Bin Laden Offers Truce

Okay, then you want to use military force domestically right? Since direct attacks on a large scale, by your definition, go beyond criminal. If you don't want to use military force domestically (which you seemed to imply would be bad), then I highly suggest you reevaluate your definition of criminal to include people who blow up buildings with people inside (and their conspiritors).

No, I was saying comparing Bin Laden to a common criminal was a bad analogy.

I stand by that.

In no way, shape, or form does that suggest I want to use military force domesticly, sorry. No need to revise anything.

I didn't say he was a 'common' criminal. I didn't say he was a shoplifter either. He's certainly up there among the consipiracy multiple homiciders, but he isn't -beyond- that somehow. The very idea that you might consider someone capable of acts unaddressable by our justice system is absurd considering the holocaust was addressable by a justice system that did indeed include judges from America. Do you think this idiot Bin Laden is worse than those given a trial then?

Yes the mission accomplished sign was way premature but I don't think that it means we should leave the Iraqis in the state they are in either. They need help now more than ever and since we started it, we should finish it until we make it right for the people of Iraq as best we can

Yes, he is.

Even the multi-murderers are attacking individuals.

Bin Laden attacked a nation.

One is a crime.

The other is an act of war.



I didn't say they were unadressable by our justice system.

It just so happens that in cases where the "crime" is an act of war, our military is part of our justice system.

If we could *get* Bin Laden, I'd be all for a swift trial and then a bloody public execution, much as Hitler would have recieved if we had managed to get him.



In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. The thing about the Nuremberg Trials is that they showed that a lot of the Nazis were not, by some standards, bad people. To quote a rather good essay on the trials, "...most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains. Rather, they over-identified with an ideological cause and suffered from a lack of imagination or empathy: they couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions."

While I think most of the terrorists in this case go well beyond "not being able to appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions", it's important to note that Hitler was not tried at Nuremberg, having graciously eaten a bullet in the final stretch of the war. Bin Laden /is/ comperable to Hitler, perhaps.

What's 'right' though? Go tell a soldier to 'make it right'. I mean honestly, that is a very poor goal and you can't realistically expect to ever, ever, accomplish it. What benchmark are you going to use? Crime? Rebuilding? State of government?

It's not that the sign was premature, it's that we ran out of concrete big things for our soldiers to do. Construction companies can rebuild buildings, politicians can rebuild laws, and as far as their police force goes... I somewhat doubt they could be worse than before. So if our soldiers are to stay, they need stuff to do. (beyond, of course, being free rent-a-cops).

Milestones, maybe.

The others, I disagree with.

And honestly, I don't think milestones are that important. They are a PR thing. War, like so much else in life, "takes exactly as long as it takes", and cannot be crammed into a nice, television-friendly shedule.

As I said in my first post, I don't know what the solution is, but it does need to be discussed in more detail without all the partisan BS thats going on.

I do think that they need their own stable government and the ability to protect themselves.
I also would hope that the rebuilding will come into it's own with the help of the US(with or without the military, preferably without) and other countries as it would be to everyones benefit to have a growing economy in Iraq.

I'm pretty sure they attacked some buildings. Buildings, yes even with people in them, do not a nation make. Now, obviously you see it differently. Go ahead and keep thinking it like that, but there is a lot more precedent backing up what I'm saying about this being a criminal act and not an act of war. Unless you WANT to go down the road of being able to declare war upon citizens. It is entirely possible a group associated with our own country could do the very same thing. That leaves you with the very real possibility that we'll someday declare war on Idaho and that's okay to you because some group blows up some buildings.



If you're not going to work within the systems and you're just going to up and declare war on an individual or group of individuals then you have declared various justice systems purposeless. The difference between Hitler and Bin Laden is that Bin Laden does not control a sovereign nation. If he DID, only then would it be 'an act of war'. Because we decided to go to war on terror, rather than to pursue bin laden for extradition/assassination/capture relentlessly, we do not have him today.



My point in mentioning the Nuremberg Trials is that it is an example where even MORE heinous people were given free access to the best lawyers, evidence, and permitted time to afford a proper defense. Some of them clearly deserved to hang, but we still had to present OUR case as to why. Now the whole point of the damn thing is that rather than just lining them all up to be shot (which was an option under consideration at the time), we decided to be the better man about it. Today, for some reason, we can't be the better man about something that should be less of an issue.

Bin Laden was not a citizen, first of all. So, basicly, your entire arguement is moot. But I'll respond anyhoo.

They attacked, among other things, an econmic centerpiece of our nation, as well as one of the two visible and important governmental buildings, and tried to attack the second.

THat's not "attacking a building". That's an act of war. Or else what the japanese did at pearl harbor was just "attacking some ships".



No, I'm pretty sure that's just a coincidence. Unless you honestly believe the Afganistan government was going to hand him and his entire orginization over to us? Gift-wrapped, wtih a nice ribbon on it, and an apology-fruit basket?





And, if we find Bin Laden, I'm sure we'll give him a trial. We are Saddam.

However, like the Nazi's at Nuremberg, we had to go in and get them in order to try them, since they weren't going to hand themselves over politely.

Brief hiatus in my arguement, I have a math test to get to. Be back in a couple hours.

You're going to make me repeat all the sensible arguments that others have made against you?

I'll give you a small lesson: Your hatred blinds you

Again your example doesn't fit. If Bin Laden had rammed Iraqi National Guard (or whatever) fuel planes into the trade towers, it might make more sense. If Bin Laden was a known operative for any country OTHER THAN OURS, it might make more sense. As it stands, he is not representing a nation. Therefore, any response to his actions should be policing, rather than military actions unless you honestly want to accept that we could do it here on our soil too. For example, what if Bin Laden, for some reason, fled to our country. Do we search him out with military? Agencies? Federal and local law enforcement? Which type of prison does he reside in while he awaits trial?



We've had him all gift wrapped and ready to go before, but we had it turned down because we couldn't get authorization for it. Monumental fuckup if you ask me. But it's not like the option isn't there. We've just steadfastly ignored it.



Well, you figure out which you want smashing down the door, foreign military or local police. I'm all for letting some countries' cops deal with this. The last thing I'd ever want is Iraq thinking it's okay for them to send their military here in search of criminals. That's the example we're setting.

"If you accept this, then this" is a logical fallacy.

Okay fine. Rephrased. We have been using military force against individuals at home and abroad. This is unprecedented and new. Do you think it is okay to use military forces against individuals at home and abroad?

odd

in a thread where some people are advocating nuking a country because they are a nuisence, I am accused of hatred

love = preserving life

hatred = destroying life

Siro has covered most arguements quite well

but I guess it is easier to be ultra vague and accusatory then to do the work back up your statements, huh champ?

I second half of your premise.

My answer, therefor, is no and yes.

Lol ironic.

Okay, so it is okay to use military force against individuals abroad. And it is NOT okay to use military force against the very same individual if they are here. Is this correct with what you are saying?

Mulch, this thread is not about dropping nuclear weapons on innocent people.

This thread is about you serving up Osama Bin Ladens "truce" with statements like,
"is our government a bunch of fucktards?"
"bin Laden speaks more thruth than out leaders"
"if bin Laden is evil, then what are we?"
etc..

You hate Bush, so you see all world events through that lens. It is quite simple. Your hatred (Bush hating lens) blinds you (you cannot see clearly).

So, you engage in these forum threads as a way to project your ignorance onto others. In the course of the thread, you successfully redirect the discussion so that it leads to a place where you cannot be cornered (in this case, now you are claiming the thread is about nuclear weapons destroying life)

your "wrong course" ramblings and "fictitious Bush speech" are evidence of your blindness.

Essentially, yes.

I didn't bring nukes up

it was a simple illustration of the mindset of a typical ignorant American:



But, champ, I assume you think killing everything that won't fall in line with our profit oriented way of thinking should be killed as well



Bush is but a symptom of the sickniss at work in this country. Straight up, I think he is unqualified for the job, has done more harm than good, and the world is worse off for him being in the position he was. it seems like only a few posts ago I listed some of the decisions and actions that, to me, subvert the constitution and are treasonous acts



My dislike and mistrust of Bush has been earned by the actions, and history will judge him accordingly, even if Fox news makes all the history books. Bush has earned his reputation. If you think this administration is not the most corrupt, sneaky, meglomaniac administration (based on the facts of the last 6 years ONLY), then somebody should change thier name to Pollyanna.

I bet you think the Libby situation is just some sort of isolated incident; that Libby was a rogue member of Bush's inner circle who acted on his own with no collusion with the rest of the office.

People don't disregard the constitution and human rights repeatedly by accident.

And so you know, I am not a democrat. I distrust them about as much as what we have now. The 2 party system is a joke, and until people realize that all it is the illusion of choice (the same Corporate names donate to both campaigns, btw), we are doomed to further corruption. But that is another topic...



Tell me Polly, exactly what am I ignorant about? What exactly is it that you are more informed about than me.

Also tell me where you get your information. I have a feeling you are an "avid TV watcher."





So Polly, as you see, both Bush and another poster invoked nukes. Notice how Bush does a little mash up of September 11th and invading Iraq. He never says "Iraq caused 9/11" but with wording and themes his speechwriters chose, is it any wonder why so many idiot Americans even today say Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

but somehow I am ignorant.

you accuse me of steering a topic toward a specific agenda, and I say it is just projecting the tactics of Bush on me. Somehow this administration has made that kind of corruption of thought acceptable and patriotic, so I say that you are just a product of your environment and either don't have or have not applied critical thinking skills to the actions of this administration.

or maybe you were just distracted



The fake Bush speech was just my take on how it could be handled. I am not hallucinating that I am Bushs speechwriter.

And I know that to take off the Pollyanna suit would pretty much destroy your understanding of the world. Some of us, however, have taken the red pill.

"You have to understand that many people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

could you please explain Jose Pedilla then

No.

I refuse to humor your ill-thought-out attempt to degrade my views.

Did I imprison him? No.

Have I mentioned him once in any part of this discussion? No.

Sorry, not going to chase that wild goose for you. Nice try though.

Perhaps you need to re-read what I posted a few pages back.



The same statement applies. You aren't going to get me to play that game.

I just asked you to explain Padilla

I didn't say it was your call

was just an illustration...