I don't know if this has already been discussed, but let's say the unlikely event occurs that Laden gets handed over by the Taliban, then what's happens to him? Is their a court case? Is he a war criminal and treated differently? And is that enough for the American people right now, or do we need much more than that?
It's a war on terrorism, not bin Laden. I'm not sure how he would be handled as a criminal (war criminal or not). He has an entire organization which needs to be taken out as well as every other terrorist organization. Let them all surrender then we will be satisfied.
Interesting response, 4chuckie. Do you interpret a war on terrorism as one on ALL terrorism, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC? In other words, should we respond and apprehend terrorists here in the US who have abused the right of "Free Speech" for years, and will engage in and encourage the harming and\or killing of those they oppose in the name of their "cause" (Racial Supremists, Homophobes who attack homosexuals, Anti-abotionists who bomb clinics and kill doctors, etc.), just as we would foreign terrorists? Do you want a war and raised intolerance to ALL terrorism worldwide, or just US-related terrorism?
Live- Our allies who are joining us are going in with there agendas as well (their own terrorist groups which may not effect the US at all) so to get the alliance to get together we will go after all terrorists in order to keep the alliance together. I do think domestic terrorists will be targeted, but they wil more than likely have alower priority. What I mean is we will first pursue well know terrorist groups, then after that I really feel we may have to help out our foreign comrades who have supported us and the more "regional" terrorists groups. But I do see it as all terrorists both foreign and domestic. But I think it may be a very long time before we have a concerned effort to pursue domestic ones.
<B>Do you want a war and raised intolerance to ALL terrorism worldwide, or just US-related terrorism?</B> That's the biggest question I think. We're expecting Spain and England's support to go after bin Laden. Will we then go in and help them with the Basque's and the IRA? Something tells me "no" -- I'm betting we'll say "that's your problem".
No, I think the American people are just about ready to blow something up. I don't see the public being happy with simply having Bin Laden and knowing more are out there.
Interesting question -- one apparently the press just asked. According to our defense secretary -- No. Catching Bin Laden would be just "one big step." http://www.msnbc.com/news/627028.asp
I'm afraid that our nation is preparing itself for a major loss of face. In proclaiming a war on terrorism, if they're requesting international assistance now (and they need to), then they'd better be willing to assist other countries with their problems. That means going into South America to deal with the Shining Path. It might mean helping Russia with those pesky Chechens. And South Korea with North Korean terrorists. And Pakistan and India with extremists of both sides. Japan with their Auma cult. Spain with the Basque separatist movement. Great Britain and Ireland with the Ulster Unionists and IRA. Extremists in Palestine and Israel. We've always urged negotiations before. Palestinians blowing up Israeli positions? They've got a legitimate gripe, negotiate. The IRA is blowing up England? Well, you did screw them over. Negotiate. South America? Well, as long as they're not trafficking drugs, we never gave a ****. Chechnya? Don't attack them Russia, negotiate! Now that all has to change. Unless we're just interesting in meaningless, self-serving rhetoric.
