Originally Posted by SDW2001
1. I've had about enough of being told what I believe. You're going to need a crane to lift the strawmen you're creating at present.
I can only go on what you enter in your posts to understand what you believe, and you do put it quite plainly.
2. Hard evidence? Uh...15 years of evidence and admission from bin laden himself? I suppose that was doctored and/or propaganda. I mean, the reality is he's the victim here. There's no evidence he killed anyone! It's a sham!
Obviously the "hard evidence" that you speak of was not "hard" enough for those doing the investigating. OBL was never charged or indicted for 9/11.
Since you seem to have more of a handle on this affair than our law enforcement or intelligence agencies, I ask you "why no charges etc."? What does the FBI etc. etc. etc. not know that the media and two successive administrations are so cock-sure about?
And let's hope we don't go down the slippery slope you've created, one that is greased with exaggeration and intellectual dishonesty. Opposing a trial for bin Laden says NOTHING about what I think about the rights of others.
That is exactly where the potential problems start. It's not just Bin Laden, or al Qaeda ... its anyone who, on the arbitrary decision by US authorities, can now be designated as "a terrorist", if politically (or otherwise) convenient.
No reasonable person thinks we should simply do away with due process of law.
I agree. But there are A LOT of people, and some in positions of power, who are by no means even approaching a sense of "reasonable"... and this state of cognitive dissonance is represented across the entire political spectrum here.
What some believe, including me, is that civilian-criminal justice system is not an appropriate venue for people like bin laden, members of AQ, etc. That system was designed primarily for violation of domestic laws for everything from theft to fraud to murder. It was not designed to deal with a man or group that committed an act of war against the country.
So, when is it an appropriate act to invade an entire nation in order to catch one man (!), killing 10s of thousands of its civilians who HAD NOTHING TO DO
with "said act of war"? One man, who was on the lam for various bombings, but who (initially) claimed that he had nothing to do with the 9/11 events.
When is it appropriate to invade another unconnected nation, a year and a half later, also killing 10s of thousands of its civilians, wrecking their infrastructure, while telling our troops the lie that its leader/s had planned and executed said "act of war"?
Speaking of which, where does your reliance on the courts end? Should we have had a trial before going to war with Japan? Perhaps we should have conducted a trial in absentia for Hitler before landing on D-Day? If not, what is the difference? Our government "pronounced" Germany and Japan "guilty" then. Why can we no do that for acts of war committed against us now?
You are creating a huge strawman here, and drawing an absurd comparison. Not only that, but according your heroes in the prior administration, the "war on terror" was "a new type of war unlike any type of conflict we have had to deal with before... which transcends national boundaries etc. etc." So, how did the administration deal with it? They mounted invasions of specific places with national boundaries, as if those nations had invaded us. It's like Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, and we retaliate by mounting a full scale invasion of Australia. Repeating the same action expecting a different result is a definition of insanity... and that is how the "war on terror" has been exercised.
Wow, sammi. Have you really sunk that far into your leftist conspiracy bunker as to not be able to distinguish terrorists like bin laden and company from the actions undertaken by US personnel?
Tell that to the millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq who lost innocent loved ones as a result of US bombings, based on lies?
Now don't get me wrong, the US has done plenty wrong in foreign policy.
We've intervened where we have no business. We've toppled governments, some of which were democratically elected. We've done many of these things, and they are wrong.
Good lord. Knock me down with a feather....
Has anyone ever been kicked out of office, or criminally charged, for authorizing such treasonous, anti-American acts? No.. and there's a huge problem. We really should be able to deal with our own demons; as a nation, we are now almost 235 years old. We really can
handle publicly admitting we are not quite perfect
... (nobody's perfect!) and such admissions, and severely punishing the parties who pull the stunts like you quoted, will hopefully prevent future shit from happening. It will only help our cause... but can you see that happening ever?
But one thing we don't do is blow up skyscrapers, airplanes and train stations and tour busses with the explicit goal of killing as many people has possible.
Uhm. Blow up skyscrapers? I assume you believe that al Qaeda blew up the Twin Towers and WTC#7?
We seek to LIMIT the loss of civilians life.
Dropping thousands of tons of dumb ordnance and cluster bombs on non-military targets, and "infrastructure essential to the lives and well-being of the civilian population" is not "seeking to limit the loss of civilian life".. the former maximizes civilian loss, and the latter is regarded under international law as a war crime.
Anyway, who is "we"? It is singularly inappropriate and off-base to equate the mindset of the general public with that of the top brass in the Pentagon.....
Talking about "blowing up airliners"... recall Orlando Bosch
(recently deceased) who blew up an airliner in 1976 killing all on board... as well as committing numerous other bombings, kidnappings and shootings over a period of many years? He lived quietly in Florida as a free man without being charged for any of his terrorist acts. One of his terror associates, Otto Reich, was appointed by the George W. Bush Administration as Assistant Sec. for Western Hemispheric Affairs: Appointing a known terrorist associate is not not exactly an appropriate signal for an administration whose primary agenda was fighting terrorists? Even for your fevered authoritarian leanings, that is a big blooper, surely?
Terrorists seek to increase it. In my opinion, anyone who cannot acknowledge this obvious truth does not deserve to be part of the conversation.
True... but for all terrorists? Obviously you subscribe to the duplicitous version... ie *some*
terrorists deserve to be thrown to the sharks, while others go on the lecture circuit at >$25,000 a pop, or live freely, immune to all criminal etc. etc. charges
Following that, AQ itself has stated previously that "you value life, we value death."
Verifiable link please, to that statement?
So there are clear differences as acknowledged by the enemy itself. But I suppose that
statement was a just a concoction of Bush Administration? All part of the PR campaign, right sammi?
Well, both the prior and current administrations have not exactly distinguished themselves as "paragons of honesty and transparent government". And now, when convenient, we assume that they are being 100% honest as regards terrorism. That is quite a leap of faith. I am not prepared to go that far, without the evidence to support their claims.
And one last comparison, as regards the "Bin Laden assassination": a quote from Noam Chomsky:
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.