[QUOTE Are you really that insensitive to life? </b> Go ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan if they think Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are "sensitive" to life! [/QUOTE] Well, I guess when these Taliban lapdogs are trapped in a burning building, breathing in smoke and on the verge of death, they can stand proud to know that their ability not to act against these groups will be the caue of their own demise. And his wife is left a widow, and kids fatherless, all tramatized, feel proud to know that your fellow liberals and peaceniks will continue to preach their anti-US hate, with no mention of your death, while blasting the US for all Afghan casualties. Good work lapdogs, your showing your true colors. Hell its the weekend, im sure you US haters can gather enough Bibles and Flags to burn this weekend as you show how open minded and understanding you are to everyones needs. Put the word out to CNN as im sure they would love to favorably promote your US hate messages. You jackass's make me sick to my stomach. And whats even more ridicoulous is your ignorant consistency that our haters are relying upon the destory us. Im not going down with you bastards. And im glad to see others on this board that refuse to also. Keep up the good work guys, The Lapdogs can go to hell
Rockettebustier, Obviously, you are of the turn-the-other-cheek kind of pacifist and as such can and will never understand why most ppl feel that it is just and right to wage war on our enemies. And thats exactly what the Taliban and al Quada are to us(Americans) we didnt start anything with them, they are the ones who attacked over 6000 innocent civilians whom never did one stinkin thing to them. What you are saying I think, is that we should just sit over here and allow that atrocity to go un-answered? Do you know what that would do? They already think that we dont have the stomach to actually defend ourselves, if we dont stop this now they will feel that they have carte-blanche to impose their view of how society should be on the entire world with violence. Is that what you want? They are not gonna stop attacking us just because we ask them to, the only way they stop is if we defeat them. But the problem is that they are not the only ones over there that want us destroyed. Therefore, we cant just stop with the Taliban. We are gonna end up going after Saddam before this is all over(As Bush Sr should have done) There is no easy, peaceful way out of this. I wish there was. but unfortunately, there is not. If we leave them be, they will just continue coming after us and that is definitely not acceptable. my vote: Finish off the Taliban and then go after Saddam (if it is proven that he is actively helping our enemies) --kinda off-topic We should also let Israel know that we will no longer support them if they dont end this current conflict peacefully. They do things that we would impose sanctions on other countries for doin. Why? Why do they get such special treatment from us? Lingering guilt from what happened in WW2? I realize we always side with the underdogs here, but imho they are no longer the underdogs in this conflict. They have military and economic might that their neighbors dream of. We should treat them just like any other country in the world.
R 2001, I don't see how it can be possible for you to hold both the opinions expressed above and below your off-topic flag.
Again, why not? The top part is in reference to Taliban and Iraq. The bottom is about Israel's tendency to overreact to every little thing that happens over there. They do in fact, treat Palestinian civilians in ways that we would not tolerate in our own military. That was the point to the bottom part, if I was not clear, I apologize for my inability to make myself clearly understood.
Good god, at least Rosevelt had the decency to goad the Japaneese into attacking us first, so we'd have a legitimate reason to enter WWII. What are we going to do, the national equivelent of walking up to Sadam and saying, "I don't like the way yew was lookin' at me?" We either need some evidence that Iraq was involved in the planes, or the anthrax, or we need a significant event to change the dynamic. If not, we will be just as bad as Sharon, with his sudden declaration that the 'Arafat era is over.' Are we now just starting wars because we don't like people? Changing our mind on appropriate punishment for past transgressions would be the equivelent of a judge sentancing someone to manslaughter for a murder. Then, on the day of his release, saying, "Oops. Now that I think of it, it was 1st degree murder! To the electric chair!" The whole concept of the UN is that the rule of law should apply to nations as well as individuals. Since we created the damn thing, and claim to follow it's precepts, and punished Iraq based on those principals, it would be somewhat hipocritical to ignore them now.
Let's break this down . . . . Many times when somebody questions the morality of bombing Afghanistan, we hear the following retorts: "They attacked us first!" Actually, they didn't. At this time, all we know is that our attackers were 17 men who believed they would go to paradise for killing "infidels" (though conveniently forgetting the other parts of the Koran that forbid harming innocent women and children). Most of these men were not Afghani, but from other Middle Eastern countries. There is significant evidence that these men were funded by Al-Qaeda, a worldwide group led by Osama Bin Laden (who is Saudi). There is no evidence, save the fact that many Al-Qaeda members reside and train in Afghanistan, that the Taliban or any official Afghani group was directly involved in the attacks. Nor is their any evidence that Afghani citizens were the main culprits in this crime. Simply put, we're bombing people who have never met or had anything to do with Bin Laden. The next retort is usually "But the Taliban is shielding Bin Laden!" True, but they first proposed handing him over to a third party. Bush, however, would have none of that and refused to negotiate with them. Why he felt we are the only ones who can mete out justice is beyond me, but that was his decision. But his refusal to negotiate was just arrogant. Even if the sum of his argument was meeting with the Taliban leaders, presenting the evidence and telling them "Hand Bin Laden over," negotiating would have helped Bush (and America) in the world's view. Instead, we're looking more like a country looking for vengeance than justice. And while a need for vengeance is understandable, a need for justice always garners more support from disinterested parties. A couple of years ago, France refused to extradite a convicted murderer (the founder of Earth Day I believe) to the US due to our capital punishment policy. Did we start bombing them a month after their refusal? No, we applied diplomatic pressure instead. Now a single murder and the Sept. 11 attacks are definitely not in the same universe, but then again, Bin Laden hasn't been convicted yet. Why not try him in a world court and then, if a guilty verdict is found, ask that he be extradited to the US for the appropriate punishment? If at that time the Taliban (or whoever) refuses to hand him over, then we can consider military action. This would also give the Afghani citizens time and ability (as long as we set up enough refugee camps in neighboring countries) to flee the country if they so desire. Because again, the Afghani people have no control over Bin Laden or the Taliban and they don't deserve to be hurt as a result of their oppressor's lack of rational thought and action. Another retort is that "If we don't attack them now, they'll think we're weak and will attack us even more viciously next time!" What you're really saying is "If we don't attack them now, we'll think we're weak." Talk about anti-American - do you really have such little faith in our country that the only way you can conceive of proving our strength is by bombing an already decimated and weak country? You must have missed hearing about the awesome acts of the NYC and DC law enforcement, the endless gifts of the American people (blood, money, food, clothing, volunteer work) for the victims, and the heroic actions of the passengers of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. We're plenty strong, but that doesn't mean we can't use our smarts too. And does anyone here really think that by bombing Afghanistan we will immunize ourselves from future terrorist attacks? If you do, you're being a bigger idealist than myself. Attacking terrorism has been compared to shooting water, but by attacking the Taliban, we're missing the entire pool altogether. Most of the terrorists were neither Taliban agents nor Afghani citizens, and Afghanistan doesn't even make the weapons (military or biological) that terrorists would use against us. By attacking Afghanistan, we only insure that the terrorists will move somewhere else. There isn't an easy answer to the dilemma we face right now. I firmly believe military action is needed against terrorism, but not if we're also going to bomb wildly at the innocent and guilty alike. I feel our government jumped the gun in bombing Afghanistan. We should have made extra efforts (beyond sending food that is culturally taboo) to insure the safety of the Afghani citizens. And we should have met with Taliban leaders. Remember, the Taliban, Afghani citizens, and Al-Qaeda are not one and the same - we should not subject all three to the same punishment. There's no doubt that Bin Laden cannot be allowed free reign to threaten our (or other counties') safety. But any military action could easily jump back and bite us in the ass. Remember, what really got Bin Laden angry with the US was our presence in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. Who's to say our presence isn't stirring up similar rage in another terrorist leader? Military action might blow up the tree of terrorism, but that will do our children little good if the seeds of future terrorism are spread as a result of our actions. Finally, I resent those who imply that diplomatic and other non-military actions are the equivalent of doing nothing. Any dumbass can throw a punch or shoot a gun. But it takes real effort and skill to talk things out and look for a legitimate solution.
Rockets 2001, I think you missed some of my main points. In case I was unclear, let me say them again. First, I am all for military actions against the terrorists. Like you, I do not believe they will respond to diplomatic good will. And I never, NEVER said that we should just stand around and do nothing. However, I do NOT see the Taliban/Afghanistan and Al-Qaida (apparently I have been misspelling it) as one and the same. I don't even see the Taliban and Afghanistan as one and the same. AL-Qaida are the terrorists, and they should be dealt with swiftly and surely. The Taliban have refused to turn over the leader of Al-Qaida, Osama Bin Laden, but that does not make them terrorists (sympathizers, yes). We have NO evidence that they knew or assisted with the September 11 acts of terrorism. And we have NO reason to believe that ordinary Afghani citizens were involved with the terrorist attacks. Why then, should they have to suffer I believe the US should have made every effort to negotiate with them in order to see Bin Laden turned over to some authorities. The offer was there and we could have seen how serious they were. Obviously, if the Taliban would only agree to turn over Bin Laden to Iraq, then we would be left without many options other than military strikes. But again, GWB REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE. He failed to exhaust every diplomatic means and decided to start shooting. I agree, the Taliban is not going to just let us waltz in and take Bin Laden. All the more reason to see if they'll turn Bin Laden over to another country that might be more amenable to cooperating with the US. Why do we have to be sheriff, judge, jury and executioner? And it doesn't matter to the Afghanis if our intentions are only to bomb strategic posts. When you've got a bomb falling on your head, you don't give a crap why it's coming. You just get pissed at the people dropping the bomb. The citizens of Afghanistan are innocent of this whole, horrible affair, and they do not deserve to be bombed. PERIOD.
treeman, did you really get pissy at people for not voting in your thread from 3-5 am? You are a dork.
If you hide an indicted murderer in your home then you're breaking the law. The Taliban is hiding bin Laden, they're letting him operate terrorist camps, and they're protecting bin Laden from justice. There is evidence from the CIA that about two years ago at some point the Taliban and bin Laden reached an agreement that would close all terrorist camps that did not belong to bin Laden. There was also testimony in a French court this last week that says bin Laden needs permission from the Taliban before he does anything, so that would seem to indicate that the Taliban knows everything that bin Laden has and will plan. That makes them a pretty damn big accomplice in murder and terrorism. We are sheriff, judge, jury, and executioner because the crimes were committed on our soil, our jurisdiction. Negotiations on the part of the Taliban were a sham and a stalling tactic. If you recall, they first said they couldn't imagine he would be involved, then they said he might be involved, then they said there was enough evidence to put him on trial in Islamic court. They know he's guilty just like we do. If a person kills someone in Houston and then runs to Sacramento, they don't send him to Miami to stand trial. He's been under indictment for the embassy bombings for friggin years and the Taliban have never handed him over after being shown evidence by the US and by the Saudis. I'm amazed how some people can give serious thought to these kindergarten Taliban tactics. The credibility of the Taliban is nothing. They claim to shoot down helicopters and all they can produce is a wheel. They claim all kinds of things that aren't true and are flat out lies.
why doesn't the us handover kissinger to argentina or whichever south american country comes to mind?
terrorist =kill people cause they hate something that someone believes kissinger=killed political and military leaders of countries for their beliefs or presumed inclination towards communist ideologies i don't see much difference really plus numerous people want to try him just like america wants to try osama... look the fundamental principals behind turning people over should be the same.
Webster's defines terrorism as systematic covert warfare to produce terror for political coercion. Osama bin Laden = terrorist Kissinger = old fat guy with glasses
