SkyDekker 1,465 #26 November 11, 2002 I think I'll stay out of this discussion this time...I have made myself unpopular enough already Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #27 November 11, 2002 Quote I think I'll stay out of this discussion this time...I have made myself unpopular enough already SkyDekker "We cannot do great things, only small things with great love" Mother Theresa Justin, You just had a different opinion, that's all. Anyone who has a quote from Mother Theresa in their sig. line is definitely OK with me. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 November 11, 2002 Quote Justin, You just had a different opinion, that's all. Thanks, I know, I was mostly just kidding...plus, I always find it hard to really get across what I am trying to say in writing.....I think I need some lessons from Michele..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #29 November 11, 2002 Quote Quote Where do they think they are, Chicago? LOL, well I'm talking about serious differences in magnitude than anything in the US. Al Capone was once quoted as saying that he paid the Chicago police more than Chicago did. My fav Mexican police story was the time that a young man was driving around and stopped at a light. Two guys jumped out from the car next to him and tried to car-jack him. The suburban behind them emptied a ton of guys with automatic weapons. Turned out the kid was the son of the President of Mexico and the suburban was Secret Service (or whatever they call it). Turns out the 3 carjackers were off-duty Federales. Go figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #30 November 12, 2002 > Yemeni will not even allow our Federal law enforcement officers to >carry weapons while conducting investigations in their country. This may be true, but I find it hard to believe that Yemen finds a US warplane dropping bombs on Yemeni people more acceptable than a US agent arresting the same people. Maybe they do; stranger things have happened. >Another major difference is that we intentionally targeted an > American in your scenario. Ashcroft has made it clear that being a US citizen does not guarantee you any rights if you are implicated in the war on terror (i.e. Padilla.) > We don't normally offer trials for the enemy before we kill them in > war. Well, nor do we normally execute people in a third country we're not at war with. This was not an act of war; this was an execution with no purpose other than the deaths of targeted people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #31 November 12, 2002 Absolutely, since you are non American to the US government you are a body. Bodies are commonly put in body bags. Hence you are worth $1.75 plus shipping and handlingjraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newshooter12 0 #32 November 12, 2002 I spent a couple hours outside of the mosque at 40 Parker in Buffalo today. ("After investigating the Yemen bombing, the CIA determines that there are links to a terror cell in Buffalo, NY. " It was made public the other day, but the local FBI wouldn't confirm it last thursday.) In any event. I've heard local muslims say that they want to see people brought to justice with due process to determine their guilt, and not by "shooting first and asking questions later." matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #33 November 12, 2002 Sure, but it's all a matter of economizing. I 9mm Luger bullet - $.25, 1 hour of terrorist trial - $15,000. Labor&expenses on bumping a dude off - $3,000/hour. Hours needed to bump someone off - 15. Hours of trial - 600. The calculation is easy jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #34 November 12, 2002 For 3 Grand an hour labor and expenses, I would think that they could get close enough to use a .22 LR which runs only a couple of cents. Hey, a savings is a savings, and it's not nearly so messy. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newshooter12 0 #35 November 12, 2002 I'm supposed to be impartial (at work), but I'd much rather see the reckage or aftermath on a satellite feed then have to chase them (terrorists) around my home town. Don't get me wrong I've met some really honest/patriotic muslims here that hate the thought that one of there own could be a terrorist, but I think I'd feel the same way if a roman catholic guy from my town was into that crap. (not wanting to be singled out) I don't want to see any more americans, or innocents (meaning not involved in or associated with terrorist activity) from any other country, die because someone wants to kill. matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #36 November 12, 2002 Quote Thus, on the basis of these assumptions, I support actions in Yemen that I would not support closer to home. Joe So... What's far enough and who decides it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #37 November 12, 2002 Far enough is in a country where a regular capture, extradition, and trial are not prohibitively complicated. For instance, even though England is far away, I don't think it would be appropriate for us to bomb people there. It's not just geographic distance. And it's not necessarily cultural distance either - we have better relations with the Saudis, for example, and probably would have a better chance of getting custody of someone there than in Yemen. In any case, terrorism of this variety isn't nearly the same as a run of the mill criminal case anyway. You're talking about people who've been known hijack planes and bomb civilians to gain the release of imprisoned comrades. If we have to err on one side or the other, I'd say err on the side of shooting first when we know we've got the right guy. As to who: it's always the government that makes these decisions, and in a democracy they make them based on what they think the voters will tolerate/support. If the government is incompetent and starts shooting the wrong people, then we just have to trust that people will be able to get the truth out about it and enough people will find it unacceptable that the government decides it needs to change its policies. Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #38 November 12, 2002 "You're talking about people who've been known hijack planes and bomb civilians to gain the release of imprisoned comrades." No, these are an entirely different breed of terrorists, who will happily destroy two large buildings and the lives of countless people without recourse to the usual bargaining, or any other form of civilised rationale. Traditional terrorists such as we have experience of in Europe can be bargained/reasoned with. There was no 3 minute warning for the WTC, and there was no list of demands. These people are fuelled by hatred, and are hiding behind religious zeal to fuel their 'cause' whatever that might be. Traditional methods of dealing with terrorists will not work in this situation, therefore the world will have to get used to accepting actions such as the Yemeni incident, or find a better way of dealing with it. Don't get me wrong, I cannot approve of the CIA's action, but its not down to me to approve such a thing, and I can't see a better way in this scenario. Look at how long it took to bring the Lockerbie bombers to trial...I often got the impression that these guys were taking the piss. The organisation behind this act were laughing at the civilised west.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #39 November 12, 2002 QuoteThis was not an act of war; this was an execution with no purpose other than the deaths of targeted people. Sure it was. And we used their rules. They started a war where the rules are this: Define the enemy, kill them. An execution? What do you think war is? It is a bunch of killing. Nasty as it sounds, a lot of killing goes on in a war. Anyone unclear on the war=killing concept? For those with ADD, they started the war. It is a war. "no purpose other than the deaths of targeted people" Exactly. That is what we should be doing at every opportunity. In summation: They started a war by bombing the WTC TWICE. In a war, the object is to kill the people who are attempting to kill you. When you find the opposition team, you kill them as soon as possible. Find the targeted people and execute as many as possible. Good idea. Let's keep finding these peckerwoods and car-bombing them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #40 November 12, 2002 Anyone up for a good game of Stratego? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #41 November 12, 2002 QuoteThis was not an act of war; this was an execution with no purpose other than the deaths of targeted people. It was also to send a message to their organization, that is that they are not safe in the places they thought they were... Their death may have also prevented future attacks (hard to say that for certain with what info is available)... and another good reason was to grant their wish... they now get to meet and be jusdged by Allah... I don't think it will be all that they thought it was going to be. Dead Terrorist - "So Allah, I have faught and died in a great war in your name, so where are those 78 virgins I was promised?" Allah - "78 virgins? No, no, no you idiot. Its one 78 year old virgin, that is your reward for perverting my religion" JoshAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #42 November 12, 2002 It is not a problem of being a Muslim or not. We should not try to make this a holly war. I am not ready to die for any religion. It is a matter of deep political interests to which the gullible are drawn to by the religious sticker on the packaging. People who say that all muslims are bad are dumber than a ho! Having said that I still revert you to my standing oppinion that we should kill them all. Hangrenade them, torch them, crucify them or my favorite - toss them to the lionsIf you ask me who - I dont know, but let's do it anyway. Anybody volunteer? jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #43 November 12, 2002 QuoteIt is not a problem of being a Muslim or not. We should not try to make this a holly war. I am not ready to die for any religion. It is a matter of deep political interests to which the gullible are drawn to by the religious sticker on the packaging. People who say that all muslims are bad are dumber than a ho! Exactly. No one is attacking them because they are Muslims. When they stayed home and were Muslims, no problem. We aren't attacking Muslims, we are attacking the people who attacked us. It is political sub-currents. Someone thinks they get money or power out of this, instead they got a big bulls-eye to wear. Bad choice, huh? They want to manipulate their own people using religion as a motivator? It's been done before. A lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JDBoston 0 #44 November 12, 2002 Let me pose another question: assume some group of people began a campaign of suicide bombings within the US. Would any of you be comfortable looking a room full of cops with families in the eye and telling them that if they encountered someone they knew to be a member of this organization, they should walk up to them and take them into custody like any other criminal? My guess is that we'd end up treating them like we'd treat some raving, drooling psycho with a gun - surround them, get the civilians out of the area, call in snipers, and more likely than not, end up shooting them if they didn't disarm/surrender. And if we made a mistake once in a while, people would protest and hopefully the cops would start looking for a higher standard of proof. But the highest priority would always be to protect the lives of innocent, non-combatant civilians. When you're dealing with people who don't even value their own life, let alone yours, I think the rules do need to be a little different. Opinions? Joe Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #45 November 12, 2002 QuoteQuoteThis was not an act of war; this was an execution with no purpose other than the deaths of targeted people. Sure it was. And we used their rules. They started a war where the rules are this: Define the enemy, kill them... ..."no purpose other than the deaths of targeted people" Exactly. That is what we should be doing at every opportunity... ...Good idea. Let's keep finding these peckerwoods and car-bombing them. Term 'war on terrorism' is a term used by the Bush administration. In more conventional usage war - in absence of more civil political devices and/or when negotiations fail - is a way to get things settled between two or more countries/states. The point is, as far as I know, US is not in a war with Yemen. Yes, there are plenty of arguments pointing that Yemen might/could not get the job done - then again there is the matter of sovereignty. You all probably remember the terrorist incident just couple of weeks ago in Moscow. Now, the personal assistant of the (darn, how is it spelled anyway) tseshny president is now held in Copenhagen. Denmark is not willing to give up the assistant to the Russian authorities in lack of evidence - this is heating up the political relations between these two independent countries. The point? I sure would not like to see the Russian intelligence agency to blow up the guy on Danish ground... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #46 November 12, 2002 jaaska, pint taken on the action on foreign soil, but I don't hear the Yemenis squeeling too loudly over this. So, I'm assuming some form of agreement or prior knowledge was available. If I'm wrong on the lack of noise from the Yemenis, it was their dignity and independence that was violated here, can someone point me in the right direction please.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #47 November 12, 2002 It is most cruel and inhuman of the Arab world leadership to send their youn ones to senslessly die in the name of Middle eastern ballance of power - in effect in the name of strategic pricing policy of crude oil. The Arab world was most prosperous and fully on it's way to economic and industrial development when it was not on the anti-American crusade. I remember reading National Geographic reports about both Libya and Iraq in the early '70s. They were full of praises for their progressivenes, for their treating women like equals, giving them an education and place in society etc. etc. Throughout all these years the Arab world kept the Pallestinians in the refugee camps as a political statement. Now this political statement has gone out of hand. Through all these years the Arab world could have educated these young people, created an army of bright ambitious people who would further their regions development. They have chosen not to do so. The United States has subsidized Israel not out of our love to that small and really insignificant nation. We have done so to have a counterbalance for Soviet influences within the Arab world. Just the usual political book of checks and balances. Now the shape of the world has changed. The United States can not afford to be linient is it's international policy towards terrorism, or else we will have these people dancing on our heads. Am I sorry for the guy killed in that car? NO! Terrorism is an act of war. If a US citizen knowingly interacts with terrorists (puhleeeease don't try to convince me he was not) he commits and act of treason. Treason in war is a capital offence. BANG!jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #48 November 12, 2002 Jakko, it is most unlikely that the Russian FSB should blow someone up in Denmark. They traditionally deal with these things through the Bulgarian special ops community jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #49 November 12, 2002 >we have better relations with the Saudis, for example, and probably > would have a better chance of getting custody of someone there > than in Yemen. I agree with your sentiment, but this is a very poor example. Saudi Arabia lent as much support to the 9/11 terrorists as Afghanistan, but since we need their support (and oil) we treat them a _lot_ more carefully. We wouldn't bomb a car in Saudi Arabia, but the reason is not that they have extradition laws - it's because we don't want to piss them off. Lesson to terrorists there, of course, is that Saudi Arabia is a much better place than Yemen to assemble. >If the government is incompetent and starts shooting the wrong > people, then we just have to trust that people will be able to get the > truth out about it and enough people will find it unacceptable that > the government decides it needs to change its policies. Which is why, during wartime (even this undeclared war we're in) that constitutional protections on free speech, unlawful imprisonment, and privacy are more important than ever. Listening to some people you would think that such trivialities should be suspended during a war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #50 November 12, 2002 >Sure it was. And we used their rules. It's too bad we are slowly becoming them, adopting their jihad mentality and using their rules. I thought we might be better than they were. >An execution? What do you think war is? An execution is the killing of one specific (or several specific) people. War is action against an entire 'state' whether that state is a country, a loose conglomeration (like the south in the civil war) or an organization (like Al Quaeda.) In a war you kill everyone and destroy everything until the war ends. Then you stop killing people. >Good idea. Let's keep finding these peckerwoods and car-bombing > them. So you would support car bombs in Canada? (as in the first example) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)