RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


White Kid's in Taliban, Mom & Dad Live in Marin (tubes)(16 posts)

White Kid's in Taliban, Mom & Dad Live in Marin (tubes)Pisser....
Dec 20, 2001 7:59 AM
Ok so this " normal, quiet and somewhat withdrawn" kid reads, the story of malcom X, At 18 he moves to the middle east. Then he joins the f-ing taliban.

Of course there is a lot of talk as to whether the kid is a "victim" of the taliban...oh bad taliban, take advantage of confused dumbass white boy. Or the kid made the CHOICE to join the taliban. personally i think the "victim" shIt is just that, SHlT.

If the kid's 18, first he's an adult, second he's reponsible for his CHOICES, decisions and actions and how those may or may not affect others....right? So in closing
ten years in prison is NOT cruel and usual for a member of an organization that is behind the attacks of 9/11 and an American.

PS; Every one have a safe and joyous holiday.
He ain't no victimmr_spin
Dec 20, 2001 8:35 AM
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area (Marin is the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge, for those who don't know), the Chronicle was running baby pictures of the guy on the front page. Like he is just an innocent kid. Look, there he is playing with dad on the beach. What a crock.

I don't know what you charge him with, or what to do with him, but I do know that if you take up arms and fight against your country in a foreign army, at a minimum you are supposed to lose your citizenship. That may not sound like much, but it's actually a big deal. I think there are only two ways for a natural born citizen (jus soli) to lose their citizenship.
Even if he is...TJeanloz
Dec 20, 2001 10:16 AM
There's one line of reasoning that Mr. Walker is a victim of being foolish, impressionable and confused into doing something that he shouldn't have.

But there are plenty of people his age and younger who have been put on death row for foolishly doing something they shouldn't have.
yup, like McVeigh?Dog
Dec 20, 2001 10:33 AM
Yes, that Timothy McVeigh was just a poor impressionable yout. Why would some portray this kid as a victim, and McVeigh as evil? Is the difference that McVeigh was hands on? Or, is the difference that McVeigh connected himself with (American) pseudo-right wing causes?

Dog
Explain to our 18 year old soldiers in AfghanistanPaulCL
Dec 20, 2001 10:36 AM
that he's an "innocent". Load of crap. He's an adult, he made a descision. Anyone who claims he is too young to be held responsible should be introduced to the 18, 19, and 20 year old soldiers who could possibley die by the hands of this a**hole's Taliban friends.
This is where labeling fails....Len J
Dec 20, 2001 10:46 AM
as most people would label me as a liberal.

But I believe that life is about choice & responsibility. In this case he made a choice & he has to take responsibility for that choice. It is a shame, I feel bad for his parents, but he is gonna get the book thrown at him.

Len
I worry that he won'tTJeanloz
Dec 20, 2001 11:43 AM
There's some wavering by the Administration about how hard the book will be thrown at him. In my opinion, it couldn't be thrown too hard.

He made a mistake, he did something wrong. Even if he was a 'good kid', he needs to own up to it. Is he an evil person? Probably not. An "I'm sorry" isn't going to cut it.

My real issue though, is that we (and Mr. Bush specifically) condone the death penalty for offenses that seem similar, if not petty, in relation to Walker's crimes. How could we not consider it the only option here?
revoke citizenshipDuane Gran
Dec 20, 2001 11:57 AM
I believe legally he could be executed as a traitor, but I somewhat doubt that this will happen. I would be content if his citizenship were revoked. I truly feel bad for the parents who seem shocked about this, but sometimes people make very bad decisions. If Walker keeps his life he should consider himself lucky.
Might not have tomickey-mac
Dec 20, 2001 12:11 PM
I read an interesting article yesterday about the case of Tokyo Rose and its potential applicability to Walker's situation. It was judicially determined that she had given up her citizenship by aiding and abetting the enemy in WWII. Some speculate that this precedent may apply to Walker. If he gave up his citizenship when he allied himself with the Taliban, he can't be tried for treason. Theoretically, he would then be treated like any other prisoner of war, captive, or whatever they're being called these days.
Interesting.Sintesi
Dec 20, 2001 12:46 PM
Personally, I say we turn our back on him, revoke his citizenship, never let him back in the country and turn him over to the Afghans for justice. Let them punish him. After all, it was their people he was fighting, killing or threatening to kill. My understanding is he was not involved with the death of the CIA agent during the prison revolt. If he was then put him to sleep.
Don't know why I'm having trouble with this...cory
Dec 20, 2001 11:49 PM
This has been a hard issue for me. I'm a Vietnam vet, and I sympathize with the troops in the field...but I can't bring myself to say Walker should be locked up for life, or executed, or even get his wrist slapped very hard. Might be because I have a son about the same age (it's also the same age I was when I went into the Army). Twenty is pretty young, and a kid ought to be able to make a mistake...and yet this mistake apparently put him in a war against his own country, which pretty well cancels out his country's responsibility to him. I suspect he didn't go into this with the thought that he'd kill Americans...he just started poking around, and pretty soon events took hold of him. At some point (it happened to me), you suddenly realize that, hey, this is REAL and people are SHOOTING and I don't want to be here. But by then it's too late.
One thing I do hope is that he can have a truly fair trial. It isn't going to be easy, with dimbulbs like George Bush (the father, not the son, though him, too) talking about making the guy leave his hair long and his face dirty and forcing him to walk around so people can stone him to death.
Bush's statements,TJeanloz
Dec 21, 2001 8:21 AM
I may have interpreted Former President Bush's statement incorrectly, but I understood him to mean that Walker should be forced to walk around (in the US) looking like he did so that he could see first hand the compassion of the American people. I understood that Bush expected that Walker would be welcomed into homes, fed, clothed and otherwise helped; and that would make him (Walker) look foolish for fighting against the American 'way'.
biasDog
Dec 21, 2001 8:38 AM
Cory, I've seen in your posts where you repeatedly deny "journalistic bias", particularly to the Left. Yet, when you make statements like "It isn't going to be easy, with dimbulbs like George Bush...", I think you expose that bias. Attacking a position or policy based upon rational arguments can be objective; attacking a person by calling him stupid shows bias and lack of journalistic integrity. Are you, as a journalist, held to a higher standard? Maybe or maybe not, but then I think generally journalists hold themselves to a higher standard.

I'm not saying it's wrong to be biased or even zealous in your beliefs, but at least own up to it. At least Rush Limbaugh makes no pretense of being unbiased or even a journalist or news reporter. I just think it would be better for other so-called journalists to confess their biases, rather than reporting issues one-sided with a claim of objectivity.

I've never read your published articles, but I assume they contain the same bias exposed here. I certainly could be wrong, but I think it's a fair assumption.

I agree basically that this guy probably got caught up in something he didn't expect, and maybe to the point of no return. I think what he did fits the classic definition of treason, but possibly they could be lenient in the punishment. To be fair, just think of what the Taliban would have done if the roles were reversed, if they had caught a traitor - I'd bet the punishment would have been instant execution. Any thoughts on that?

Dog
Maybe we shouldn't discuss politics any more, Dogcory
Dec 21, 2001 9:02 AM
It's OK--my best friend in the world is a Reagan-loving Republican who works in the defense industry. He's godfather to my son. There are just things we don't talk about.
In this case, though (sorry, can't resist): My private opinions and professional life are separate. If an attorney can represent a client with whom he disagrees or whom he knows to be guilty, you have to concede that a journalist can write a fair story under the same circumstances. So that's a non-issue.
As for "owning up to" (I reject the phrase; it's not a confession of guilt) my beliefs, the reason you know about them is that I presented them here, when you tried to lump liberals and traitors. I'm a liberal patriot, and it pissed me off. Conservatives, untroubled by doubt as so many of them are, regard liberals as though they, the liberals, are ashamed but can't help themselves. I've actually had readers approach me in public and WHISPER that, "I know you're a (shudder) liberal, but sometimes you make sense." Goddamn right I do. If I didn't, I'd change my beliefs (and become a conservative...).
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE WAY OF LOOKING AT THINGS, is what I'm trying to say. One is not evil and the other good, one not necessarily wrong and the other right. As a liberal, I believe there's room for all the views. Look around government and see who ISN'T supporting that position these days.
We need another forummr_spin
Dec 21, 2001 9:05 AM
Non-Cycling, Non-Political Discussions
I essentially agreeDog
Dec 21, 2001 10:57 AM
"It is only about things that do not interest one that one can give really unbiased opinions, which is no doubt the reason why an unbiased opinion is always valueless."
Oscar Wilde

I agree that people can be friends and reasonably discuss issues that they may vastly disagree upon. Nothing wrong with that. No doubt things will at times get out of control, too. But, we kiss and make up.

Attorneys do not usually hold themselves out to be unbiased or objective. That's the judge's job. We are hired guns, and everyone realizes that. That's how it works in an adversary system.

By contrast, many journalists (not necessarily you) continually deny bias, and purport to fairly and objectively report news. This, I think, is misleading. Having bias is expected. Having bias is normal. However, even when attempting to avoid showing bias, it can ring through loud and clear to those paying attention. (Of course, calling someone a "dimbulb" is a bit obvious.)

I once dated a woman who was a producer for television news in a fairly large market. I hung out at the station, and got to know the people there and how they do things fairly well. What I came to learn is that bias is pervasive, but sometimes very subtle in it's affects. For example, the simple choice of what stories to run shows bias. Let's see, today do we lead with "Clinton lies about blowjob," or "Clinton orders bombing of baby killers in Europe." Both stories are fair game, yet the selection and portrayal of the stories is key. I countless times had discussions with this producer about how they did things, and she readily admitted to me that news media do have agendas, biases, and goals to shape public opinion. Yet, they will never publicly admit it, assuming they recognize it themselves.

I could take any news stories of the day and portray vastly different perspectives of the world by how and what I write about. Everyone should recognize that.

Now, some will argue that Clinton got raped by the media. No way. At some point, news stories, like a sitting president committing perjury in a lawsuit pending in a United States District Court, will be reported by all. That's too sensational to leave alone. But, what else is reported, and emphasized? -- the evilness of an independent counsel for spending tax dollars unfairly to investigate perjury (which is a crime, by the way).

Sometimes we unfairly lump othes into nice pidgeon-holed labels we have, such as "evil liberal." Naw, I never intended to call you a traitor. That would be stupid. I apolized, I believe, for implying that, as well.

Yes, both sides generally call the other side evil, in one form or another. If not that, at least they call the other side "stupid." "How could anyone in their right mind disagree with me!!!???" Isn't that how it goes?

A truly rational and thinking person will usually concede that both sides have some merit in issues, and they usually do. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle. Normally, no one person or side is completely correct. Also, it's fairly normal to take an extreme position, like in negotiating, asking for 10 in hopes of getting 8. That's understood, as well.

GWB actually had fairly good reputation in Texas of working with both sides of the aisle, and not putting politics before pragmatism. He's not an extremist or pure party man. For people who largely disagree with him or are just pissed that their man is not in office, that may be hard to see or admit, though.

Dog