problem in a military court.

My quick response in a nutshell. The situation is more complex.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

"There will, I fear, be Hell to pay before long and when it does all those responsible for fomenting it will do what Beck has already done and deny responsibility for the "nuts" who take his words to extremes.

John"

So, once these guys have sent their minions to their deaths trying to fight the U.S. Military with their small caliber arms, and they are brought to trial, will it be a Military Tribunal or Civilian Court?

Dave

Do you expect this be the conclusion?

I don't see that either side wants to start a shooting war.

2010 will be interesting.

Chas

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Charles

Do you expect this be the conclusion?

I don't see that either side wants to start a shooting war.

2010 will be interesting.

Chas

I don't necessarily see pitched battles between US forces and right wing militias but I do anticipate that we'll see a lot more of the sorts of mass killings, bombings, etc. that we've already seen from right wing fanatics. I think we could see some assassinations too.

Another thing of potentially greater significance - and danger - is the infiltration of our military by Neo-Nazi, skinhead and militant Christianists. It has already happened. The Army and Marines have seen a significant influx of white supremacists and the Air Force Academy has been virtually taken over by militant Christian Fundamentalists. I worry about the "reliability" of a military which is so polluted by extremists.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

Do you expect this be the conclusion?

I don't see that either side wants to start a shooting war.

2010 will be interesting.

Chas

Well, none of the politicians, perhaps. And I don't believe many average Americans want to see any violence. I know I don't. Personally, you may disagree, but I don't believe anyone in the present day left would resort to such a thing.

But, I have to say in all seriousness Charles, that I have to agree with John.

I have heard some disturbing stuff coming from the mouths of people I know.
I personally know people who went out and bought more guns and ammo after Obama was elected, because they're waiting for "the shooting to start".
Not hear-say, but coming from coworkers, neighbors, friends and family.
Then I watch and listen to what people like Palin, Beck, and Hannity are telling them and it doesn't take much of a stretch at all to see where it's coming from.

I believe these people are pushing the bounds of ethical behavior. There are ways for everyone to speak their minds without fomenting hatred. When a politician or pundit fails to discourage hateful violent speech they are, by default, encouraging it. The old "Well, I didn't tell them to say that." dodge doesn't hold any water. Allowing it to go on at a rally or a meeting without at least asking people to be civil is as good as condoning it, as far as I'm concerned.

And these guys are "testing the fences" everyday. Just because I'm a lefty doesn't mean I don't listen in on Limbaugh, Boortz, et al. Back in my Republican days I listened to these guys all of the time. Then they mostly used reason. But I heard it gradually evolving towards demonization, villification, and belittlement until I could no longer stand it. That was ten years ago. Now it has gotten completely absurd, IMHO. And it needs to stop.
They can still speak their minds without all of the theatrics and derogatory hyperbole, people have been doing that for thousands of years.

Have a clementine evening!

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I don't necessarily see pitched battles between US forces and right wing militias but I do anticipate that we'll see a lot more of the sorts of mass killings, bombings, etc. that we've already seen from right wing fanatics. I think we could see some assassinations too.

Another thing of potentially greater significance - and danger - is the infiltration of our military by Neo-Nazi, skinhead and militant Christianists. It has already happened. The Army and Marines have seen a significant influx of white supremacists and the Air Force Academy has been virtually taken over by militant Christian Fundamentalists. I worry about the "reliability" of a military which is so polluted by extremists.

John

The AFA has been overtaken by militant Christians? Along with the Army and the Marines? Maybe you know something that I don't.

It appears to me that the problem seems to be coming from Islamist radicals at this point. And the far left wing.

Blaming radicalism on the "right wing" is nothing more than using them for a straw man. The right wing has their bad actors, but what exactly have they done?

Times and places, my friend. I suspect that f you give some consideration to the actual facts as to who has done what, you will find that the "Radical VRWC's" hand has been overplayed by the media.

Chas

[BlueStreak]

Uh, as I said, I pay more attention to what those around me are spouting, then I look to see where it is coming from. And it is coming from the media.

(Remember; "The media" encompasses both left and right. Does it not?)

P.s. I live right smack dab in "Radical VRWC" land, and no, it is not overplayed.

Dave