Announcement

**Hermosa** · 08-23-2004, 11:54 AM

[QUOTE]Maybe it's pre-emptively defending yourself against an impending attack or against predictable recurrences of violence?

I'm interested to know how this is done? What makes an attack "impending". Who decides this? Are you "stop-hitting" the attack?..or just clocking the guy because you believe he may attack at some future time. OR..worse yet, are you beating the crap out of an aquaintance of this guy because; hell he knows him..he might attack me too!

I of course am using these examples to refer to America's unprovoked invasion of a soveirgn nation. I beleive these types of perspectives on self-defense can ultimately escalate to grand proportions.

However..to add to your list. How about self-defense against theft of the presidency.
and self defense against a loss of democracy where we no longer are "for the people, by the people" but "for the rich, by the rich".

**jubaji** · 08-23-2004, 12:08 PM

[QUOTE=Hermosa]

I of course am using these examples to refer to America's unprovoked invasion of a soveirgn nation. I beleive these types of perspectives on self-defense can ultimately escalate to grand proportions.

Childish editorializing

You may not agree with it, but "unprovoked" is not the adjective you were searching for.

**Hermosa** · 08-23-2004, 12:44 PM

Unprovoked is the adjective I was looking for...your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.

**jubaji** · 08-23-2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Hermosa

Unprovoked is the adjective I was looking for....

Well then, dope you are.

**Ahoym8e** · 08-23-2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Hermosa

What makes an attack "impending". Who decides this? Are you "stop-hitting" the attack?..or just clocking the guy because you believe he may attack at some future time. OR..worse yet, are you beating the crap out of an aquaintance of this guy because; hell he knows him..he might attack me too!

Well, I think I believe that an attack doesn't necessarily have to be physical to be an attack. Current law holds the same principle: If you take a threatening stance or scream "I'm going to kick your ass" at a policeman, you have just committed an assault. If you threaten to kill your wife (without even touching her), you have just committed an assault.

Who decides this? The "victim" decides it to the best of their ability (sort of a "reasonable man test:" would a reasonable man in this situation arrive at a similar conclusion).

I don't know what "stop-hitting" is, besides when you cease striking someone. But yes, clocking the guy before he reaches the physical part of the attack is defensible. An extreme example: the guy whispers to me (with a credible demeanor) "I am going to watch your house and kill your family." No physical assault has occurred, but I would classify "clocking" the guy or submitting him somehow to wait for the police "Self Defense." A less extreme and possibly more thought provoking example might be the the big hood in the street stopping you to steal you wallet and phone. Sure you could throw your wallet one way and run the other, but (AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS THE THING TO DO) could thrashing the fellow in defense of your money and unmolested occupancy of a public street be considered "self defense?" I may be stooping to mere semantics, I'm not sure...

My attention would certainly turn to the friends after the"clocking," as you never know how physical they are going to get. If they are not threatening, there's no reason for further "self defense."

OK and Hermosa, since you've made your political views quite clear, so will I: I am a believer in reasonably justifiable preemption, and since 9/11/01 I do support the wholesale slaughter of terrorists or other radical extremists bent on the destuction of our ("us" in a USA kind of way) way of life. I am not sure we are applying the hammer in the right spot at the moment, and I am concerned about the expense of the hammer. Also the dollars per extremist killed is a bit above what I am comfortable with. I am sure there are means of greater efficiency...

I don't think you a re stupid or foolish for holding your points of view. Our thought process just has different underpinnings... Yours' may take the day in November. Neither candidate is a good representative of mine, so I'm just plain SOL

Anyway, sorry for the OT there, back to assault!!!

**Ahoym8e** · 08-23-2004, 01:51 PM

Go Mike , Go Mike!

He posted while I was still typing, so sorry if there's some repetition there...

**Pez5697** · 08-23-2004, 02:03 PM

I 2nd that, well put Mike

**Hermosa** · 08-23-2004, 02:15 PM

OK..hmm..well I see I am severely outnumbered by the fundamentalist, rightwing, conservative republicans who will be voting for Bush this November. I better get out while I can before "somebody" takes advantage of the Patriot act and taps my phone or puts camera's in my toilet...

**Ahoym8e** · 08-23-2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Hermosa

OK..hmm..well I see I am severely outnumbered by the fundamentalist, rightwing, conservative republicans who will be voting for Bush this November. I better get out while I can before "somebody" takes advantage of the Patriot act and taps my phone or puts camera's in my toilet...

Fundamentalist implies unsophisticated and short sighted; that's kinda unfair..

but otherwise, I am not really right-wing, nor conservative, or republican and may or may not vote for Bush this November, so you might not be referring to me.

**jubaji** · 08-23-2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Hermosa

OK..hmm..well I see I am severely outnumbered by the fundamentalist, rightwing, conservative republicans who will be voting for Bush this November. I better get out while I can before "somebody" takes advantage of the Patriot act and taps my phone or puts camera's in my toilet...

Ah, hysterical hyperbole now. A mighty strong argument.

**DJColdfusion** · 08-23-2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Hermosa

I better get out while I can before "somebody" takes advantage of the Patriot act and taps my phone or puts camera's in my toilet...

Too late, peekathermosa.com will be up soon. Free 3 day trials if you register with your credit card!

**DJColdfusion** · 08-23-2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Mike Brewer

First, DJ, let me assure you from the deepest core of my being that NO ONE, right or left wing, wants any kind of peek from that kind of camera. I've known Hermosa since he was in 8th grade, and that end has not gotten any prettier! (Sorry, bud. Just had to do it...)

What are you talking about Mike? We've already setup your account!

-------------------------------------

Seriously, I'm going to respond to Mike's query "what would have been your choice of action?”

Mike knows that I respect him and our men and women in service, please don't anyone allow a frivolous dismissal of my opinion as someone who is "just against the war." This is my opinion only.

I am against the war.

I am not against removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq; I am against the way we did it.

Saddam Hussein is an evil bastard who should have been removed after we first learned about his government gassing of civilians, but we just dropped a few economic sanctions on him. Saddam Hussein should have been removed from office at the conclusion of Gulf War 1, but we decide to "isolate and contain". Saddam Hussein should have been hunted down and executed for attempting to assassinate then former President of the USA George Bush Sr. during President Bush's visit to Kuwait after he left office, but Clinton decided to fire off a few ("few" being relative) cruise missiles instead (a long distance, high explosive slap on the back of the hand). And Saddam Hussein should have been removed from office the very first time he violated UN sanctions.

However, the excuse to go to war "this time" by the Bush presidency focused on two areas: Weapons of mass destruction, and ties to Al Qaeda . . . both of which have been proven repeatedly to be bullsh*t.

Did Saddam have WOMD? At one time, yes. Did he have a connection with Al Qaeda? No.

In my opinion the president has disgraced those who died in 9/11 by attempting a bait and switch on the American people. Instead of strengthening our resolve to shut down Al Qaeda and capture Osama Bin Laden, he redirected America's wrath to strike out at his father's greatest enemy. He pointed to Iraq as an immediate threat and screamed "the sky is falling," at a time when our efforts in Afghanistan were faltering due to insufficient support.

Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, a terrorist hot bed. How many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq?

Saddam Hussein needed to be removed decades ago, when we were still bank rolling his government through the CIA. Now that we've finally done the right thing and removed him from power, don't allow those in power to convince you that the action had anything to do with 9/11. Remove Saddam from power? Great, it’s about time! Lie to America about your reasons for doing so? No, bullsh*t!

Osama Bin Laden is still at large and we continue to cut forces in Afghanistan? Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are the enemy, Moslems are not. We (America) need to keep our eyes on the prize and go after actual (read factual) threats to our national safety.

**DJColdfusion** · 08-23-2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Mike Brewer

I will stop picking on this after this post, but I guess I felt compelled to put one more thing up.

cheddarbay.com/ 911nyc1.html

Remember this? Any questions?

I think about it everyday.

**Hermosa** · 08-23-2004, 05:28 PM

First, DJ, let me assure you from the deepest core of my being that NO ONE, right or left wing, wants any kind of peek from that kind of camera. I've known Hermosa since he was in 8th grade, and that end has not gotten any prettier! (Sorry, bud. Just had to do it...)

First of all, I am laughing my ass off

!

Announcement

SD vs. Mutually Agreed Combat II

SD vs. Mutually Agreed Combat II

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment