Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: fd ski on September 19, 2001, 01:00:00 PM
-
First of all, "Wanted Dead or Alive" remark was very inappropriate, the smirk on Bush's face made me ashamed of the fact that he's our president.
But... this from http://www.stratfor.com/: (http://www.stratfor.com/:)
Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar reiterated Sept. 18 that the regime would not extradite Osama bin Laden without evidence against him, AFP said. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the United States would not hand over evidence to the Taliban in an effort to protect U.S. intelligence, reported The Business Times. The spokesman for U.S. President George W. Bush said the president's message to the Taliban is that it's time for action, not negotiations 1535 GMT, 091901
Does anyone else find this wrong ?
Don't get me wrong, if Bin Laden is indeed responsible we should hang him by his nuts, but... what happend to "innocent until proven guilty" ?
Current path takes us quickly into loosing any support from any allies we might have following last weeks tragedy.
Bombing of afganistan without publishing some sort of proof of Bin Laden's guilt will make us villans in very short order. Our allies will abandon us, and rightfully so.
I thought that Bush's advisors were supposed to be smart, but up til now i hear nothing but agnorant gung-ho remarks...
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
[QBagnorant gung-ho remarks...[/QB]
Did you try to combine ignorant and arrogant into one word?
;)
-SW
-
Please point me to the evidence that condemed 5 or 6 thousand innocent citizens to death.
-
Well, FD, I think you can rest easy that the US will not attack without proof, if we were, we would have already done so.
As for the presidents remark, well, the fact is that we already have proof of osama's guilt in several other terrorists bombings, so he is a dead man already.
-
Originally posted by 1776:
Please point me to the evidence that condemed 5 or 6 thousand innocent citizens to death.
Great, then why bother going all the way to Afganistan ?
Let's bomb Mexico !!!
Brazil ? canada, yeah, let's bomb canada... they are a "prime suspect". We can't prove it, but we're gonna do it anyway and we expect everyone to back us up ?
True fricking genious....
Wuflie, there is a word like that in polish, i made a "on the fly" translation. It means a combination of two, someone who is cocky, aggresive, for no good reason.
-
The fact that you don't see, have or are aware of any evidence doesn't mean that it does not exist. The Govt. and our president know a heck of a lot more than you do about any and all evidence pretaining to this matter.
That is ofcourse unless you know something we don't :D
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
Great, then why bother going all the way to Afganistan ?
Let's bomb Mexico !!!
Brazil ? canada, yeah, let's bomb canada... they are a "prime suspect". We can't prove it, but we're gonna do it anyway and we expect everyone to back us up ?
True fricking genious....
Wuflie, there is a word like that in polish, i made a "on the fly" translation. It means a combination of two, someone who is cocky, aggresive, for no good reason.
OK FD, I personally know that Bin Laden is guilty of many acts of terrorism and should be requarded by the western world as an enemy. Now eveidence seems to point straight to him. Whether Bush'es organization upsets you or not, whether you agree with him or not, you dont think Osama Bin Laden is our enemy? You dont think he should be brought to justice? My heart says he should be held responsible, and he is just at the top of the list.
There are developements that point to that he may not have been the kingpin of this attack, developing now. Even so, he should be elinated. By now maybe the media is reporting that the Israli's know alot more about the logistics of this attack.
-
what 1776 & Acid said..
I'm sick of hearing tolerance crap being preached, where is this freaking tolerance in the rest of the world eh?
We are so tolerant we are killing ourselves .. literally!
Here's what all of our tolerance has gotten us so far: http://www.capnhq.gov/nhq/pa/news_info/wtcmissions.html (http://www.capnhq.gov/nhq/pa/news_info/wtcmissions.html)
I trust this government, this country and its military to stamp out this evil with or without the support of our wishy washy allies just like we have in the past.
-
Ski WTF do you expect? They're trying to gear the country up for war. If we were going to bomb inocents we would have already started bombing, besides that was Clinton's tactic not Bush's. Why should they give any evidence to the taliban? They aren't going to turn him over, I'll be very suprised if they do.
From the stuff I've read and heard on the radio it looks to me like the terrorist may actualy win. The implosion of our nation is begining already. :(
I fear America is about to rip itself apart..........
U
-
fd ski. The preseident decalred "war" on all terrorists and those who harbour them.
Basically.....Bin laden, the Taliban and all who hve practiced some form of terrorism are considered a threat to the U.S AND its Allies.
Lets just hope they (whovever they are) follow through this time and eliminate the terrorist cells.
-
Relax.
This is week two.
Obvious item #1: No matter how much Katie Couric would like to report every little tidbit of information, every lead, every bit of proof the government has... the government isn't going to hand it out to the press until they feel the time is right.
Obvious item #2: We were caught with our shorts around our ankles. Doesn't mean we're done for; the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, NSA... all our intel agencies "have not yet begun to fight" as a great American once said. Give 'em a bit of time.
Obvious item #3: Now is a time for faith in our government, faith in your fellow American and faith in yourself. We WILL see this thing through. Stay together, stay focused... the bad guys are.
Obvious item #4: The time will eventually come to act. The required proof will be found. And then, once again, as ever in the history of mankind we'll realize that....
´´War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.´´ --John Stuart Mill
-
Am i not making myself clear ?
If you are accused of a crime - it has to be proven. If you are sentenced without any proof of your guilt being presented - US of A and half of the civlizied world will cry foul - abuse of human rights, and rightly so.
Don't we punish a countries for abusing rights such as this one ? Cuba, china ? Do only as i say, not as i do ?
Look in the mirror gentlemen. This is a reason why in some parts of the world people have problems with us. We march in the name of freedom and democracy yet specialize in establising dictatorships. We preach human rights, yet feel free to abuse them when it suits us.
All we have to do is give some sort of proof that he was indeed connected to this crime. Without that, we're going to war with the "most likely candidate", and god help us if after we bombed Afganistan into stone age - we get a proof that it was Iraq behind this all along. How will you feel about innocent colleteral damage then ?
I'm not trying to defend the bastards. Did they do it ? I'm pretty sure they did. But before we scoop down to their level - we need to have a proof, not just an assumption.
-
fd I agree with what your saying...innocent untill proven guity but consider this...
The Taliban is not your typical government or leadership. The U.S. leaders are playing political mind games and so are the Taliban. The bold statements and arrogance is all part of a "red herring" or decoy to keep the Taliban guessing what we are doing and to keep the American people passified that something is happening.
Don't put too much on what they say but more on what they do. And I doubt they will share anything with the Taliban until they can present it in a way that will not help the Taliban know how we got the evedence. If the give evidence too soon in the wrong manner then it will just help the terrorists hide even better.
Let's see what actually happens and let the politicians play their international mind games.
-
the problem is when do you have "enough" "proof"???
You may require more proof then someone else, some may require more "proof" than will be feasible to gather in the timeline now provided..
Proof and evidence sure didn't make a difference in mr oj's trial meaning no matter how much proof or facts you turn up some ignorant bastard still will not be convinced..
-
Be patient.
Give the Intel agencies time to work. No offensive action has been taken as yet.
We're moving troops, sure. Putting them where we think they'll be needed. Well, Duh. Not much point in putting a carrier group off of Great Britain now is there?
When the time comes, the rationale and justification will be given. That will be the time to evaluate it.
Right now, this thread is just "chicken little". What if we don't have proof! What if we don't have proof!
Give them time. See what they can develop. This "instant gratification" stuff just doesn't work for war...
but you know that, right?
-
I'm going to have to trust the government to decide if he's guilty or innocent for now. You can well bet that bin Laden will NOT be tried in a court of law anywhere on this planet, where the whole world could see his guilt or innoncence. The reason he won't be tried in a court of law -- I'll bet he himself would never allow that to happen. He'd rather martyr himself first.
-
The way I see it, it's "A war on terrorism".
Bin Laden is a terrorist . If he is given up by Taliban authorities, that does not mean the US will not still attack all of his known or recently discovered training camps and extremist cells.
Proof is not needed that he is the mastermind
behind those horrific events on Sept 11. What those events did do ,is trigger a war on terrorism and all countries that aid ,abbet and knowingly harbor them.
Alls that is needed, is that he is a "Known" terrorist. He just happens to be on the frontline on the war against terrorism.
The US is waging "War" on these groups not "LAW" and if some of the perpetrators happen to become prisoners of war then they will be fortunate to then have the benifit of the rights US Law befits them.
Is just Bin Laden wanted "dead or alive" or did Bush possily mean terrorists?
It seems to me that it would not matter what G W Bush or any President in his position
would say ,it could always get disected.
In terms of President's he is undoubtably put in one of the most precarious positions that a very few previous President's have had the misfortune to have faced.
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Baddawg ]
-
Last time I checked, the USA did not conduct "kangaroo courts," and in most cases with governments we are friendly with, we probably wouldn't have to submit all our evidence to get them to extradite a suspected mass murderer.
In the case of governments where we AREN'T particularly friendly with them, turning over such evidence might get some of our own assets killed, or destroy intelligence networks or give away capabilities that are vital to either security or the success of future operations.
IMO they're lucky we're "asking nicely" so far. We probably can't FORCE them to hand him over, but we could definitely make them wish they had. I'll bet hard cash that there is ample evidence that he's involved in numerous OTHER terrorist acts, so the fact that we're "demanding" he be surrendered to us is hardly some kind of sign that the whole basis of the American justice system is being disregarded just because the President is pissed off.
If Bin Laden isn't "guilty," I'm sure it will be a straightforward task for some legal eagle to come up with a jury that can be convinced of it.
Sounds to me like you just needed another reason to slam Bush...
-
FD Ski, I didn't care for the "Wanted dead or alive" remark either, only because it sounds like vulger bravado. I would rather the President make his point more subtly on the world stage - as in "speak softly but carry a big stick."
But I wasn't ashamed of him. He is genuine, and I like that. I think he's doing a great job so far. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that we are going to just bomb the hell out of Afganistan in a knee jerk response, as several people have decried in advance of it actually happening.
-
FD,
IIRC, bin Laden was directly implicated in the first bombing of the WTC. If I'm right, then he has been found guilty in a court of law.
Yes I know it wasn't his own trial, but it would be evidence to show his guilt of a terrorist act.
-
I'd like to see evidence before action. But I doubt we'll get it. It seems a course of action has already been decided.
I also distrust the intelligence services that are supposed to be so on the ball in this situation. I'm sure they're discussing targets now. One minute they've collectively made one of the greatest mistakes ever recorded, and the next they are trusted absolutely to hit the right people in the right places. Combine that with their amazing work in the 80's (the SAS trained many of the Taliban, the US/UK armed and funded Laden and his followers) and it seems like one reactionary lurch in policy after another. Maybe it will work...
I'm sure Bin Laden is guilty of previous terrorist actions and is a dangerous man to co-exist with. But he's chosen his shelter well. The whole area is poverty stricken and devastated by either civil war or hunger or both. It is destabilised by refugee movement and most of the governments hang on to power by force of arms alone.
Dangerous days indeed.
-
bin Laden... he's CERTAINLY a terrorist.
Taliban... They have CERTAINLY been harboring him; if not now; then up till now.
Iraq's Government: Participants, supporters, payrollers and safe haven providers... ABSIOLUTELY.
Now, we've declared WAR on Terrorists, the countrys and organizations that harbor them.
Last time I checked, in a war; no trial was required to prosecute the enemys of this nation.
When you see the enemy; you kill him.
War is hell.
-
When you see the enemy; you kill him.
And Tuesday's attack still happened... something not quite right there.
[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Originally posted by Hangtime:
Now, we've declared WAR on Terrorists, the countrys and organizations that harbor them.
You ready to bomb Boston for all the support for IRA over the years ?
And since Washington is a capitol of a that particular country... let's bomb that too...
Someone once said: "Eye for an eye and soon we will all be blind"
-
Fer cripes sake..
You fediddlein expect me to whitewash the long (sickeningly long) list of atrocities our bonheaded misguided idiotic hollywood romance filled idjit citizens have perpetrated on the citizens of the world?? Or; even worse, the gawd-damned asinine careless and outright hostile acts perpetrated by our tone-deaf, moronic and self-serving "we gotta protect our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen" of the State Department over the last 60 years?? 6 years? Six weeks?
Hell YES, we've diddlyed up.. all of us. BIG TIME.
But; dammit, RIGHT now, we gotta new agenda. A new mission. A new slate.
Do me a favor. Judge the USA, it's motives, it's actions and it's policy 2 years from now. Starting from now.
In the meantime; do something constructive. Support your local FD. Or go whole hog and get involved in harrasing the Senate Foreign Affairs Committe to SMARTEN THE diddly UP!
Voulenteer your TIME and your MIND for something a lil more tangible than pokin the folks that are already aungished with grief over a million "I should have's..." The tangible results of their idiocy are still in that diddlyin rubble. Show some respect for THEM. They paid the price. Let the Dipshits on the hill know we've had enuff of their two-faced blind eye global abandonment of American Principals and Ideals.
Get with the program, but do it POSTIVELY. Lets get the gawdamned engine back on the RIGHT track this time.
NO TRADE WITH ROUGE STATES
-
Someone buy Hang a beer before he blows a gasket for toejam's sakes!
-SW
-
I agree Hang, I think people are just worried about the same mistakes being made again.
-
Pres addresses the Nation tomorrow night, bet we'll have some evidence shown then..it just happens that some flights over the middle east will be coinciding during his speech, whether they are transports to a friendly country, or Stealth bombers to a terrorist country is the big question.
Tomorrow the future shall be much more clear, I garantee it.
-
Another way to look at it.
When McViegh blew up the Fed Building in OK City, that was a crime. Therefore he was brought to trial and convicted.
When bin Laden (or Hussien as Jane's DF reports) organized the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon, that was war. No trial, no jury. No need.
Say what you want, but this is different.
And, like I said. bin Laden has already been convicted in absentia during the trial for the first WTC bombing. Once again, no need for another trial.
-
(http://www.budweiser.com/fun/wallpaper/franknlouie/fl_04.jpg)
"Hey; I hear terrorists have tiny little dicks thiiiiiis small!"[/i]
Thanks fer the brew SW. :)
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Hangtime ]
-
I was unhappy about the dead or alive comment myself. A live bin laden could be a real problem. Sure as hell, somewhere, U.S. hostages will be taken. Then a demand for the release of bin laden. To hell with that. Just send us his head. You can keep the rest.
-
We'll all know a little more tomorrow nite.
We surely won't know all they know and the Prez would be a fool to spill it all anyway.
No matter what proof is provided, there will always be a faction that claims it is not enough or not conclusive.
-
No matter what proof is provided, there will always be a faction that claims it is not enough or not conclusive.
An argument used by military regimes time and time again. It's just nonsense and a mandate for punishment without a trial. Hell, I'm sure the Taliban have used it themselves.
-
Dowding
My English friend, you sound more and more like a defense lawyer..you thinking about changing your handle to JCochran and speakin in rythmes?
I see the all evidence I need to see every freaking day on the tv....
5422
how's that for evidence??
fry his bellybutton and any of his freakin followers!
-
Dowding, it isn't nonsense at all.
It's a simple fact that happens to be true.
There were some chowderheads that didn't think we should go to war with the Japanese after Pearl.
Some people jsut can't bear the thought of war. It is terrible. It is also sometimes necessary. I'll refer you to John Stuart Mill's quotation. He's said it better than anyone for all time.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
OK FD, I personally know that Bin Laden is guilty of many acts of terrorism and should be requarded by the western world as an enemy.
Ammo, let's put it this way: you have been told he's guilty.
He already admitted that he supported Chechen and Albanian terrorists, but is it a reason for war with the whole country?
Originally posted by skernsk:
fd ski. The preseident decalred "war" on all terrorists and those who harbour them.
Does it mean US is going to start war with Russia, because of the terrorist training camps in Chechnya? Or are they going to send troops there to help Russian army?
BTW, Chechens already said that the plane attack was prepared by Russia:
http://www.kavkaz.org/english/news/2001/09/12/news4.htm (http://www.kavkaz.org/english/news/2001/09/12/news4.htm)
BTW, www.kavkaz.org (http://www.kavkaz.org) is a very interesting reading. They finaly made a complete English wersion, so - enjoy it...
-
Have you all forgot that Bin Laden has already been tried and convicted (even in his absence) of the World Trade Center in 1993? There is OVERWHELMING evidence that he was involved in that attempt to bring it down.
-
Yeah, I agree.
Why does it have to be a war?
Let's have a trial.
I mean look, middle eastern terrorists are really not that bad a people, we just need to bring "bin laden" to trial. It's probably him (please don't accuse until you have the evidence personally sitting in your lap, why won't the gov't give us this? geeez), not these poor men who carry it out. Why declare war? They sacrifice their lives for their country, for Allah too, they're really disciplined and all. What's the big deal that they tied up and slit the throats of women stewardesses to accomplish their goal of destroying people's lives?
The little 4 yr old girl whose photo I saw on CNN the other day, riding on a big jet to L.A. with her mommy & daddy, obliterated into the side of a concrete and steel structure because these men from the middle east wanted to show the world how mean America is. I mean come on guys, there's only 4,500 souls lost here, a few billions of dollars worth of damage. Let's lock the culprits up.
Those whippersnappers.
That'll show 'em.
-
It's a simple fact that happens to be true.
Possibly, but it is not a viable argument for not having a trial. I'm sure Bin Laden is guilty of funding attacks in the past and he has publically declared his hate for Western (and particularly US) culture.
But I find it amusing, in a deeply bitter, non-humourous way, this talk of 'war on terrorism'. Like all of a sudden, terrorism matters. Whatever. I guess finally we'll see some movement on this issue.
Eagler - you, my American friend, sound more and more like some clueless xenophobic stereotype with every comment you post.
"Let's go blow those Ragheads away, boy!!"
That is your catch-phrase.
Also, you are aware that about 400 British people died last Tuesday? That Tuesday was the worst single act of terrorism committed against British citizens, ever?
This isn't a game.
-
I think you misunderstand Dowding.
If he surrenders, or Afganistan boots him out and we pick him up.. there probably will be a trial.
OTOH, if we have to go get him, there will probably be what is generally termed a war.
In that event, no matter what evidence is presented, documented, verified... whatever.. .there will still be those who deem it insufficient to "go get him" and thus start a "war".
It isn't about being a reason for a trial or not. It's an unassailably true observation about human nature.
-
I stopped using the slang "ragheads" many posts ago
though i will not cry a tear when the ones responsible for the death of over 6000 Americans last Tuesday get theirs. Screw the proof ( I'm not paraniod of my country and it's government that I don't trust them with it), screw a trial (that was our mistake with the first batch who bombed the WTC).. time for them to see their ALLAH.
Yes I realize how many ppl GB lost..
(http://www.twc-tampa.com/mdisalle/wtc_casualties_graphic.gif)
and yes I do realize it ain't a game .. but thanks for the reminder :rolleyes:
-
Eagler - you might as well keep talking the same talk, in the same terms. It really makes for worthwhile debate.
Toad - I see what you mean.
Apparently, Afghanistan have 'asked' Bin Laden to leave. I don't think anyone will buy that. So it looks like they are going in, doesn't it? If not this week, then very soon.
I wonder what the ROE is for the coalition forces once on the ground, considering:
The other 'side' deosn't wear a uniform.
The other 'side' look exactly like the civilian population.
The 'other' side's main tactic will be hit and run or suicide attack.
This is going to get very dirty, very quickly. I hope everyone is ready for it; it's going to make great copy!
I wonder if it will get the same attention one year from now...
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
This isn't a game.
Well, Is it a war, trial, what? What would you do if you were President Bush after enduring the worst disaster ever on American soil?
-
BTW, are you British? What is the "state of faded glory" anyway?
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: hblair ]
-
Good question, Hblair. I'd go with common opinion, because that would be my job. He's done an excellent job so far - his speeches have seemed heart-felt. He's not the greatest public speaker America has ever had, but I guess that's irrelevant in the circumstances.
As to what this 'is'... I don't think anyone has the slightest idea. A response is needed, clearly. But aimed at whom and to what extent? You have world leaders dashing across the face of globe trying to sort out some kind of fragile coalition, inter-weaving webs of common goals from quite different agendas.
Meanwhile, you have increased tensions between certain religious groups in every corner of the globe, but particularly around Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The ripples from that attack have been enormous in their reach. And this is only T+10 days.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]
-
Dowding,
I'm hopeful, although not REAL hopeful, that the Taliban leaders are "testing the waters".
They've made a pretty large movement on this issue in the last week.
Basically, their whole nation doesn't have "a pot to pee in" as we say. They face losing what little infrastructure they have over this.
Sure, they're talking tough and putting the warpaint on. One has to believe, however, that when the cameras are off and the politicians are in their lair drinking illegal Great Satan booze, watching Great Satan porno flicks and boffing a few of their 70 Virgins before they get to Paradise... (politicians are politicians)
they have to be asking themselves if Bin Laden is worth getting their clock cleaned.
I think we've made it pretty clear we're going to get Bin Laden. Easy way, Hard Way, Some way.
They have to be thinking that they'd prefer that to happen somewhere outside of Afghanistan.
I hope they just give him up. In fact, I pray they give him up and I don't do that very often. (I'm the type that figures the Diety expects us to handle our own little messes; I figure being the Diety and all, he stays pretty busy on the important stuff. But, sometimes we get ourselves in so deep we have to interrupt him. ;) )
ROE? If we have to go in to get him, I'd guess at a new, improved version of the "air-land battle." Yes, we've gotten better at it in the last decade. Here's my guess.. and that's all it is.
First, all their air assets will go down. Aircraft, radars, anti-air weaponry. That'll take a while.
Second, we'll take out their roads and bridges to hamper force movement.
Third, a serious "anti-armor" campaign against vehicles that are limited in mobility by the second phase. Anything with wheels on it in the whole country is going to be turned into a flower pot. They put MG's on their Japanese pickup trucks, so the all the trucks are targets.
Then we'd probably go in with ground troops, if we have to. You never know, they might wise up. Slow and methodical with maximum air support, in conjunction with their "Northern Alliance".
In a year from now, the focus will be on Iraq.
-
Well Im no politician or lawyer but if someone or some country is considered to have comitted an act of war against the United States he's not going to trial I'll tell ya that. He's going to get his arse kicked.
And as far as if he were guilty and could prove it we would've attacked already isn't really possible. You just don't move carrier groups, troops and supplies in over night and send them in blind. It takes time to build that force and choose your targets.
-
Yeah, bless his tongue-tied little soul, he can't speak to save his butt.
Personally, I think it's genetic from his father's side. Bush the Elder isn't/wasn't a public speaker either.
Barb, the Mom, seems pretty good though. Too bad he didn't get his "talking genes" from her side of the family.
However, it's all immaterial. Sometimes a Man finds his Destiny. Othertimes, Destiny finds a Man.
It's his to deal with now.
-
Sure, they're talking tough and putting the warpaint on. One has to believe, however, that when the cameras are off and the politicians are in their lair drinking illegal Great Satan booze, watching Great Satan porno flicks and boffing a few of their 70 Virgins before they get to Paradise... (politicians are politicians)
lol :) That's pretty much exactly what I was saying to a mate of mine the other day. These zealots who are so austere, severe and cruel when governing their own people, are probably living in some well cushioned pad with a large harem and many 'Western' comforts. It's how the world has always worked. ;)
As for the ROE - only one issue remains - the treatment of civilians. Like any war, there will be refugees, aid workers etc - how do we still achieve our goals while not killing these people? Even in Kosovo, the RAF bombed a load of tractors and trailers full of refugees by accident. How will this be avoided?
I think it all comes back to Viet Nam and the argument that the only reason the US lost, was that their ROE were too restrictive. I'm not sure how true that is, but there seems to be a lot of scope to kill alot of civilians in Afghanistan.
-
But I find it amusing, in a deeply bitter, non-humorous way, this talk of 'war on terrorism'. Like all of a sudden, terrorism matters. Whatever. I guess finally we'll see some movement on this issue.
I don’t understand that comment Dowding?
The implications of the terrorist act on the WTC and Pentagon are far reaching and infinitely deep.
Not only for the USA but the whole world, their(the terrorists) perceived success will not go unnoticed by others of that ilk.
And the local constable are not going to quaintly walk up their sidewalk and knock on the door and nicely ask them to come out and surrender.
Here is some of my ramblings on the matter.
The whole fabric of free societies is at risk from attacks from terrorist's who use our system against us.
If caught they adamantly demand the rights our countries give all human beings yet before they were caught they fought for a society that has very little value in human rights. Ironic isnt it?
So in order for us to live as an open free SAFE society we must take precautions that for a long time we have taken for granted.
Obviously Intelligence gathering alone does not work.
Neither does our current law process as pertaining to a deterrent to a terrorist.
Middle East peace talks have not been results orientated either.
If these defensive systems have failed us and terrorists can strike the free world at such a grandiose scale, what stops them from continuing, using a small Nuclear bomb, or bio-weapon secretly funded by say Iraq, or whomever.
I don’t want to have to live with the terrorist's having Carte Banche on destruction at a massive scale in my country,USA, GB or any God fearing (SIC) peaceful, productive ,and benevolent country.
I worry about my child and what the implications of her future might be if these acts go unanswered and continue.
The risk of war makes me worry as well but I will fight to preserve my way of life.
If people want to go quietly into the night
let them ;but I wager the majority of people in the free world would rather fight.
I believe we have to fight on a very multi-faceted front to defeat this clear and overlooming threat, that now because of the mass destruction that was a result of the WTC has probably fueled the insane fires of terrorists who deem our way of life wrong.
I believe that the USA has no war with the Afghan people but are at odds with the Taliban Government.
I believe that the USA and coalition countrys will opt to not invade and rule Afghanistan in the traditional sense.
Since history has shown that is futile.
But that they will try to overrun and eliminate the ruling Government there.
Historically that has proven to be Afghans weakness. A known saying is “What can be done to Afghanistan that Afghanistan hasn’t done to herself?”
I don’t want to live in a cowering defensive posture, always in fear of evil striking.
I want to face down this threat, and systematically eliminate it though all means necessary. Militarily diplomatically, through intelligence gathering and infiltration, economically through sanctions and world political pressure, these are just some of the actions needed to preserve our states.
These attacks have eviscerated free peoples sense of well- being, certainly we were naïve, and myopic but time has come…
Critics will always rise to the top saying “why now why did you not take action earlier?”
Well im sure the free peoples of this world apologise for their complacency and lackadaisical attitudes toward what terrorists brought to the table before the events of September 11 2001.
But No More.
Bin Ladens head on a pike
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Baddawg ]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
As for the ROE - only one issue remains - the treatment of civilians. Like any war, there will be refugees, aid workers etc - how do we still achieve our goals while not killing these people? Even in Kosovo, the RAF bombed a load of tractors and trailers full of refugees by accident. How will this be avoided?
If you are looking for a guarantee that "innocent" Afghans are not going to die, it never will come.
As I said in another thread, show me a real war where "innocent" people didn't die. I've never read of one.
The ROE will be structured to avoid killing the "innocent" to the maximum extent possible, consistent with keeping our own troops alive. Nonetheless, accidents, mistakes and possibly enemy tactics will ensure that some "innocents" are going to die. If not in the actual "war", then in the unfortunate aftermath. They're already starving.
Wild example: We do drop the 82nd Airborne in. The Afghans charge into battle with all their remaining armor... except they have strapped children on top of the tanks. What do you think is going to happen? Whose fault will it be? Innocent children will die nonetheless. As I said, this is an extreme "fantasy" characterization to show a possibility.
There is another argument to be considered as well. Can/will a population be held responsible for the actions of its government? Are they in fact "innocent" if they allow their government to aid, abet, promote and/or harbor terrorists?
The Afghans, both politicians and population are being given plenty of time to "do the right thing". I think the US has pretty clearly laid out its position on Bin Laden and I doubt there's anyone left in the world that doesn't believe he needs to be "picked up for questioning by the proper authorities".
The door is still open. There is an "Easy Way".
As far as the aftermath... if we do go in shooting we'll probably rebuild their country better than it was before we attacked. We almost always do. Maybe that's what they're counting on? Forking politicians.
-
Well, let's assume we (the world) get Bin Laden and kill him, with or without a trial. What worries me is that it won't end with him or the death of the al-Quieda organizaiton. There are other terrorists out there who, as some have said, will be emboldned by the "success" of the WTC and Pentagon raids. I fear that the attacks are not over and that any attempts toget Bin Laden will only produce more attacks.
What's more, we know that Pakistan is real unstable and it's population is real anti-american. Many Pakistani's support the Taliban. And guess what, the Pakistani's have nuclear weapons, don't they. The military situation could be very critical in very short order.
-
Hey, we're going to get nuked. It's only a matter of time.
Do nothing, it's sooner. Act now, maybe you can delay it a bit.
Cheerful thought, huh? Anyone want to bet against it?
"...and it's 1, 2, 3, ..what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn...
Next stop, Afghanistan.
..and it's 5, 6, 7 ..open up the Pearly Gates
ain't no time to wonder why, WHOOOPEE!
We're all gonna die!" Country Joe & The Fish
Hey man... we're all going to Paradise and we each get 70 VIRGINS! This is GREAT!!!
-
It may be possible that by providing our best evidence to the Taliban it would tip off our opposition as to how to defeat those intelligence gathering sources. I'm sure the government is still gathering evidence and trying to track those that have explicitely made war on us and we do not want to undermine that.
Just because there will be future evils you do not turn a blind eye on our current threat.
-
And now question for you all.
Since you are willing to put all the faith in the government and it's good will, i assume that you would see Waco as a justifiable nessesity ?
-
Sigh :rolleyes:
-
WTF has Waco got to do with running airplanes with passengers into buildings full of people??
Well, it's been a week now, way longer than the average attention span of we Americans. Time to get back to being afraid we might offend anyone and catch up on Oprah and Monday night football.
Then the second the heroic, innocent until we got about 40,000 pounds of documents proving them guilty, terrorists are able they will nuke a U.S. city and we can be pissed off at them again for a couple weeks and then do nothing because it might offend someones sensibilities.
edit:
fdski, we do indeed agree the Presidents "Dead or Alive" statement was inappropriate.
"Dead." would have been more appropriate.
[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Sunchaser ]
-
Ok fdski.. ante up..
Who's side you on?
Or are you just kickin the tires?
-
Here's an Idea,
Seeing a good number of people believe that we can't win do matter what we do, How's this sound?
Bush goes live on National TV, Gives the Jim Jones farwell speach. As the screen go's blank, each city in the US with a POP: of +10,000 is nuked. What the hell, we can't win so what's the point.
-
Hangtime, i'm on our side, only thing is, i don't like the mass lynchings, which is what people here seem to expect.
In 1938 a Jewish student killed a German Ambasador in Paris. Same sort of outrage you gave Hitler a blank check to kill all Jews without distinction - cause now it is "us vs them".
( i know that jewish prosecution didn't start in 1938, but this was one of the great excuses that Hitler used to justify his sick actions )
This post is made after Bush's speach last night. Makes this particular discussion a moot point. I'm just amazed how many people here can only think in one tracked fashion...
-
FD, Bin Laden does everything "7 layers deep"...ie the paper trail will never directly lead to him. He's already been tried, and convicted, even in his absence, for the 1993 bombing. Plenty of hard evidence in that one..he's since learned to cover his tracks quite well so that he can get sympathizers demanding 'proof' like he has successfully done.
-
"I'm just amazed how many people here can only think in one tracked fashion..."
Yeah, I see EXACTLY what you mean.
-
FD Ski you sure like comparing apples to oranges don’t you.?
Waco to Government Reaction of WTC/Pentagon atrocities.
Then One German( I am Assuming) Jewish student killing a German Ambassador in 1938 . Comparing that to an attack by foreign enemies of the USA on US soil, on over 6000 innocent civilians and the pouring of the Worlds public outrage to Hitler’s insanity and evident hatred of Jews and his using them to blame his countries problems on them?
I see it the other way I see the hatred coming from the Islamic extremists towards the USA and its support of the Jewish people.
If your looking for madness and hatred I think you should really take a good look on the other side of the fence, and hopefully you will be able to distinguish fanaticism from outrage and the need for public safety.
Your logic does not make any sense to me.
[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Baddawg ]
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
In 1938 a Jewish student killed a German Ambasador in Paris. Same sort of outrage you gave Hitler a blank check to kill all Jews without distinction - cause now it is "us vs them".
( i know that jewish prosecution didn't start in 1938, but this was one of the great excuses that Hitler used to justify his sick actions )
UHm ..... Hitler never excuses about killing Jewishs. He never said any racional reason. Thats fact. But 2/3 of jurist in berlin before 38 was jewish and 1 of his political goal was take this number as low as possible.
-
Hitler started peresecuting the jews long before 1938.
As for bin laden, theres ample evidence that he is a terrorist. he needs to go..