Magox Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 It seems like every poll that comes out, the public isn't in agreement with their policies. I'd have to say they are out of touch with the American Public http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/16/rel17b.pdf Now here are some questions about Khalid Sheik Mohammed who may be responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks and who is now in custody at a U.S. military prison in another country: If you had to choose, would you rather see Khalid Sheik Mohammed brought to trial in a criminal court run by the civilian judicial system, or would you rather see him tried by a military court run by the U.S. armed forces? Nov. 13-15 2009 Brought to trial in a criminal court run by the civilian judicial system 34% Tried by a military court run by the U.S armed forces 64% No opinion 2% Here's a rasmussen poll: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...n_new_york_city Fifty-one percent (51%) of U.S. voters oppose the Obama administration’s decision to try the confessed chief planner of the 9/11 attacks and other suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of voters favor the president’s decision not to try the suspects by military tribunal at the Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba where they are now imprisoned. Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure whether it was the right decision or not. Voters continue to overwhelmingly oppose giving the terrorist suspects the same legal rights in court as U.S. citizens. Only 14% say the suspects should be given the rights of citizens, but 76% disagree. The decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and five other suspects in a Lower Manhattan courtroom near the site of the World Trade Center is part of the administration’s plan to shut down the Guantanamo terrorist prison camp by January. Fifty-five percent (55%) of voters oppose closing that facility, and 48% think it is unlikely it will be closed by January as President Obama has pledged. When the president announced his decision to close the Guantanamo prison camp just after taking office in January, voters were evenly divided, but public support has been trending away from closing ever since. While the president believes the prison camp established by his predecessor, George W. Bush, weakened national security, only 30% of Americans agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Polls are stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Polls are stupid. They certainly can be manipulated by the polling party, but what is really stupid is trying that scumbag in a U.S. court. He hardly deserves a trial at all. We are at war and our troops have the right to shoot certain people on sight. Why would we give this person rights that could potentially let him off the hook or give away many of our top secret investigative methods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 They certainly can be manipulated by the polling party, but what is really stupid is trying that scumbag in a U.S. court. He hardly deserves a trial at all. We are at war and our troops have the right to shoot certain people on sight. Why would we give this person rights that could potentially let him off the hook or give away many of our top secret investigative methods? Top Secret investigative methods? The reason you try people like this is to win in the court of public opinion. One of the biggest recruiting tools the "enemy" has in this "war" is the very thought that the U.S. doesn't look at Arabs or Muslims as equals and that our "rights" only apply where we see fit. People like you play right into that, which is why this war will never end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 18, 2009 Author Share Posted November 18, 2009 Polls are stupid. Whether you think it is stupid or not, the fact of the matter is that most people are against the idea of KSM being tried in the U.S. I agree that Wars are the greatest tools for recruiting terrorists, but that is besides the point AD, whether you like it or not, we are there and we won't be pulling out any time soon. So now that we are there, and there is nothing you or I can do about it, do you believe that by bringing KSM to trial in N.Y, where he will be provided a World Wide public platform, makes more sense than having him stand trial in a military court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Top Secret investigative methods? The reason you try people like this is to win in the court of public opinion. One of the biggest recruiting tools the "enemy" has in this "war" is the very thought that the U.S. doesn't look at Arabs or Muslims as equals and that our "rights" only apply where we see fit. People like you play right into that, which is why this war will never end. Given the history of Islam's inferiority complex, no matter what the West does, the fringe imams will use it as a recruiting tool. Using that logic, all cartoons and book should be banned because they could upset the sensibilities of the true believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Given the history of Islam's inferiority complex, no matter what the West does, the fringe imams will use it as a recruiting tool. Using that logic, all cartoons and book should be banned because they could upset the sensibilities of the true believers. Not even close to the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Not even close to the same thing. Sorry but it is. It's all part of the same message that resonates very well in a land out of modern time, which has a historic persecution and inferiority complex. The message is that the West/Christians/Crusaders are aligned against Islam. To me it doesn't matter that the message is carried against publishers for printing material offensive to Islam or for imams lionizing martyrs who dare to stand up to the invaders - it is one and the same. If not for Abu Ghraib, it's for Guantanamo, if not for those, then it's for setting foot on the Holy Land. If it's not for physical or military action, then it's for general lack of respect. You'd figure that a religion that holds court over a big chunk of a continent could finally rise above its insecurity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Top Secret investigative methods? The reason you try people like this is to win in the court of public opinion. One of the biggest recruiting tools the "enemy" has in this "war" is the very thought that the U.S. doesn't look at Arabs or Muslims as equals and that our "rights" only apply where we see fit. People like you play right into that, which is why this war will never end. When they earn my respect they might get it. I don't recall the U.S having colony's in the middle east, or that we exploited them in any way except to point out that black stuff in the ground is oil and pay them lots of money for it. The real reason there is hated for the west in SOME Arabs is because they hate the 21 century. Life was so simple in the days of public stoning and honor killings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Sorry but it is. It's all part of the same message that resonates very well in a land out of modern time, which has a historic persecution and inferiority complex. The message is that the West/Christians/Crusaders are aligned against Islam. Sorry, but it isn't - regardless of the ridiculous reasons. All religious societies have inferiority complexes. Hence the reason they worship supernatural deities in the first friggin' place. To me it doesn't matter that the message is carried against publishers for printing material offensive to Islam or for imams lionizing martyrs who dare to stand up to the invaders - it is one and the same. If not for Abu Ghraib, it's for Guantanamo, if not for those, then it's for setting foot on the Holy Land. If it's not for physical or military action, then it's for general lack of respect. So Abu Ghraib wasn't wrong? Holding people without due process is OK? You'll forgive me for not agreeing with either of those. You'd figure that a religion that holds court over a big chunk of a continent could finally rise above its insecurity. Not a strong point of any religion, ever. Speak up, persecuted American Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Top Secret investigative methods? The reason you try people like this is to win in the court of public opinion. One of the biggest recruiting tools the "enemy" has in this "war" is the very thought that the U.S. doesn't look at Arabs or Muslims as equals and that our "rights" only apply where we see fit. People like you play right into that, which is why this war will never end. Sorry, but it isn't - regardless of the ridiculous reasons. All religious societies have inferiority complexes. Hence the reason they worship supernatural deities in the first friggin' place. So Abu Ghraib wasn't wrong? Holding people without due process is OK? You'll forgive me for not agreeing with either of those. Not a strong point of any religion, ever. Speak up, persecuted American Christians. How many points do you have on that compass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Sorry, but it isn't - regardless of the ridiculous reasons. All religious societies have inferiority complexes. Hence the reason they worship supernatural deities in the first friggin' place. So Abu Ghraib wasn't wrong? Holding people without due process is OK? You'll forgive me for not agreeing with either of those. Not a strong point of any religion, ever. Speak up, persecuted American Christians. Sorry, won't go on that tangent. The question was whether USA's actions are effective recruiting tools for the militants. They obviously are. But, even if those activities did not happen, the imams would have enough recruiting tools in other areas, because you cannot extricate the West from the East. And I think we've talked about this before, until the Middle East decides to join the 21st Century, you will always have issues with people who disagree with you. It was a workable arrangement until they started blowing things and people up. So you can wait until nature takes its course and they decide to join modernity, or you can help speed the process along and have a lot less total things and people blown up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 So you can wait until nature takes its course and they decide to join modernity, or you can help speed the process along and have a lot less total things and people blown up. Let me know when we start doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Let me know when we start doing that. My guess is that W's excursion to Baghdad was a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 My guess is that W's excursion to Baghdad was a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts