PDA

View Full Version : Dean: Bin Laden Innocent Until Proven Guilty



Leader
28 Dec 03,, 04:10
Dean: Bin Laden guilt best determined by jury

(CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean will not pronounce Osama bin Laden guilty before a trial, he said in an interview published Friday.

New Hampshire's Concord Monitor reported that Dean said he would not state his preference on a punishment for bin Laden before the al Qaeda leader was captured and put before a jury.

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said in the interview. "I will have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

Dean added he is certain most Americans agree with that sentiment.

Later, Dean released a statement clarifying, "I share the outrage of all Americans. Osama bin Laden has admitted that he is responsible for killing 3,000 Americans as well as scores of men, women and children around the world. This is the exactly the kind of case that the death penalty is meant for.

"When we capture Osama bin Laden, he will be brought to justice and treated in the same manner that President Bush is recommending for Saddam Hussein."

The interview covered a number of foreign affairs topics. Dean held fast to his belief that the capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made America no safer.

"My opponents spent the week criticizing me for that, which I think was to their detriment" since the federal government has just increased the terror alert level to orange, indicating an elevated risk of an attack, Dean told the paper.

Dean also said he would continue noting he was the only "major" candidate to oppose the war. He said even with that stance, he could win over those who supported the war "by going after (President Bush) on terrorism, where he's really weak."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/elec04.prez.dean.bin.laden/index.html

Bill
31 Dec 03,, 20:19
I am CERTAIN most americans do NOT want a jury trial for Osama.

What we want is a military tribunal. :)

Leader
31 Dec 03,, 20:29
Originally posted by M21Sniper
I am CERTAIN most americans do NOT want a jury trial for Osama.

What we want is a military tribunal. :)

I say we get every last bit of information out of him, and then take him outside and shoot him. :ar15

seekerof
01 Jan 04,, 05:19
Hmm, well, OBL 'might' be entitled to a fair trial but Dean's comments were a further illustration of a man suffering from "foot-in-mouth" disease:

"Dean's Osama oops"
Link:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/149523p-131822c.html


regards
seekerof

Leader
01 Jan 04,, 23:18
Originally posted by seekerof
Hmm, well, OBL 'might' be entitled to a fair trial

What entitles UBL to a fair trail or a trail period?

naocman
02 Jan 04,, 20:56
As far as criminals are concerned, by all means, they are innocent until proven guilty...its one of the freedoms that we hold dear. However, terrorists are another story completely. They are not "criminals"...they are vermin, and need to be treated as such. Personally, I don't think we'll ever catch OBL alive. We'll either drop a JDAM down his cave, or we'll go into catch him and he will die a martyr's death. I read somewhere (Newsweek?) that he was sleeping with a bunch of AP mines around her, ready to be triggered by him if he is in danger of being caught.

naocman
02 Jan 04,, 21:00
Like seekerof said, this is nothing new for Dean. He's got a classic case of liberalitis...he says whatever he needs to say to the audience he's in front of, and then he will go and say the exact opposite in front of the next audience. Another thing...anyone here read Cal Thomas' column yesterday on Dean? It basically called him on the carpet about how he is a "Christian"..very interesting column. I'll see if I can find it and post it.

A little off-topic...does anyone else here thing the DNC is going to let Dean run just so he'll get beat, opening up the door for Hillary in 2008?

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 21:06
Originally posted by naocman
As far as criminals are concerned, by all means, they are innocent until proven guilty...its one of the freedoms that we hold dear. However, terrorists are another story completely. They are not "criminals"...they are vermin, and need to be treated as such. Personally, I don't think we'll ever catch OBL alive. We'll either drop a JDAM down his cave, or we'll go into catch him and he will die a martyr's death. I read somewhere (Newsweek?) that he was sleeping with a bunch of AP mines around her, ready to be triggered by him if he is in danger of being caught.

A lot people thought Saddam would go down in a hail of gunfire too, and then we pulled his ass out of a whole in the ground. These guys are all cowards. If UBL followed is own teachings he’d strap a bomb on himself and rid the world of himself once and for all, but he won't do that. I think there is a least a 50-50 chance that we will get him alive.

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 21:08
Originally posted by naocman
A little off-topic...does anyone else here thing the DNC is going to let Dean run just so he'll get beat, opening up the door for Hillary in 2008?

I don't know if it is intentional on the DNC's part but it is certainly what Hilary wants.

naocman
02 Jan 04,, 21:14
I'd say the chances are more like 30-70 we get him alive...I think OBL has a bit more backbone than Saddam does...but like you said, these guys are all cowards at heart.

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 21:21
Whilst i have no doubt, in my own mind, that OBL is guilty. One of the things that terrorists want is to have civilised societies descend into the abyss, so that chaos can be used as a weapon to achieve the political aims that they cannot through more civlised means. The label of Terrorist still needs to be justified, even if you feel it is a different class of crime

Due process needs to be followed no matter how unpalatable it is. Remember people like OBL, while vermin, are also figureheads for other radicals and martydom is a dangerous thing.

Whilst it didn't surprise me at all that Saddam took the cowards route to preserve his own skin, OBL strikes me as someone who will take himself and as many "infidels" with him and i would hope whichever squad encounters him bears that foremost in their minds.

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 21:32
Originally posted by Trooth
Whilst i have no doubt, in my own mind, that OBL is guilty. One of the things that terrorists want is to have civilised societies descend into the abyss, so that chaos can be used as a weapon to achieve the political aims that they cannot through more civlised means. The label of Terrorist still needs to be justified, even if you feel it is a different class of crime

Due process needs to be followed no matter how unpalatable it is. Remember people like OBL, while vermin, are also figureheads for other radicals and martydom is a dangerous thing.

Whilst it didn't surprise me at all that Saddam took the cowards route to preserve his own skin, OBL strikes me as someone who will take himself and as many "infidels" with him and i would hope whichever squad encounters him bears that foremost in their minds.


I fail to see how taking UBL out back, and giving him two in the head creates "chaos."

naocman
02 Jan 04,, 21:43
I think what Trooth is saying is that by executing OBL, we sink down to the level of terrorists...okay, not exactly, but something like that.

As far as Osama taking some infidels with him...if things get too hot, a JDAM should take care of things.

Trooth
02 Jan 04,, 21:54
Originally posted by naocman
I think what Trooth is saying is that by executing OBL, we sink down to the level of terrorists...okay, not exactly, but something like that.

As far as Osama taking some infidels with him...if things get too hot, a JDAM should take care of things.

Indeed, I am not saying that execution should not be the final outcome, just it should be transaparent as to how it was reached.

The JDAM is also an option.

Leader
02 Jan 04,, 21:59
Originally posted by Trooth
Indeed, I am not saying that execution should not be the final outcome, just it should be transaparent as to how it was reached.

The JDAM is also an option.

Whatever, just as long as he is dead.

ChrisF202
03 Jan 04,, 03:01
All the libs seem to be obsessed with following the Constitution

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 03:57
Weel a war has just been fought to defend it. Seems a shame to seel it short now.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 04:18
Originally posted by ChrisF202
All the libs seem to be obsessed with following the Constitution

:LOL Can you say "Second Amendment" :LOL

They are only interested in defending the parts that they agree with.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 04:19
Originally posted by Trooth
Weel a war has just been fought to defend it. Seems a shame to seel it short now.

The war is fought to protect freedom in general not the Constitution in particular.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 04,, 05:21
Originally posted by Leader
The war is fought to protect freedom in general not the Constitution in particular.

No, for US service members, it was fought for the US Constitution in particular.

OATH OF OFFICE
(OFFICERS AND ARMY CIVILIANS)

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE UPON WHICH I AM ABOUT TO ENTER."



OATH OF ENLISTMENT

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE."

smilingassassin
03 Jan 04,, 10:38
Dean is such an assclown...you Americans will be sorry if you elect that twit into office, mark my words if Dean becomes presedent there will be another 9/11 type attack within 6 months of him taking office. Even the French know Osama's guilty....what a twit.

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 13:50
I think we are getting Fox News mixed up with Rule of Law here.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 15:17
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
No, for US service members, it was fought for the US Constitution in particular.

OATH OF OFFICE
(OFFICERS AND ARMY CIVILIANS)

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE UPON WHICH I AM ABOUT TO ENTER."



OATH OF ENLISTMENT

"I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE."

By that definition every war is solely about the Constitution, which is not the case.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 15:18
Originally posted by smilingassassin
Dean is such an assclown...you Americans will be sorry if you elect that twit into office, mark my words if Dean becomes presedent there will be another 9/11 type attack within 6 months of him taking office. Even the French know Osama's guilty....what a twit.

Don't worry. He's not going to win.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 15:20
Originally posted by Trooth
I think we are getting Fox News mixed up with Rule of Law here.

Please explain the statement above, oh watcher of the great BBC. :roll :roll :roll

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 16:58
Please explain the statement above, oh watcher of the great BBC.


Ooooh get her.

My Fox News comment was based on the hyperbole that has been chucked out on the "news" channel since 11/9/01. For example "Johnny Jihad". IMHO Fox News is akin to The Sun's "Gotcha" and other superficial reporting of what, at the end of the day are world events that are life and death.

This style of tabloid reporting leads to soundbite catchphrase journalism that, if anything, undermines some principles it is scremaing about. Under the rule of Law no one knows who did what. The law is often said to be an ass. And perhaps so. But it is the rule of law that seperates the US from amny other countries.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 17:22
Originally posted by Trooth
Ooooh get her.

My Fox News comment was based on the hyperbole that has been chucked out on the "news" channel since 11/9/01. For example "Johnny Jihad". IMHO Fox News is akin to The Sun's "Gotcha" and other superficial reporting of what, at the end of the day are world events that are life and death.

This style of tabloid reporting leads to soundbite catchphrase journalism that, if anything, undermines some principles it is scremaing about. Under the rule of Law no one knows who did what. The law is often said to be an ass. And perhaps so. But it is the rule of law that seperates the US from amny other countries.

Do you watch fox?

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 19:10
Have done. Perhaps it has changed recently. I watched it a lot at the end of 2001 and on and off thereafter. Couldn't really face it after a while.

Anybody who said anything that was in anyway critical (and this could be fairly innocuous stuff) had to phrase themselves soooo carefully it was silly.

The whole "Johnny Jihad" thing i think summed it up. Everything had to (perhaps standards have raised since i last watched) have a catch phrase. If people's arguments couldn't have a 5 word summing up that was punchy they were sidelined. If they said anything that involved exploration, the critical bits were jumped upon the meat was discarded.

Having said that, i think an interview on there was Pat Buchanan's finest hour and it is likely what he said will come true, sadly.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 19:25
Originally posted by Trooth
Have done. Perhaps it has changed recently. I watched it a lot at the end of 2001 and on and off thereafter. Couldn't really face it after a while.

Anybody who said anything that was in anyway critical (and this could be fairly innocuous stuff) had to phrase themselves soooo carefully it was silly.

The whole "Johnny Jihad" thing i think summed it up. Everything had to (perhaps standards have raised since i last watched) have a catch phrase. If people's arguments couldn't have a 5 word summing up that was punchy they were sidelined. If they said anything that involved exploration, the critical bits were jumped upon the meat was discarded.

Having said that, i think an interview on there was Pat Buchanan's finest hour and it is likely what he said will come true, sadly.

I watch Fox everyday and I don't see this stuff you see. Fox gives you the news, and the commentators will often give there opinions of the news. That what I want to see. If you just what facts then go to the AP. Although I wouldn't trust them much either.

The term "Johnny Jihad" Referred to that trader we caught in Afghanistan. He got 20 years in Federal prison, and rightly so.

As to Pat Buchanan, he is probably not on Fox very much since, at least used to, have a show on MSNBC.

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 19:32
I have no problem with people's opinion. Far from it. The problem is that everything had to be dramatic. The drama is everything, or at least so it appeared to me.

The Pat Buchanan bit was shortly before the invasion of Afghanistan, can't remember the exact timing. His stuff was very well put, made sense and probably through his force of cahracter alone managed to get his point across using more than 5 words and without being assailed by someone offering "balance".

My point is that whether or not Mr Walker Lindh was a traitor was for the US courts to decide. Which they did, although i was surprised he wasn't executed.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 19:40
Originally posted by Trooth
I have no problem with people's opinion. Far from it. The problem is that everything had to be dramatic. The drama is everything, or at least so it appeared to me.

After 9/11 was a dramatic time.


The Pat Buchanan bit was shortly before the invasion of Afghanistan, can't remember the exact timing. His stuff was very well put, made sense and probably through his force of cahracter alone managed to get his point across using more than 5 words and without being assailed by someone offering "balance".

Do you know what Pat Buchanan represents?


My point is that whether or not Mr Walker Lindh was a traitor was for the US courts to decide. Which they did, although i was surprised he wasn't executed.

No, I can decide whether he is a traitor or not. I just can impose a sentence on with like a court does. Let's remember a trail ensures justice. It does not create it.

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 19:52
Ah yes. but let us say you decide i am a traitor (ignoring nationalaties etc.)

If you decide i am, then fine. If you express that opinion to someone then i sue your arse off.

If on the other hand a court decides i am then, well i am. End of story. If you now express your opinion of me. Then fine.

There is a fundamental difference there that is based upon due process. Without the process existing the judgment is not valid.

Regarding Mr Buchanan his politics don't often square up with mine. But he made sense to me that day.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 20:13
Originally posted by Trooth
Ah yes. but let us say you decide i am a traitor (ignoring nationalaties etc.)

If you decide i am, then fine. If you express that opinion to someone then i sue your arse off.

You can only do that, in the US, if I knowingly lie about you being a traitor. In other words, I know your not a traitor, and I say it anyway to damage you.


If on the other hand a court decides i am then, well i am. End of story. If you now express your opinion of me. Then fine.

There is a fundamental difference there that is based upon due process. Without the process existing the judgment is not valid.

If it is objectively just for someone to get the death penalty. Say they killed a hundred people in a premeditated way. They did it. That is a fact here. In this case a trail simply ensures justice. It sets a precedent for other cases, but it does not create justice because justice is an objective reality, not a subjective reality.

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 20:26
You can only do that, in the US, if I knowingly lie about you being a traitor. In other words, I know your not a traitor, and I say it anyway to damage you.


Well let us assume i have not been convicted as a traitor. Under the law i am therefore not a traitor. So you must have lied about me.



If it is objectively just for someone to get the death penalty. Say they killed a hundred people in a premeditated way. They did it. That is a fact here. In this case a trail simply ensures justice. It sets a precedent for other cases, but it does not create justice because justice is an objective reality, not a subjective reality.

Well, i don't know that we KNOW that. We all suppose that various things happened. But justice is blind. She has no prejudice and therefore needs to have the evidence prove it to her. I am not saying it would be difficult to do, in OBL's case, but it has yet to be done.

However, this is somewhat a moot point. Because i suspect that neither SH nor OBL (if he is indeed ever captured alive) will be put on public trial (for war crimes or otherwsie) and some form of military tribunal is more likely. I am not sure the west really wants some of the past dragged up again.

Leader
03 Jan 04,, 20:38
Originally posted by Trooth
Well let us assume i have not been convicted as a traitor. Under the law i am therefore not a traitor. So you must have lied about me.

That is illogical. If I murder someone in cold blood, I'm a murder. If the court finds me innocent the court is wrong. By the standard you set forward if you murdered someone in a country that has no judicial system, you could not be a murderer.


Well, i don't know that we KNOW that. We all suppose that various things happened. But justice is blind. She has no prejudice and therefore needs to have the evidence prove it to her. I am not saying it would be difficult to do, in OBL's case, but it has yet to be done.

This goes back to the morality discussion. Justices is either objective in which case it exists despite human opinion, or it's subjective in which case the term is meaningless.

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 20:46
That is illogical. If I murder someone in cold blood, I'm a murder. If the court finds me innocent the court is wrong. By the standard you set forward if you murdered someone in a country that has no judicial system, you could not be a murderer.


The law is an ass. If you were to call me a murderer and i was not proven to be so then i would win. We have all seen numerous examples of this happening. It doesn't make it right. But equally just because someone in a book or newspaper says that X did kill Y, or X didn't kill why, doesn't make it so. Sadly the best we can do is the law. It can work the other way, i can be falsely convicted. Then, for the rest of my life i am a traitor when i am not, but that is the yardstick we have and the only one.




This goes back to the morality discussion. Justices is either objective in which case it exists despite human opinion, or it's subjective in which case the term is meaningless.

It does indeed. There are those religions that will not judge, only God can judge. But those societies often have an anarchic feel about them until their members "meet their maker" and what happens then is, as yet, unproven.

Officer of Engineers
03 Jan 04,, 21:28
Originally posted by Leader
By that definition every war is solely about the Constitution, which is not the case.

It is when every measure of the Codes of Conduct is measured and dictated by that Constituion.

sam0001
03 Jan 04,, 21:42
First of all, people like OSAMA deserve no trial, not even in military tribunal. Catch them, and shoot them right on thr forehead between eyes, gun 2 inches away BAMMMMMMMM.......

The only way you can defeat this kind of terrorism is to terrorize the terrorists...

Saudi, iran and pakistan are the greatest threat to mankind today. The sauds have formed this radical form of islam. The iranisns and pakistanis have built thousands of madrasas all over their country to educate people and teach them hate for jews and hindus. A fundamentall change needs to take place, replacing these madrasas with more practical schools,

Why is BUSH not going after saudi arabia???????

Trooth
03 Jan 04,, 22:08
Originally posted by sam0001
[B]First of all, people like OSAMA deserve no trial, not even in military tribunal. Catch them, and shoot them right on thr forehead between eyes, gun 2 inches away BAMMMMMMMM.......



I don't care what OBL deserves. I am more concered about what the west deserves. The west has fought two land wars on the basis that OBL et al are wrong, are terrorists, do not respect the rule of law and civilised society. That they do not respect nor tolerate ways of life that are different from their own. The West has been accused of "democratic fundamentalism" of pursuing its own jihad against Islam.

Putting a gun to OBL's head in some hanger in some forgotten airfield in Afghanistan, perhaps videoing it for proof, will not show the benevelonce, compassion etc of the west. It will not show the critics that the west respects the rule of law and morality (however that morality may be arrived at). Putting OBL in a trial, based on the same principles, beliefs, and protections that any other citizen of the west would enjoy and then finding him guilty may well do that.



The only way you can defeat this kind of terrorism is to terrorize the terrorists...

Fastest way to make him a martyr.

Take Saddam who is now in custody. People supporting Saddam now know that they are supporting a weasal, not a lion. A weasal who even at the end, even with the opportunity to die for his "glory for the Arabs" to "kill the infidel", chose not to fight it out and take a few infidels with him, but to try for a deal.

Now, the myths that surround his capture are about the bop on the nose he received from the soldier. But if he had been killed, rather than punched, the myths would be about the tens, hundreds, no doubt thousands of infidels that he killed with his own, bare hands .. etc etc. The west would have tried to refute it (no dead bodies would be a hint) but would those of his followers see that rebuttal. If they did would they believe it?

The war on terror is about more than two men. It is also about more than al-qeada and Saddam's Iraq.

sam0001
04 Jan 04,, 03:48
No Killing OSAMA does not make him a martyr, I agree with you on the fact that war on terror is not about two people. But this is the only way it is going to work. they want to wipe out certain races anyway.,, And the masses move with them...

I dont have anything to do with any particlular relegion but Islam needs a lot of change. A dramatic change needs to be brought in to the relegious practices, Every other major relegion has brought reform with time, except Islam.

Here is the english translation from one of our vedic books. Read and see if it makes any sense.

We are the birds of the same nest,
We may wear different skins,
We may speak different languages,
We may believe in different religions,
We may belong to different cultures,
Yet we share the same home - OUR EARTH.

Born on the same planet
Covered by the same skies
Gazing at the same stars
Breathing the same air
We must learn to happily progress together
Or miserably perish together,
For man can live individually,
But can survive only collectively

Officer of Engineers
04 Jan 04,, 04:46
Originally posted by Trooth
Putting a gun to OBL's head in some hanger in some forgotten airfield in Afghanistan, perhaps videoing it for proof, will not show the benevelonce, compassion etc of the west. It will not show the critics that the west respects the rule of law and morality (however that morality may be arrived at). Putting OBL in a trial, based on the same principles, beliefs, and protections that any other citizen of the west would enjoy and then finding him guilty may well do that.

No need to worry about that. The RoEs are strict and involitable. If OBL wants to engage in combat, we'll obliged. If he wants to surrender, we'll give him the chance (about 10 seconds).

Once he surrenders, he will be taken into custody and then booted off somewhere where people more senior than any field cmdr to decide what the hell happens to him.

Either way, it wouldn't be the military taking OBL off somewhere to be shot without due process. If we do shoot him, then it would be under legal orders.

The civies may not like it but that's the way the military works.


Originally posted by Trooth

The only way you can defeat this kind of terrorism is to terrorize the terrorists...

Fastest way to make him a martyr.

My experience in UNPROFOR says something else. Martyrs are for those who are not exposed constantly to combat. People lose nerves real fast when you deliver the proper message consistently. In the Canadian case, hostile snipers can expect retallitory groin shots by my snipers.

I also recall how the Mongols dealt with the Al Qeida of their day - the Assassins.

Trooth
04 Jan 04,, 16:25
If someone like OBL is killed out of sight then they become martyrs.

If they take their own life, then as i understand islamic law, they are not martyrs. If they go down, fighting for islam etc then their followers will see that as a martyr and will give strength to their teachings.

I agree that martyrs are for those that are not exposed to combat. However it is from those ranks that terorists come. The people who leave their homes and head for populated areas with home made bombs.

But the best way to expose thes epeople as murderous, as misusing Ismlamic law for their own ends is a trial.

Praxus
04 Jan 04,, 16:48
I say we give him a show trial, have him sitting in the chair next to a shitty lawyer we appointed him. Make him look totally pathetic. Then after that we force him to make a 10 mile march to a tall tree. Then we lynch him.

Officer of Engineers
05 Jan 04,, 03:26
Originally posted by Trooth
If someone like OBL is killed out of sight then they become martyrs.

Not if you don't care and show that you don't care. There were martyrs aplenty and would be martyrs aplenty in Bosnia andKosovo. Did not stopped the Serbs and Croats and eventually, they wouldbe martyrs ran before the onslaught.


Originally posted by Trooth
I agree that martyrs are for those that are not exposed to combat. However it is from those ranks that terorists come. The people who leave their homes and head for populated areas with home made bombs.

Not if you go after their homes also. The basis of the Bush Doctrine.


Originally posted by Trooth
But the best way to expose thes epeople as murderous, as misusing Ismlamic law for their own ends is a trial.

The Mongols didn't care. Neither did the Serbs. Neither did we (UNPROFOR). And neither do the Americans.

Trooth
05 Jan 04,, 13:47
That is just another form of oppression. People don't stop thinking and believing things. Take the former Yugoslavia, there was recial hatred there that went back to a war 500 years ago. Wiping out homes etc doesn't stop people's beliefs. It is those beliefs that need to be challenged. Simply wiping out the homes of terrorists will only fuel other terrorists or drive the hatred underground until the destroyers of the homes grip either relaxes, or they simply lose interest, then it springs up again.

Ironduke
05 Jan 04,, 13:52
That whole thing in the former Yugoslavia, it wasn't racial. Croatians, Bosniaks, Serbs are all the same ethnic group with different religions.

Trooth
05 Jan 04,, 20:41
My bad choice of words. I didn't actually mean racial in that context.

But my point was that the hatred was long standing and deep rooted and had managed to live through a dozen generations. Once the leash was removed they started to sort out the old hatreds. They didn't go away just because someone stamped on them. They just simmered and festered.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jan 04,, 05:15
Originally posted by Trooth
That is just another form of oppression. People don't stop thinking and believing things. Take the former Yugoslavia, there was recial hatred there that went back to a war 500 years ago. Wiping out homes etc doesn't stop people's beliefs. It is those beliefs that need to be challenged. Simply wiping out the homes of terrorists will only fuel other terrorists or drive the hatred underground until the destroyers of the homes grip either relaxes, or they simply lose interest, then it springs up again.

I'm afraid you've missed my point. We're not talking oppression. We're talking killing them. If suicide bombers can only come from homes not exposed to war, then we'll bring war to their homes.

The Mongols found a very easy way to kill a belief. Kill the people who believe them. You will note that no one today is taking blood vengence on Mongolia.

Blademaster
06 Jan 04,, 08:40
Why would they want to? Mongols are extinct now.

They killed themselves.

Officer of Engineers
06 Jan 04,, 09:44
Originally posted by Blademaster
Why would they want to? Mongols are extinct now.

They killed themselves.

The Russians and the Chinese were the only ones who took vengence on Mongolia. In everywhere else, there was no one left alive to take vengence. The Mongols became part of their societies ala Mughal style.

Bill
06 Jan 04,, 19:54
Mongols aren't extinct.

I know a full blooded Mongol.

He is a large fellow, and not to be trifled with, lol.

Trooth
06 Jan 04,, 19:56
Originally posted by M21Sniper
He is a large fellow, and not to be trifled with, lol.


Why? Is he allergic to custard? :)

Bill
06 Jan 04,, 20:24
OK, that's obviously british humor, which totally escapes me, lol.

But for the sake of international relations, LOL!!!

Trooth
06 Jan 04,, 20:40
Custard, an ingrediant of trifle.

i'll get my coat.

Bill
06 Jan 04,, 20:47
LOL, i take you lads have a pastrie named a 'trifle'.

Trooth
06 Jan 04,, 20:55
Ah, yes. I can now see the problem we are having :)

http://www.joyofbaking.com/StrawberryLemonCurdTrifle.html

Bill
06 Jan 04,, 21:40
LOL, i never knew. ;)

Here 'trifle' means 'to mess with lightly'(roughly).

Hence 'do not trifle with the large Mongol' means that if you mess with him he will break you into many small pieces, lol.

Stinger
06 Jan 04,, 21:50
we need a link to that english-american translation site.

Trooth
06 Jan 04,, 22:01
Originally posted by M21Sniper
LOL, i never knew. ;)

Here 'trifle' means 'to mess with lightly'(roughly).

Curiously it also means that here too. Hence the play on words in this kiddies joke :-

Did you hear about the man who had custard in one ear and jam in the other? He was a trifle deaf!

I guess the quote about UK/US is true "Two nations seperated by a common language" :)



Hence 'do not trifle with the large Mongol' means that if you mess with him he will break you into many small pieces, lol.

Why? does he like crumble (http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Britain/Food/Cooking/Crumble.htm) ?

/me runs.

Bill
06 Jan 04,, 22:46
lol

Trooth
01 Feb 04,, 15:55
I was stuck by the "taking war to their homes" type comments in this topic (if you scroll back past the dessert drollery :)) when they were made but felt i had failed to make some sort of point then, and so re-hashing it wasn't a good idea.

Then i was struck by this item about a BBC TV programme to be shown tonight :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/3436701.stm



Hundreds of thousands of people are imprisoned without charge. It's not because they have committed a crime. It is because their relatives are believed to be critical of the regime and so they are punished.

According to President Kim Jong Il, the bad blood and seed of any dissident must be rooted out down to three generations.


Is there a difference between the west (and its eastern allies) levelling the homes of the families of terrorists and Kim Jong Il's approach?

Ray
02 Feb 04,, 02:56
Bin Laden MUST get a fair trail. Everyone in a democracy deserves and must get a free trial.

I am no lawyer or an attorney. Yet, with the damning evidence available against Osama, I would win the case HANDS DOWN, even if he were represented by the BEST criminal lawyer of this world.

This makes the case all the more essential for Bin Laden to get a fair trial.

It would indeed be foolish not to give him a fair trail, apart from appearing as a totalitarian regime (like the USSR of which must tomtoming has been done).

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Confed999
03 Feb 04,, 00:50
Dean wants to be President when UBL caught, so he can end the war on terror as the great victor. Kerry would just assume do this as well. They, as well as most of their followers, seem to focus on him as the center of all this and not the "terrorists and those that support them". Still, I'll hope they are right, that with the end of bin we will find peace, I doubt but I will hope.


Originally posted by Trooth
Hundreds of thousands of people are imprisoned without charge. It's not because they have committed a crime. It is because their relatives are believed to be critical of the regime and so they are punished.....Is there a difference between the west (and its eastern allies) levelling the homes of the families of terrorists and Kim Jong Il's approach?
If those being "critical" in NK are: encouraging, planing, supporting and celebrating the deaths of little children, then KJI should treat them as only he could. I doubt this is the case though.

Ray
03 Feb 04,, 16:52
Let's not beat about the bush. Or, be escapists from the reality. One can't get at ALL the terrorists of the world. That's utopia.

So, as the BBBC Director said - Lets cut out the crap.

OBL was built larger than life ever since he bombed the WTC. If OBL is caught, killed or vapourised, it will be a body blow to the terrorists of his ilk. That's what is important.

Since this lunactic has been built larger than life, we must get him. It will give confidence to the rest of the world as also tell them that we will get you wherever you are. Otherwise, it is all hot air. That is why the freaks up in Iraq are still running a riot! They still have an icon even though Saddam has been nabbed.

Face reality and not hide behind fanciful trifling rhetoric.

Confed999
04 Feb 04,, 01:09
Originally posted by Ray
Let's not beat about the bush. Or, be escapists from the reality.
What did I say that was unrealistic?

Originally posted by Ray
One can't get at ALL the terrorists of the world.
Certainly nobody can get all the terrorists in the world without killing everyone, but did anyone get all the Nazis either? Nope, not all have to be gotten, just enough to prove their effort futile, same as nearly every war.

Originally posted by Ray
That's utopia.
If all it takes for Utopia is an end to terrorism, then Utopia isn't worth working for. Utopia isn't any place I want to live anyway, perfection is dull. In Utopia I would be the terrorist.

Originally posted by Ray
So, as the BBBC Director said - Lets cut out the crap.
I don't get it? Do you mean BBC? If so, I submit that if every news media group "cut out the crap", the news would be 5 minutes long, tons of people would be out of work and they would have to start paying to push their agendas. Hmmmm, besides the people out of work part, that doesn't seem bad at all.

Originally posted by Ray
OBL was built larger than life ever since he bombed the WTC. If OBL is caught, killed or vapourised, it will be a body blow to the terrorists of his ilk. That's what is important.

Since this lunactic has been built larger than life, we must get him. It will give confidence to the rest of the world as also tell them that we will get you wherever you are. Otherwise, it is all hot air. That is why the freaks up in Iraq are still running a riot! They still have an icon even though Saddam has been nabbed.
I never said he wasn't important, I said some "focus on him as the center of all this". I guess you simply aren't privy to the BS politics we in the US get to see on a daily basis. Here the libs go around saying that Iraq, for example, is designed to take our attenton away from the real problem, UBL (or OBL if you prefer), when it's all part of the same war. The libs do not, and you may not, see it this way but it's a war on terror, not a war on UBL, or even a war on al Queda. I'm allways willing to concede that I am by no means normal in my thinking on this, while others speak of justification, I speak of obligation. I would have supported this war, hot or cold, anytime in the last 2 decades simply because I'm certain that letting a problem fester only makes it worse. IMHO, the "freaks" were there long before anyone had heard of UBL, "freaks" are something there is no shortage of in this world. (BTW, every political group is guilty of BS politics, I'm not just picking on the libs)

Originally posted by Ray
Face reality and not hide behind fanciful trifling rhetoric.
I am facing reality, and it is very unrealistic to believe everything terrorism related is based on one man. And, if you're looking to me for rhetoric, then I'm going to dissapoint you because all you'll get from me is my opinions and beliefs. Agree with me, don't agree with me or just don't care, not only is the choice yours but you can allways change your mind. How's that for straight and realistic?

Trooth
04 Feb 04,, 01:38
Capturing Bin Laden would be a MASSIVE coup for the west. Killing him would be a minor one.

But either way, it will not end Terrorism and by extension the war on terror. In my opinion both sides of the war on terror are not playing by similar strategies. In the past the terror organisations have always worked on the "enemy of my enemey is my friend" principle, they have often struck up tenuous alliances that have often had them fight side by side while holding a knife at each others back.

Therefore, if Al-qaeda falls, another group will take their place. Perhaps they will take years to be become as strong. But it will happen. The reason i am so sure is that it has always happened. Al-qeada is not the first terrorist group. 11/9 was not the first terrorist attack on a soft domestic target (it wasn't even the first attack on New York's WTC by Al-qeada). Dubya has said on several occaisions this may well be a never ending war and this is something i absolutely agree with him about.

Now the west (and in particular the Bush administration) has decided to fight using a similar tactic. to the "enemy of my enemy" principle. They may not dispense with the traditional alliances but they are of much less importance than getting the next objective. The risk with nation states doing it is that the "subdued" have long memories and remember what the nation states did, which brings me back to :-



If those being "critical" in NK are: encouraging, planing, supporting and celebrating the deaths of little children, then KJI should treat them as only he could. I doubt this is the case though.


The Dear Leader (sic) in NK is making the assumption that the families of people who behave inappropriately must be punished for their family members actions. I see the same assumptions being made in other parts of the world. When it comes to propoganda, the reasons for actions are often lost. But the actions themselves are for all to see.

Confed999
04 Feb 04,, 01:50
Originally posted by Trooth
But the actions themselves are for all to see.
Then what action was taken by those being "critical"? I think everyone should be critical of government, but not imprisoned for it. I don't consider blowing one's self up on a school bus full of little kids being critical, so IF that's what they did then more power to KJI.

Trooth
04 Feb 04,, 02:01
Most civilised societies punish those who are guilty of a crime based on their own laws. Uncivilised societies punish those people who have not been convicted of anything.

In closed societies it is propganda that rules and fuels. Therefore when the families of suicide bombers have their houses destroyed, it will be porttrayed as "they destroyed my house" not "they destroyed my house because a relative of mine blew up a school bus". it therefore fuels propganda. The images require explanation. That explanation cannot always be guaranteed. I personally see it as a counter productive tactic. But i am sure others thing it has strategic merit.

In NK. They are using the same "terror" type approach to control people. Step out of line and it isn't just you that gets it, it is your family. The propaganda is "dissident family caught", the truth requires explanation, which won't be forthcoming.

Confed999
04 Feb 04,, 02:18
Originally posted by Trooth
In NK. They are using the same "terror" type approach to control people. Step out of line and it isn't just you that gets it, it is your family. The propaganda is "dissident family caught", the truth requires explanation, which won't be forthcoming.
Then the difference is, here you get cause and effect, they're twisted toward the agenda of the media group providing the info, but the info is there to see. In NK this isn't the case, it's only the effect that's allowed to be seen. Thus my disbelief that it's the same thing.

Trooth
04 Feb 04,, 02:26
Imagine two photos. Just the photos and imagine your first impressions.

Tank rumbling over crumbled house.

Man and woman handcuffed and led away.

I agree that there is more than meets the eye, but what is meeting the eye?

Confed999
04 Feb 04,, 02:37
Originally posted by Trooth
Imagine two photos. Just the photos and imagine your first impressions.

Tank rumbling over crumbled house.

Man and woman handcuffed and led away.

I agree that there is more than meets the eye, but what is meeting the eye?
That's a fair example if you're in NK. Here you get access to more pictures; one of a blown up school bus, one of the people celibrating it, one of the people trying to protect the other gang members, one of a tank crushing their house and that's just a very few examples from one side. If people don't look for all the info themselves then I probably can't help them. In fact if you're talking to people who don't even try to validate anything they're shown, you should be able to convince them of anything.

Ray
04 Feb 04,, 03:55
It is correct that I am not aware of the political scenario in the US. I was looking at the issue from the viewpoint of an international bystander in general and an Asian viewpoint in particular.

The US, in this part of the world, more so now, personifies in a generic way the Canadian Mounties motto - The Mounties Always Get Their Man. Or, more rudimentarily put, they put their money where their mouth is.

Since it was said OBL or UBL will be got dead or alive and he will smoke him out, after the horrendous massacre at the WTC, it recharged all who have been at the mercy of the terrorists for so long. Like it or not, when the US sneezes, the world sneezes! The flipside is that when the US fails to put into action what it so vehemently and so zealously professes, the deriders laugh up their sleeves and get bolder as one would of a sheep in wolf's clothing. That is what is dangerous. The audacity of the terrorists as it grows stronger and wilder by the day, is a case in point.

Now, if OBL is found and sorted out as Saddam has been done, it will be a clear message to all would be terrorists that it is fine they go ahead with their dastardly tricks but in the end, they will be got. In short, the message would be not only to the terrorists but also to those who support them, be they individuals or govts, that the US means business and that statements from the US govt is not a whole lot of rhetoric or hot air. The fact that the icon (built larger than life by the frenzy whipped up by the US media and govt) OBL is making hay while the sun shines inspite of the US vows to get him is opium to the terrorist zeal. They are gleefully cocking the snoot.

Unfortunately, the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East belies the aura that the only superpower of the world should command. It also is indicative, maybe incorrectly, the feeling that US is merely interested in short term goals and is beyond perceiving the long term fallout and inspite of being powerful. Worse is that the US is intellectual floundering. This image is further made murkier with Bush indirectly admitting that Saddam had no WMD. To a large majority, it is very difficult to believe that the US and the West with all its economic, technological, scientific resources that pry on land, underwater, air and even in outer space failed to know whether Saddam had WMD or not. In fact, it is sad to see them eat crow. However, it is also very gratifying to realise that their citizenry is sharp and demanding, unlike in our parts of the world.

The US may argue, who cares? The point it if the US declares itself as the North Pole of international politics and economy and the world willingly or unwillingly does not dispute or challenge the claim, then the US must show the intellectual prowess, dedication and planning to see their leadership claim is on firm footing and not merely to bully into submission.

One of the tenets of leadership is - One must earn the respect, one cannot command it.

Sparky
04 Feb 04,, 04:59
Just about any position the US takes will be critisized both visciously and vociferously by much of the world. Any action that has an immediate affect will be criticized as short sided. Most nations want power and success and most countries citizens want power and success and improved position for their respective countries. Right now the USA has so much power that other nations seeking it tend to view it as a zero sum game and desire to thwart the USA in order to gain some of the USA's power and wealth. Just as a plant must struggle against other plants for access to sunlight and water and mineral nutrients, MOST other nations desire a smaller USA footprint so they can have a perceived easier way to grow. This affects the media organizations and mainstream thinking in most countries to such a degree that it tends to overwhelm most other thought. Its almost a knee-jerk reaction.

I believe many other countires citizens will themselves be short sighted on the prospect of the arguments for collective mutual gain merely to oppose the USA for the reasons mentioned. One of the mechanisms for doing this is to accuse the USA of being short sighted when in fact the world has benifited greatly from the long term mutually benificial worldviews the US has a solid track record of promoiting.

Confed999
04 Feb 04,, 05:42
I really hope it doesn't come down to something like jealousy.

Ray
04 Feb 04,, 06:08
Sparky,

The rationale that any action by the US, good or bad, will be criticised by other nations is what befuddles me. This is a defensive mechanism at work. Are you suggesting ab inito that the US is aware that its actions are not correct and hence adopt the 'damn the world attitude we will get criticised anyway' and do it anyway? I don't subscribe to that view. The US has done a lot good and there are many non US citizens who will agree with that.

The crux what worries the remainder of the world is the insecurity it causes them because of US actions. No one complained about the actions in Afghanistan. A ridiculous regime led by the Taliban which set rules straight from the medieval times obviously was out of synchromesh with the present times. Even co religionist Pakistan, which backed them earlier, has not only supported the US, but has gone beyond what is safe for them amongst their Islamic brethren. Musharraf has had two real close assasinations attempts on him! So, whatever makes you feel that the US will be criticised either way. A lot of tension between India and Pakistan is being eased by US brokered dialogue (even if it is not admitted officially by any govts involved). Yes, the Opposition political parties may try to gain by crying wolf, but the population at large is not concerned. Indeed, this action of the US is the maturity that one wants to see - everyone knows who is behind it (US), but they are not tomtoming the same and letting the course the have set run their path!

Bill Gates has funded a large anti AIDS programme in India. He is quite a hero here. The US consul general's wife in Calcutta has totally submerged herself with the Indian way of life. She is a very welcomed figure out here and doing a very good job for the US. And mind you, West Bengal (Calcutta is the capital) is run by a rabid Communist govt! Gone are the days when it was fashionable to paint the walls with poster 'Dulles Go Back'.

It is time for Americans to look outward. Visit the rest of the world and not the 'white world' alone. You will realise that animosity against the US is a thing of the past. Dont merely go by the media. They are run by vested interests.

Where you may find a problem is when you hector others about they being foolish and not following the American way of life. We have our culture. We have our problems. Your solutions may not be the best for us.

Mark Tully, the BBC (Confed999, I got it right this time?) correspondent of yesteryears lives in India. He speaks the British type of Hindi which reminds all of the intolerable colonial days…..and yet he is always welcomed everywhere in India even with his colonial Hindi! So, the world is changing. Go out into the World and spread the gospel of the US. The world is not against you.

Remember Kennedy? He would have won an election in India! Heard of the Peace Corps? Even if a few CIA agents were thrown in; they did good work. They also learnt what the countries where they worked were like.

Goodwill is not the prerogative of anyone. Spread it.

BTW, I am not a preacher of any religious denomination!

Am I also getting defensive?

Sorry for the sermon from the pulpit.

Sparky
04 Feb 04,, 06:14
Don't confuse Jealousy with competitive posturing. While related at times they are not the same thing. Jealousy is merely one item that can factor into positions and attitudes on competitive posturing. It may be fuel to the fire so to speak but it is not the only or even a prerequisite element to an opposing worldview.

Ray
04 Feb 04,, 06:17
Jealousy or competitiveness come amongst equals. The US is way ahead of all.

Envy would be a better word.

Any time, anyone wants to visit India and my city Caclutta, just PM me and let me show you how the US is liked or disliked and our way of life. I assure you, it is not too bad.

Don't go by the bad publicity Calcutta gets. It is not great, but it is workable!:)

Confed999
04 Feb 04,, 06:55
Originally posted by Ray
the BBC (Confed999, I got it right this time?)
I truly wasn't sure, there are so many abbreviations, especially on a military board. I took a shot, glad I didn't rag on the media for nothing.

Originally posted by Ray
Goodwill is not the prerogative of anyone. Spread it.

BTW, I am not a preacher of any religious denomination!
Amen.... The best preachers are the ones that don't think they're preachers. ;)

Ray
04 Feb 04,, 08:09
I am speaking from my heart.

The point however is well taken!

Trooth
04 Feb 04,, 22:31
There is a perception, that has been promoted on this board as it happens. That only the US culture is viable. That others should be removed from the Earth.

This may or may not be US foreign policy. But that perception exists and as any good marketing person will tell you, perception is truth.

The problem for those that are concerned by this perception (if not wholly believing) is that it is difficult to tell if it really is truth when things are often made so black or white by the current administration.

There is another perception, that whilst the US may be well intentioned, it will ultimately follow self interest. Not because it is somehow deceitful, but because the foreign policy makers have only their electorate to answer to, an elcotrate that is surpisingly poorly travelled compared to its wealth. This perception is perhaps worse since the Iraq War (because of the problems at the UN) than it was before.

These are dangerous issues, that are not easily dealth with by a "tell it to the hand" type statement such as "with us or against us". These are the issues that become beliefs, that become underground manifestos of future generations. We are only just starting in the "war on terror". This journey will not end for at least a generation.

Confed999
05 Feb 04,, 00:30
Originally posted by Trooth
That only the US culture is viable.
I've allways been curious about the "US culture" thing. I couldn't tell you what that is. I've seen scores, if not hundreds, of different cultures in different, and sometimes the same, areas of the country. I've been on 2 other continents and have seen the same things. Here, and the places I've gone, the people are free to practice their own ideal of culture, so those cultures survive.


Originally posted by Trooth
"with us or against us". These are the issues that become beliefs, that become underground manifestos of future generations.
True, but that has actually been our above ground manifesto for a long time. Maybe that's US culture, i.e. you're a friend, an enemy or someone we haven't met yet. I really don't have a problem with that.

Trooth
05 Feb 04,, 00:40
I think there is a certain justication for trying to enlighten other people and save them from the "darkness". The western cultures have largely, if only recently, got a grip on human rights, for example, and these are things to be promoted.

However much as you can't force someone to love you, you can't force them to be enlightened either. In fact trying to force people to do things often leads to them resisting much harder.

Ray
05 Feb 04,, 03:18
I think Trooth is right - you can't stuff things down one's gullet. The more one wants to 'force' issues, the more is the resistance.

The 'with us or against us' philosophy smacks of intolerance and against the very concept that the US is propagating - freedom and democracy. If one forces an issue, then it is subjecting the other person to do things against his own will. Therefore, it is counter to the precepts of freedom and democracy. This also indicates the duplicity of not practicing what one is preaching. Its leads to rancour, frustration and confusion. Even well wishers of the US cannot reconcile to the ambiguity.

It is also true that on this board (and obviously it will be since the posters are mostly US people) most feel there is no better form of a way of life than the US way. That is fallacious. One could endlessly trot out facts to justify that it is not so. Let others be the way they are so long as they don't interfere with your way of life. Though this may raise a controversy, but then it is an example of what I am stating. In France they don't wish to have Moslem women wearing the 'hijab'. Many may disagree, but I think that is a fair one. After all, France is the country of the French. If indeed Moslems are keen that the 'hijab' be allowed, then they should also not force foreign women in Saudi Arabia to wear a scarf over the head! Likewise, they should not force foreign women not to wear frocks or even mini skirts! Therefore, one should not force one's way of life as if that is God's chosen path!

On the other hand, OBL has tried to enforce his writ on the people of the US by blowing up the WTC because of perceived injustice done to the Moslems the world over. Obviously, the US can retaliate. That is why none objected to the US doing so. And none condemned the US (another example of the world not being against the US). The pro OBL faction may argue that he had the right to take revenge because of injustice against the Moslems. But, that is wrong. The US was not against Moslems but against a certain set of govts, which unfortunately were from the Islamic world. Therefore, the justification by OBL is wrong.

Confed999
05 Feb 04,, 18:55
Originally posted by Ray
The 'with us or against us' philosophy smacks of intolerance and against the very concept that the US is propagating - freedom and democracy.
It seems the only choices in this are, you're for the terrorists, or you're against them. Doing nothing is the same as support in my eyes. So all it takes to be with us is to not support terrorists and if you find out about any point to them. The only intolerance implied is toward those who are, or actively support, the enemy. Durring war time that statement is valid and should be enforced by the least intrusive means available. There are too many good people dying, on both sides, for a statement that is less than the reality of the situation. "You're with us or you're against us" illustrates that reality quite effectively.

Ray
07 Feb 04,, 08:40
Confed,

India is a 'natural ally' of the US - a term coined by Bush and our Prime Minister Vajpayee. The rationale is that India is the only 'break' in the Islamic Crescent that spans from the Middle East to Indonesia.

There is no doubt that as far as terrorism is concerned, there can be no second opinion - it is 'with us or against us'. Even Musharraf, from a country that promoted Islamic jihad, has put life is on the line acknowledges it. What more proof could one want to convince the US that terrorism is awful and we are all with the US? I am from India and so I should have a natural aversion to Musharraf, but I still would salute his courage. In an Islamic state, what he has done, it is awfully dangerous and it is heretical. And yet, he did it. Therefore, remember most are against terrorism. Give them a chance, even if they are not perfect.

However, it also must be remembered that we are all sovereign nations. We have our own aspirations and our beliefs. It has saddened us that the 'war on terrorism' has turned out to be untrue. The so called 'war' has turned out to be only to prop up regimes that are pro US and their vassal states. Chabalis, a felon, is US' dear friend! There is a famous saying - My country right or wrong. It now appears that the new saying goes - my country be damned, US uber alles, right or wrong! Our govts may buy it, but not the citizens.

Now don't get angry with me for that statement. Let me amplify.

Where are the WMD? Had it been there, none would complain. It might still be there. But, if so, why was the UN inspectors not given the time to search it, when the US is allowing time till Doomsday for their teams to do so? Is that fair? The UN and US inspectors have not found them. Kay of the Iraq Survey Group has categorically said that they are not there. While the UN inspectors were not given time to check out the fact, Mr Goss of the US Senate in BBC's Hard Talk states that it will be found. Great! The UN is a bunch of chumps given a limited timeframe and the US can have all the time in the world till Doomsday!

Blair, who was a charismatic leader once, has turned out to be a poodle and guilty of terminological inexactitude. Lord Hutton, who he selected for the Inquiry, is not the epitome of judicial virtues. His track record belies the same. He is one who absolved all from culpability for the Bloody Sunday massacre of civil rights protestors in 1972. He was also the judge who came to the rescue of General Pinochet, when another judge had ordered Pinochet extradition! A better handmaiden could not have been found. Now, even Bush wants the American people to know the truth by ordering an inquiry. Am I to understand, he, personally, does not want to know the truth? I, as others who are but bystanders, are confused, bewildered and now very angry to have been conned.

It was claimed that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell categorically said so to the UN that he had proof. And yet, none has surfaced! What happens to Iraq does not affect us because we are not affected. However, morally it does. Evidence is important, mere suspicion is not. I am sure that Americans would not send people to the gallows on mere suspicion. Here a nation was devastated, merely on suspicion. If Saddam was a pain, would not a regime change be possible as in Chile and Allende? Did one have to devastate a Nation and then flounder like lost cows? Agreed Saddam was a tyrant, but then aren't many? What has been done about them? North Korea is a self confessed nuclear developer. She has also exported lethal technology. She is the most dangerous of the 'axis of evil'. She has cocked the snoot. Yet, she is off the hook, while Iraq is not! Bush is ready to apologies to the American public, is the Iraqis such scum that he should not apologies to them? The US public is not the world. One may argue that Bush is only responsible to the Americans. That's not correct. No one asked him to wage a war on territory beyond the US. He did it jackbooting the world opinion. Great, but we also want to know since terror is only multiplying and more so the Iraqis whose life has been disrupted.

If one feels Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and others in the Middle East are paragons of virtue, think again. What is the plan regarding them?

smilingassassin
07 Feb 04,, 23:08
You'll notice the U.S. is distancing itself from the saudi regeim, and talk about hitting Syria has started in much the same way as talk about war in Iraq started, softly in the begining and resulted in war. You'll also notice more suport for pakistan, whom which has shown great progress in fighting terrorism. Is it enough?, certainly not but given Pakistans political situation its a great leap in reguards to fighting terrorism.

Confed999
08 Feb 04,, 02:59
Originally posted by Ray
India is a 'natural ally' of the US - a term coined by Bush and our Prime Minister Vajpayee. The rationale is that India is the only 'break' in the Islamic Crescent that spans from the Middle East to Indonesia.

There is no doubt that as far as terrorism is concerned, there can be no second opinion - it is 'with us or against us'. Even Musharraf, from a country that promoted Islamic jihad, has put life is on the line acknowledges it. What more proof could one want to convince the US that terrorism is awful and we are all with the US? I am from India and so I should have a natural aversion to Musharraf, but I still would salute his courage. In an Islamic state, what he has done, it is awfully dangerous and it is heretical. And yet, he did it. Therefore, remember most are against terrorism. Give them a chance, even if they are not perfect.
Those and many others have more than proven their intent. I hope I didn't make it seem like the US was all alone, truly I can't believe how much support there has been.


Originally posted by Ray
However, it also must be remembered that we are all sovereign nations. We have our own aspirations and our beliefs. It has saddened us that the 'war on terrorism' has turned out to be untrue. The so called 'war' has turned out to be only to prop up regimes that are pro US and their vassal states. Chabalis, a felon, is US' dear friend! There is a famous saying - My country right or wrong. It now appears that the new saying goes - my country be damned, US uber alles, right or wrong! Our govts may buy it, but not the citizens.

Now don't get angry with me for that statement.
I'm not angry, I agree. Keep shouting that you don't like it and I will too, I doubt it will help but it may. The world's governments have a tendancy to make nice with really bad people just to make a good deal. It's allways been a mistake and I hope it ends soon. I can't believe the US even trades with some of these people.


Originally posted by Ray
Let me amplify.

Where are the WMD? Had it been there, none would complain. It might still be there. But, if so, why was the UN inspectors not given the time to search it, when the US is allowing time till Doomsday for their teams to do so? Is that fair?
Actually the deadline was for Saddam to cooperate fully, I never heard anyone claim he had. If they actually thought Iraq had WMD then it is fair.


Originally posted by Ray
The UN and US inspectors have not found them. Kay of the Iraq Survey Group has categorically said that they are not there. While the UN inspectors were not given time to check out the fact, Mr Goss of the US Senate in BBC's Hard Talk states that it will be found. Great! The UN is a bunch of chumps given a limited timeframe and the US can have all the time in the world till Doomsday!

Blair, who was a charismatic leader once, has turned out to be a poodle and guilty of terminological inexactitude. Lord Hutton, who he selected for the Inquiry, is not the epitome of judicial virtues. His track record belies the same. He is one who absolved all from culpability for the Bloody Sunday massacre of civil rights protestors in 1972. He was also the judge who came to the rescue of General Pinochet, when another judge had ordered Pinochet extradition! A better handmaiden could not have been found. Now, even Bush wants the American people to know the truth by ordering an inquiry. Am I to understand, he, personally, does not want to know the truth? I, as others who are but bystanders, are confused, bewildered and now very angry to have been conned.

It was claimed that Saddam had WMD. Colin Powell categorically said so to the UN that he had proof. And yet, none has surfaced! What happens to Iraq does not affect us because we are not affected. However, morally it does. Evidence is important, mere suspicion is not.
I'm lucky here, I never based my opinion on WMD. "Inteligence" has allways meant "guess" to me, but you're still right, this government made it the primary reason to go into Iraq so your feelings are 100% valid. Until I see evidence that this administration didn't really think there were WMD in Iraq though, I have to believe they really did and this is a world wide intel f**k up of biblical proportions. The more I look at it, the more accusations and circumstantial evidence that surfaces, the more I've started to FEEL that the US was set up, I hope I'm just paranoid.


Originally posted by Ray
I am sure that Americans would not send people to the gallows on mere suspicion. Here a nation was devastated, merely on suspicion. If Saddam was a pain, would not a regime change be possible as in Chile and Allende? Did one have to devastate a Nation and then flounder like lost cows?
Iraq was a devastated nation allready. Though it appears there were no WMD, the crimes against humanity and support of terrorism are documented and argued only by the most partisan. As I've said before WMD mean nothing to me, why should they really, I've had hundreds of kilo-tons of nukes pointed right at me for decades. I don't know why regime change was ineffective or why there was very little preparation for occupation and rebuiling. Sadly I can say the exact same thing about every war, just an observation not an excuse.


Originally posted by Ray
Agreed Saddam was a tyrant, but then aren't many? What has been done about them? North Korea is a self confessed nuclear developer. She has also exported lethal technology. She is the most dangerous of the 'axis of evil'. She has cocked the snoot. Yet, she is off the hook, while Iraq is not! Bush is ready to apologies to the American public, is the Iraqis such scum that he should not apologies to them? The US public is not the world. One may argue that Bush is only responsible to the Americans. That's not correct. No one asked him to wage a war on territory beyond the US. He did it jackbooting the world opinion. Great, but we also want to know since terror is only multiplying and more so the Iraqis whose life has been disrupted.

If one feels Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and others in the Middle East are paragons of virtue, think again. What is the plan regarding them?
This seems to be an argument for more war, not less. I guess you'll have to blame people like me for the war in Iraq, because I'm the one who asked Bush to use any means necessary to end the Saddam government, the same thing I asked of the president before him, and the one before him, and the one before him. I pray that a peaceful solution can be found in all of the rest of the cases you brought up, as well as the many you didn't, but in most I will support any means necessary.

Trooth
08 Feb 04,, 15:23
People often have short memories, so someone has compiled a short video of clips :-

http://www.moveon.org/false/video/

They do cheapen the effect somewhat with the final quote i have to say.

Confed999
08 Feb 04,, 22:26
Originally posted by Trooth
moveon.org
Ahhhh yes, moveon.org, aren't they the ones that think adultry in the Oval Office and perjury are ok? Anyway I don't need to see the video, it's propbably the same things we all heard Clinton and his pals say over and over. Getting info from moveon.org is like going to a party website.
:roll


IRAQ: WHO'S LYING WHEN?
From www.MichNews.com

In The News
IRAQ: WHO'S LYING WHEN?
By MichNews.com
Feb 6, 2004, 01:00


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,
1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President
Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19,
2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept.
27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd
(D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct.
9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" -Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen.
Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES?



Copyright ©2000-2004. MichNews.com. All Rights Reserved. Original Story (http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_2564.shtml)

That's from 10 seconds of searching, there are quotes just like it from nearly every world leader for the last decade and a half.

Trooth
08 Feb 04,, 22:36
I don't remember saying that other world leaders may also have been wrong about WMD? It seems that Iraq duped the world's finest intelligence agencies. It seems either the world's finest intelligence agencies or the politicians were so arrogant that they ignored the evidence coming back from inspectors on the ground, in Iraq. Or perhaps they didn't care and just wanted to pursue their own agenda and that WMD was just a useful tag for the soundbite media and the hard of thinking.

The video is about 1m30s long and as they say a picture is worth a 1000 words. Especially if it has a 1000 word soundtrack :) . I am assuming from your comment you haven't watched it? Then why rebut it? - are you a member of the Vatican board of Film Censorship? :)

Confed999
08 Feb 04,, 22:39
Originally posted by Trooth
I am assuming from your comment you haven't watched it? Then why rebut it? - are you a member of the Vatican board of Film Censorship? :)
Read my post again, my problem is with the source not the video.

Trooth
08 Feb 04,, 22:41
I just thought of something.

Any of those quotes above that come from politicans not part of a government -where did they get their evidence from about Saddam's arsenal?

They too were duped by the government or they had access to intelligence and were duped by it independantly.

Trooth
08 Feb 04,, 22:45
Originally posted by Confed999
Read my post again, my problem is with the source not the video.

The source is obviously biased - i don't believe a pro-war, neo-con or Republican website would have posted it. However the quotes are there, in glorious Technicolor. Bush's speech in it is hardly taken out of context, as would be a fair criticism of such a short video, it is shown at sufficient length to understand his message.

Sometimes even Pravda reported the truth you know!

Confed999
08 Feb 04,, 22:52
Originally posted by Trooth
They too were duped by the government or they had access to intelligence and were duped by it independantly.
They are the government. Since it appears the weapons aren't there, nearly every intel service was either lying or were fooled, the info didn't just come from the US. Until there is proof either way though, you have guess what is right. My point is, moveon doesn't care about any issue if it's about a Democrat, only about Republicans, so nothing that comes from them can be trusted to be in context anymore than info about a Democrat that comes from the Republican's website.

Confed999
08 Feb 04,, 22:53
Originally posted by Trooth
The source is obviously biased - i don't believe a pro-war, neo-con or Republican website would have posted it. However the quotes are there, in glorious Technicolor. Bush's speech in it is hardly taken out of context, as would be a fair criticism of such a short video, it is shown at sufficient length to understand his message.

Sometimes even Pravda reported the truth you know!
I never said he didn't say it? I have no idea what you're talking about I guess.:00

Trooth
08 Feb 04,, 22:54
Originally posted by Confed999
They are the government.

Your quotes seemed to be from Democratic politicians? I am probably just ignorant of the finer points of the US govenermental structure, but would they have got CIA briefings before jumping on the bandwagon?

Confed999
08 Feb 04,, 22:57
Originally posted by Trooth
Your quotes seemed to be from Democratic politicians? I am probably just ignorant of the finer points of the US govenermental structure, but would they have got CIA briefings before jumping on the bandwagon?
These are from before Bush:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,
1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by
Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy
Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Confed999
08 Feb 04,, 22:59
BTW, that bandwagon started accepting passengers around 1988.

Trooth
08 Feb 04,, 23:00
As i said, a lot of people where duped for a long time. It remains to be seen if it simply was arrogance on the part of the polticians or the intelligence chiefs, or both.

Or, as i said, perhaps they didn't care and they just took us all for muppets that needed something short to go on a T-shirt.

Confed999
08 Feb 04,, 23:05
Originally posted by Trooth
As i said, a lot of people where duped for a long time. It remains to be seen if it simply was arrogance on the part of the polticians or the intelligence chiefs, or both.

I assume it was a little bit of all three of those, but as I said before there is an awful lot of accusations and circumstantial evidence that make it look like a set up too.

Trooth
08 Feb 04,, 23:09
When you say set up? Who set who up?

My take has been that Saddam pretended he had WMD to protect a very weak Iraq from its neighbours, or perhaps the scientists duped Saddam to protect themselves for not being able or willing to continue with WMD.

Confed999
09 Feb 04,, 01:07
Originally posted by Trooth
When you say set up? Who set who up?

My take has been that Saddam pretended he had WMD to protect a very weak Iraq from its neighbours, or perhaps the scientists duped Saddam to protect themselves for not being able or willing to continue with WMD.
There have been threads showing implications here on this board, nothing more firm than a pudding though. I'm going to go with your take until proof shows otherwise. Here's one thread, there are more, plus plenty of other storys about illicit support for Iraq: Thread (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=956)