The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ middle_east/2396613.stm
And so ends the careers of the USS Cole bombers....CNN and Fox also have confirmed that these were the guys responsible.
They took lives, and now they have been stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
And so ends the careers of the USS Cole bombers....CNN and Fox also have confirmed that these were the guys responsible.
They took lives, and now they have been stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
Mr. Happy wrote:
> Oh and just note that hwnever the US supports a subversive faction
> against a domestic government they support "Freedom
> fighters". Whenever a subversive faction targets the US or is
> supported by an enemy of the US they are "terrorists".
>
> I am against semantics.
Here here. Sometimes I think this kind of action (the assassination) is indeed justified, but I wish people would be rather more honest about what it actually is.
> Oh and just note that hwnever the US supports a subversive faction
> against a domestic government they support "Freedom
> fighters". Whenever a subversive faction targets the US or is
> supported by an enemy of the US they are "terrorists".
>
> I am against semantics.
Here here. Sometimes I think this kind of action (the assassination) is indeed justified, but I wish people would be rather more honest about what it actually is.
>
> Yet the American constitution only applies to American citizens, and
> with the 6 legally implicated in the USS Cole bombing this is as close
> to due process as your'e going to get. The difference between this and
> 9/11 is blindingly obvious to all but the dumb. 6 men, comitted
> terrorist actions, killed people, versus 2000+, mainly civilians, who
> had not personally comitted actions against the terrorists. This attac
> kwas pinpoint - 1 car toasted, 9/11, WTC, Part of Pentagon, 4
> airliners, EMS workers e.t.c. If you can't see the difference then I'm
> stunnned.
Yes, it applies to the actions of US citizens too. Am I to understand that your view of due process is equal to "Someone in the US Govt. approved"? Incidentally, excellent use of semantics there; "to all but the dumb". A wonderful implication, and clearly designed to throw someone off the scent of your argument by winding them up.
As to the difference; okay, if you can explain why those 6 men flying planes into a building is worse than a few CIA agents inciting revolt against a country's legitimate leader which led to that leader's murder, the murder of thousands, and a dictatorship that any fascist would be proud of then I'm all ears (I'm referring to Chile in case you're unaware of the US government's role in that little horror; co-incidentally, that happened on Sept 11th as well)
>
>
> Of course. Do you approve of Al Queda ? Al Queda is not accepted by
> most of the arabic world, because the only place the arabic world
> exists is in the minds of western people. It's not one world, with
> shared ideas - Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt e.t.c. are all different
> and with the exception of Iraq, all condemned 9/11, and are helping
> the US and her allies to root out terrorism.
Al-Quaida is indeed rejected by many of the governments in the arabic world (so called because it's people are of arabic decent; for example, Iran is not a part of the arabic world as it's people are of persian descent. Israel is not because it is predominantly Jewish. At least have the sense to check someone's definition before blundering in with a half thought through condemnation of it). All of those governments did indeed condemn Sept 11. Are you saying that all of those governments are represenative of the people? Or would you like a brief rundown of the many, well supported and well funded, Islamic seperatist groups in
Egypt, Saudi, Yemen etc? Or would you like to discuss how people celebrated on the streets of Cairo when Hussein bombed Israel in the Gulf War, despite the fact that Egypt was a part of the coalition to defeat him? As to helping the US; not a single one of those country's has supported the coming war on Iraq. They have supported a UN led initiative that may lead to war (and, for the record, that's my view as well), but none of them have supported unilateral US action. Saudi (one of the US's staunchest allies in the middle east) has gone so far as to refuse permission to use the country as an airbase. This applies even if the UN do support a war. Hardly the action of a nation that fully supports the US. More, I would say, the actions of a nation that is well aware that a huge number of it's people are opposed to a US presence in the country. Which is, in fact, one of Al-Quaida's main aims (removing the US presence from Saudi). Do you see?
>
>
> Those men attacked the USS Cole, they are implicated in planning new
> attacks. Intelligence proves that one man was ex-security chief to Bin
> Laden. Not my opinion, FACT. Combatting terrorism is the right thing,
> I don't "think it is", it is, and I'd like to see you argue
> that it isn't.
Yeah, combatting terrorism is indeed the right thing. Care to discuss a list of US supported terrorist actions across the globe? Does this mean that you support the right of a Central American country to plant a car bomb in a CIA operative's car if it only kills him? I'm not arguing that combatting terrorism is a bad thing. I'm saying that the US (indeed, every nation on earth) is being hypocritical in the extreme when they say that that is what the coming war is about.
>
>
> Except Al Queda does not have any diplomatic power or any rule in that
> state or any other region. When a non governmental organisation takes
> actions against a ruling form of governemnt in a country thats
> Terrorism. Yes, Al Queda consider him a legitimate target, because
> they're too weak to take on the embassy itself. It shows how bad
> things are for them if the best they can do is to kill someone just
> because he's American. To me, you're reasoning on this sounds like
> justification. There is no justification.
Why not? Because you don't agree with their justification? Neither do I. But neither do I agree with the simplistic view that "If a government do it, it's okay". For example, was it alright that the US government launched cruise missile's at a supposedly legitimate target in the Sudan? Al-Quaida's attack on the US embassy there killed many hundreds of innocents. As did the US government sanctioned cruise missile attack. What, apart from who ordered it, is the difference?
>
> Want to tell me something I don't know ? Again, Al Queda cannot make
> any case, Why ? Wasn't their country in the first place. Civilised
> nations deport suspected spies, or catch them legally. Not a bullet
> through a windscreen. "For the record" HUMINT most often
> comes from sources within the local population and
> organisations/government in Middle Eastern countries, whilst HUMINT in
> Western Nations is gathered electronically/remotely e.t.c. Too many
> Cold War books for you methinks. US Embassy staff stand out miles away
> in the Middle East, for obvious reasons, they'd be rubbish for
> collecting the information that mattered and you'd never infiltrate
> them into a group.
"Civilised nations...catch them legally". So...Carlos the Jackel should be released then? Or was his kidnap from Africa by French paratroopers a "legal deportation" in your mind? Or would this be an example of the end justifying the means?
You then go on to say "not a bullet through the windscreen". But you're arguing that the assassination of 6 men by the US is legitimate. So is a bomb alright then? It's a nice point you've made, but it effectively weakens your overall argument that the US did the right thing. By the standards you've just applied, the US is not a civilised nation.
Oh, and the too many cold war books thing; again, a lovely attempt to try and rile in order to distract attention from the poorly constructed argument. But, seeing as you were good enough to at least try and address the point, I'll return the favour. Who do you think collates the intelligence gathered? Who do you think gets it back to the home nation? Oh, that's right; the embassy staff. If HUMINT (nice use of acronym to insinuate that you know more about this kind of thing) is indeed from the native population, then where is it going to go? Will they approach a random westener and just tell them?
Oh, and one last point; "(American's) stand out a mile in the middle east" What, like John Walker Lindh?
>
>
> Good and Evil don't exist, they're concepts and nothing more than
> that. I never claimed this was about good and evil. It's about
> stopping the terrorists and those who support them because of what
> they have done, adn what they will do if not stopped.
One could very easily say that "It's about
stopping the US Government and those who support them because of what
they have done, and what they will do if not stopped." Not that I entirely agree with that, but it's another viewpoint that is equally as valid as your own.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
> Yet the American constitution only applies to American citizens, and
> with the 6 legally implicated in the USS Cole bombing this is as close
> to due process as your'e going to get. The difference between this and
> 9/11 is blindingly obvious to all but the dumb. 6 men, comitted
> terrorist actions, killed people, versus 2000+, mainly civilians, who
> had not personally comitted actions against the terrorists. This attac
> kwas pinpoint - 1 car toasted, 9/11, WTC, Part of Pentagon, 4
> airliners, EMS workers e.t.c. If you can't see the difference then I'm
> stunnned.
Yes, it applies to the actions of US citizens too. Am I to understand that your view of due process is equal to "Someone in the US Govt. approved"? Incidentally, excellent use of semantics there; "to all but the dumb". A wonderful implication, and clearly designed to throw someone off the scent of your argument by winding them up.
As to the difference; okay, if you can explain why those 6 men flying planes into a building is worse than a few CIA agents inciting revolt against a country's legitimate leader which led to that leader's murder, the murder of thousands, and a dictatorship that any fascist would be proud of then I'm all ears (I'm referring to Chile in case you're unaware of the US government's role in that little horror; co-incidentally, that happened on Sept 11th as well)
>
>
> Of course. Do you approve of Al Queda ? Al Queda is not accepted by
> most of the arabic world, because the only place the arabic world
> exists is in the minds of western people. It's not one world, with
> shared ideas - Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt e.t.c. are all different
> and with the exception of Iraq, all condemned 9/11, and are helping
> the US and her allies to root out terrorism.
Al-Quaida is indeed rejected by many of the governments in the arabic world (so called because it's people are of arabic decent; for example, Iran is not a part of the arabic world as it's people are of persian descent. Israel is not because it is predominantly Jewish. At least have the sense to check someone's definition before blundering in with a half thought through condemnation of it). All of those governments did indeed condemn Sept 11. Are you saying that all of those governments are represenative of the people? Or would you like a brief rundown of the many, well supported and well funded, Islamic seperatist groups in
Egypt, Saudi, Yemen etc? Or would you like to discuss how people celebrated on the streets of Cairo when Hussein bombed Israel in the Gulf War, despite the fact that Egypt was a part of the coalition to defeat him? As to helping the US; not a single one of those country's has supported the coming war on Iraq. They have supported a UN led initiative that may lead to war (and, for the record, that's my view as well), but none of them have supported unilateral US action. Saudi (one of the US's staunchest allies in the middle east) has gone so far as to refuse permission to use the country as an airbase. This applies even if the UN do support a war. Hardly the action of a nation that fully supports the US. More, I would say, the actions of a nation that is well aware that a huge number of it's people are opposed to a US presence in the country. Which is, in fact, one of Al-Quaida's main aims (removing the US presence from Saudi). Do you see?
>
>
> Those men attacked the USS Cole, they are implicated in planning new
> attacks. Intelligence proves that one man was ex-security chief to Bin
> Laden. Not my opinion, FACT. Combatting terrorism is the right thing,
> I don't "think it is", it is, and I'd like to see you argue
> that it isn't.
Yeah, combatting terrorism is indeed the right thing. Care to discuss a list of US supported terrorist actions across the globe? Does this mean that you support the right of a Central American country to plant a car bomb in a CIA operative's car if it only kills him? I'm not arguing that combatting terrorism is a bad thing. I'm saying that the US (indeed, every nation on earth) is being hypocritical in the extreme when they say that that is what the coming war is about.
>
>
> Except Al Queda does not have any diplomatic power or any rule in that
> state or any other region. When a non governmental organisation takes
> actions against a ruling form of governemnt in a country thats
> Terrorism. Yes, Al Queda consider him a legitimate target, because
> they're too weak to take on the embassy itself. It shows how bad
> things are for them if the best they can do is to kill someone just
> because he's American. To me, you're reasoning on this sounds like
> justification. There is no justification.
Why not? Because you don't agree with their justification? Neither do I. But neither do I agree with the simplistic view that "If a government do it, it's okay". For example, was it alright that the US government launched cruise missile's at a supposedly legitimate target in the Sudan? Al-Quaida's attack on the US embassy there killed many hundreds of innocents. As did the US government sanctioned cruise missile attack. What, apart from who ordered it, is the difference?
>
> Want to tell me something I don't know ? Again, Al Queda cannot make
> any case, Why ? Wasn't their country in the first place. Civilised
> nations deport suspected spies, or catch them legally. Not a bullet
> through a windscreen. "For the record" HUMINT most often
> comes from sources within the local population and
> organisations/government in Middle Eastern countries, whilst HUMINT in
> Western Nations is gathered electronically/remotely e.t.c. Too many
> Cold War books for you methinks. US Embassy staff stand out miles away
> in the Middle East, for obvious reasons, they'd be rubbish for
> collecting the information that mattered and you'd never infiltrate
> them into a group.
"Civilised nations...catch them legally". So...Carlos the Jackel should be released then? Or was his kidnap from Africa by French paratroopers a "legal deportation" in your mind? Or would this be an example of the end justifying the means?
You then go on to say "not a bullet through the windscreen". But you're arguing that the assassination of 6 men by the US is legitimate. So is a bomb alright then? It's a nice point you've made, but it effectively weakens your overall argument that the US did the right thing. By the standards you've just applied, the US is not a civilised nation.
Oh, and the too many cold war books thing; again, a lovely attempt to try and rile in order to distract attention from the poorly constructed argument. But, seeing as you were good enough to at least try and address the point, I'll return the favour. Who do you think collates the intelligence gathered? Who do you think gets it back to the home nation? Oh, that's right; the embassy staff. If HUMINT (nice use of acronym to insinuate that you know more about this kind of thing) is indeed from the native population, then where is it going to go? Will they approach a random westener and just tell them?
Oh, and one last point; "(American's) stand out a mile in the middle east" What, like John Walker Lindh?
>
>
> Good and Evil don't exist, they're concepts and nothing more than
> that. I never claimed this was about good and evil. It's about
> stopping the terrorists and those who support them because of what
> they have done, adn what they will do if not stopped.
One could very easily say that "It's about
stopping the US Government and those who support them because of what
they have done, and what they will do if not stopped." Not that I entirely agree with that, but it's another viewpoint that is equally as valid as your own.
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Oh and just note that hwnever the US supports a subversive faction against a domestic government they support "Freedom fighters". Whenever a subversive faction targets the US or is supported by an enemy of the US they are "terrorists".
I am against semantics.
I am against semantics.
Yeah whatever.
Let's kill them and then they kill us and then we can kill more of them and they can kill more of us.
And we only know that we are killing them to stop them killing us.
And soon they start killing us because we are killing them.
And on and on and on and on.
That's a real good solution.
You cannot achieve anything until you try and understand why a group wants to fly a plane into a building. It's not down to a "twisted religion" it's down to an honest belief. Let me state that I mean "honest belief" in its legal sense, I am not passing judgement upon their actions.
To modify honest beliefs you need to listen to the other side and you need to try and stop the cycle. The more aggressive the West is, the more generations of Muslims will be sucked into extremism and the more extreme the West will become in response.
While you think they are twisted Muslims they will think you are an evil capitalist and never the two shall meet.
You need to build bridges not blow them up.
Let's kill them and then they kill us and then we can kill more of them and they can kill more of us.
And we only know that we are killing them to stop them killing us.
And soon they start killing us because we are killing them.
And on and on and on and on.
That's a real good solution.
You cannot achieve anything until you try and understand why a group wants to fly a plane into a building. It's not down to a "twisted religion" it's down to an honest belief. Let me state that I mean "honest belief" in its legal sense, I am not passing judgement upon their actions.
To modify honest beliefs you need to listen to the other side and you need to try and stop the cycle. The more aggressive the West is, the more generations of Muslims will be sucked into extremism and the more extreme the West will become in response.
While you think they are twisted Muslims they will think you are an evil capitalist and never the two shall meet.
You need to build bridges not blow them up.
Belldandy: as someone who has had several long, fierce and ultimately pointless debates with you, I think I know something about why your style gets peoples heckles up. Personally, I don't think you're much more set in your views than anyone else who has posted vaguley political stuff in this forum - I'm certainly guilty of it and so are many others. What I do think is this: when it comes to America, you lack empathy and argue your case quite dishonestly. This isn't a personal attack; what I take issue with is your slavish devotion to the US and the way you then present your case.
Firstly, you misrepresent peoples views. The 'your beloved Saddam Hussein' comment is the obvious one, but there are countless others. I admit that it's much easier to argue with someone when you can bash them with the 'if you don't love Shrub, you love Saddam' line; but it isn't fair, or true. You're quite good at countering people's arguments but it always, always comes back to the with-us-or-with-the-terrorists bs.
Secondly, the 9/11 emotional blackmail thing. You, and the politicians you tend to be apologising for, constantly cite this tragedy as the compelling reason behind every single thing the US-UK they do. We went to war with Afghanistan because 9/11; we will go to war with Iraq because 9/11; and once that's done we will go to war again because 9/11; and, naturally, we can now lock people up, or tap their phones, or revoke their British citizenship, all without due process...because 9/11. I think this is the lowest of the low, I really do.
Thirdly, if someone cites some unsavoury but undeniable fact about America, you ignore it; or, failing that, stamp your foot and attack the person or organisation - never the truth of the statement - behind it as anti-American. In various threads I have seen you deride Amnesty International (who you seem willing to quote when it suits you), various Israeli human rights groups, the UN, the BBC and Noam Chomsky as anti-American, terrorist sympathising, socialist agitators, whose biased views don't need to be taken into account. If you admit that the US has done wrong then there is always a mitigating circumstance.
If I believe in one thing it is this: you have to apply the same moral standards to yourself as you demand of others. If killing for idea X is wrong, then so is killing for idea Y. Bush and co still haven't worked that out.
Firstly, you misrepresent peoples views. The 'your beloved Saddam Hussein' comment is the obvious one, but there are countless others. I admit that it's much easier to argue with someone when you can bash them with the 'if you don't love Shrub, you love Saddam' line; but it isn't fair, or true. You're quite good at countering people's arguments but it always, always comes back to the with-us-or-with-the-terrorists bs.
Secondly, the 9/11 emotional blackmail thing. You, and the politicians you tend to be apologising for, constantly cite this tragedy as the compelling reason behind every single thing the US-UK they do. We went to war with Afghanistan because 9/11; we will go to war with Iraq because 9/11; and once that's done we will go to war again because 9/11; and, naturally, we can now lock people up, or tap their phones, or revoke their British citizenship, all without due process...because 9/11. I think this is the lowest of the low, I really do.
Thirdly, if someone cites some unsavoury but undeniable fact about America, you ignore it; or, failing that, stamp your foot and attack the person or organisation - never the truth of the statement - behind it as anti-American. In various threads I have seen you deride Amnesty International (who you seem willing to quote when it suits you), various Israeli human rights groups, the UN, the BBC and Noam Chomsky as anti-American, terrorist sympathising, socialist agitators, whose biased views don't need to be taken into account. If you admit that the US has done wrong then there is always a mitigating circumstance.
If I believe in one thing it is this: you have to apply the same moral standards to yourself as you demand of others. If killing for idea X is wrong, then so is killing for idea Y. Bush and co still haven't worked that out.
Mr. Happy wrote:
> Your perspective:
> Terrorists blow up car of US embassy worker = bad
> CIA blow car up containing Al Quaeda people = good
Terrorists have actively comitted crimes and taken life. Known to be planning a further attack, and there was no chance of forcible extraction.
US Embassy worker, guilty of being an American.
Makes sense to me.
> Al-Quaeda perspective
> Freedom fighters blow up car of evil American = good
> Evil Americans blow up car containing freedom fighters = bad
Freedom fighters ? Yeah right....the Nazi's thought they were doing humanity a favour by creating an ayran race, and wiping out those who did not fit those ideals. The Nazi's were stopped. Al Queda will be. Sure, Al Queda will view events like you say, doesn't make it right or justify them though.
> It's been said before, but the facts are identical, just each side
> sees the other as evil.
You have to choose a side, and see the greater evil, I side against the faction that gets its kicks from crashing airliners into buildings and that perverts a normal religion for its own uses. No religion in the world justifies AL Queda, except their own. Nazi's for the 21st Century, except they won't be lining up tanks and preparing to invade.
This is an enemy you cannot negotiate with, because Al Queda's stated goal is anhilation of the West, Israel, and all those who do not believe in their twisted religion.
Can anyone of you please explain how we negotiate with that point of view ? While you're there, explain to me why the US war in Afghanistan was not justified despite the fact the Taliban had nearly four weeks of negotiations with the US in which they simply had to hand over Bin Laden and throw out AL Queda ?
I keep asking these questions time and time again, on every topic like this, and no one ever answers them.....strangely.
Come on, everyone out there whose exasperated with my point of view on this, give me an alternate solution to the aftermath of 9/11 that forces the Taliban from power and kills/captures thousands of Al Queda members and scatters them across the globe, as well as destroying their supplies and removing all but Iraq's support for them.
Go on, try.
Whilst your there, tell me an alternative to missiling this car, that removes these six from 'play' to prevent further attacks.
You see, its very easy for most of you to claim the moral high ground and pick apart what I type all the time. Nearly everyone claims I am wrong in some way, andI say many of you are wrong because you oppose my views.
But suggest some alternatives, say why I'm wrong and how things could be done, in more specific terms than if America left the Middle East alone it'd be happy land. You say I'm wrong for saying this attack was justice. Whlst you can say that, I won't listen until you say how these men could have been dealt with.
Maybe I'd pay more attention then.
~~Belldandy~~
> Your perspective:
> Terrorists blow up car of US embassy worker = bad
> CIA blow car up containing Al Quaeda people = good
Terrorists have actively comitted crimes and taken life. Known to be planning a further attack, and there was no chance of forcible extraction.
US Embassy worker, guilty of being an American.
Makes sense to me.
> Al-Quaeda perspective
> Freedom fighters blow up car of evil American = good
> Evil Americans blow up car containing freedom fighters = bad
Freedom fighters ? Yeah right....the Nazi's thought they were doing humanity a favour by creating an ayran race, and wiping out those who did not fit those ideals. The Nazi's were stopped. Al Queda will be. Sure, Al Queda will view events like you say, doesn't make it right or justify them though.
> It's been said before, but the facts are identical, just each side
> sees the other as evil.
You have to choose a side, and see the greater evil, I side against the faction that gets its kicks from crashing airliners into buildings and that perverts a normal religion for its own uses. No religion in the world justifies AL Queda, except their own. Nazi's for the 21st Century, except they won't be lining up tanks and preparing to invade.
This is an enemy you cannot negotiate with, because Al Queda's stated goal is anhilation of the West, Israel, and all those who do not believe in their twisted religion.
Can anyone of you please explain how we negotiate with that point of view ? While you're there, explain to me why the US war in Afghanistan was not justified despite the fact the Taliban had nearly four weeks of negotiations with the US in which they simply had to hand over Bin Laden and throw out AL Queda ?
I keep asking these questions time and time again, on every topic like this, and no one ever answers them.....strangely.
Come on, everyone out there whose exasperated with my point of view on this, give me an alternate solution to the aftermath of 9/11 that forces the Taliban from power and kills/captures thousands of Al Queda members and scatters them across the globe, as well as destroying their supplies and removing all but Iraq's support for them.
Go on, try.
Whilst your there, tell me an alternative to missiling this car, that removes these six from 'play' to prevent further attacks.
You see, its very easy for most of you to claim the moral high ground and pick apart what I type all the time. Nearly everyone claims I am wrong in some way, andI say many of you are wrong because you oppose my views.
But suggest some alternatives, say why I'm wrong and how things could be done, in more specific terms than if America left the Middle East alone it'd be happy land. You say I'm wrong for saying this attack was justice. Whlst you can say that, I won't listen until you say how these men could have been dealt with.
Maybe I'd pay more attention then.
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> Yet the American constitution makes a big deal of the fact that no man
> shall have his life deprived from him or her unless it is by due
> process. The arbitary assassination of 6 people? Is that any more due
> process than the planning of the Sept 11 atrocities?
Yet the American constitution only applies to American citizens, and with the 6 legally implicated in the USS Cole bombing this is as close to due process as your'e going to get. The difference between this and 9/11 is blindingly obvious to all but the dumb. 6 men, comitted terrorist actions, killed people, versus 2000+, mainly civilians, who had not personally comitted actions against the terrorists. This attac kwas pinpoint - 1 car toasted, 9/11, WTC, Part of Pentagon, 4 airliners, EMS workers e.t.c. If you can't see the difference then I'm stunnned.
> Or in other words, the only difference is that you approve of one side
> but not the other. Al Quaida's reasons are, in fact, shared by huge
> swathes of the Arabic world who are angry at what they see as the US's
> double standards in dealing with Israel. Hence, Al-Quaida have a
> fertile recruiting ground in the middle east. When you say that they
> are not accepted, I presume that you are only talking about the
> western world?
Of course. Do you approve of Al Queda ? Al Queda is not accepted by most of the arabic world, because the only place the arabic world exists is in the minds of western people. It's not one world, with shared ideas - Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt e.t.c. are all different and with the exception of Iraq, all condemned 9/11, and are helping the US and her allies to root out terrorism.
> You say they are acting for the "right" reasons; says who?
> You? If so, fine; you're entitled to your opinion. If you can't
> produce anything beyond "I think they're doing the right
> thing" as your arguement, then what gives it any authority over
> the argument "I don't think they are"?
Those men attacked the USS Cole, they are implicated in planning new attacks. Intelligence proves that one man was ex-security chief to Bin Laden. Not my opinion, FACT. Combatting terrorism is the right thing, I don't "think it is", it is, and I'd like to see you argue that it isn't.
> Yes; Al-Quaida will say that he is part of a foreign power who are not
> welcome on Islamic soil. You're assuming that Al-Quaida will follow
> the same rules of engagement as the US, and lambast or ridicule if
> they do not. This would seem to be for no other reason than a
> difference of culture.
Except Al Queda does not have any diplomatic power or any rule in that state or any other region. When a non governmental organisation takes actions against a ruling form of governemnt in a country thats Terrorism. Yes, Al Queda consider him a legitimate target, because they're too weak to take on the embassy itself. It shows how bad things are for them if the best they can do is to kill someone just because he's American. To me, you're reasoning on this sounds like justification. There is no justification.
>
> For the record however, embassy's are a renowned source of
> intelligence for their home nation. Saying that all embassy staff act
> on a purely legal footing would be naivr in the extreme. AL-Quaida
> would have little difficulty in making a case that, by killing this
> man, they have hampered the US's attempts to gather intelligence on
> their enemy.
Want to tell me something I don't know ? Again, Al Queda cannot make any case, Why ? Wasn't their country in the first place. Civilised nations deport suspected spies, or catch them legally. Not a bullet through a windscreen. "For the record" HUMINT most often comes from sources within the local population and organisations/government in Middle Eastern countries, whilst HUMINT in Western Nations is gathered electronically/remotely e.t.c. Too many Cold War books for you methinks. US Embassy staff stand out miles away in the Middle East, for obvious reasons, they'd be rubbish for collecting the information that mattered and you'd never infiltrate them into a group.
> I heartily agree. But war is not just Good against Evil.
Good and Evil don't exist, they're concepts and nothing more than that. I never claimed this was about good and evil. It's about stopping the terrorists and those who support them because of what they have done, adn what they will do if not stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
> Yet the American constitution makes a big deal of the fact that no man
> shall have his life deprived from him or her unless it is by due
> process. The arbitary assassination of 6 people? Is that any more due
> process than the planning of the Sept 11 atrocities?
Yet the American constitution only applies to American citizens, and with the 6 legally implicated in the USS Cole bombing this is as close to due process as your'e going to get. The difference between this and 9/11 is blindingly obvious to all but the dumb. 6 men, comitted terrorist actions, killed people, versus 2000+, mainly civilians, who had not personally comitted actions against the terrorists. This attac kwas pinpoint - 1 car toasted, 9/11, WTC, Part of Pentagon, 4 airliners, EMS workers e.t.c. If you can't see the difference then I'm stunnned.
> Or in other words, the only difference is that you approve of one side
> but not the other. Al Quaida's reasons are, in fact, shared by huge
> swathes of the Arabic world who are angry at what they see as the US's
> double standards in dealing with Israel. Hence, Al-Quaida have a
> fertile recruiting ground in the middle east. When you say that they
> are not accepted, I presume that you are only talking about the
> western world?
Of course. Do you approve of Al Queda ? Al Queda is not accepted by most of the arabic world, because the only place the arabic world exists is in the minds of western people. It's not one world, with shared ideas - Israel, Syria, Jordan, Egypt e.t.c. are all different and with the exception of Iraq, all condemned 9/11, and are helping the US and her allies to root out terrorism.
> You say they are acting for the "right" reasons; says who?
> You? If so, fine; you're entitled to your opinion. If you can't
> produce anything beyond "I think they're doing the right
> thing" as your arguement, then what gives it any authority over
> the argument "I don't think they are"?
Those men attacked the USS Cole, they are implicated in planning new attacks. Intelligence proves that one man was ex-security chief to Bin Laden. Not my opinion, FACT. Combatting terrorism is the right thing, I don't "think it is", it is, and I'd like to see you argue that it isn't.
> Yes; Al-Quaida will say that he is part of a foreign power who are not
> welcome on Islamic soil. You're assuming that Al-Quaida will follow
> the same rules of engagement as the US, and lambast or ridicule if
> they do not. This would seem to be for no other reason than a
> difference of culture.
Except Al Queda does not have any diplomatic power or any rule in that state or any other region. When a non governmental organisation takes actions against a ruling form of governemnt in a country thats Terrorism. Yes, Al Queda consider him a legitimate target, because they're too weak to take on the embassy itself. It shows how bad things are for them if the best they can do is to kill someone just because he's American. To me, you're reasoning on this sounds like justification. There is no justification.
>
> For the record however, embassy's are a renowned source of
> intelligence for their home nation. Saying that all embassy staff act
> on a purely legal footing would be naivr in the extreme. AL-Quaida
> would have little difficulty in making a case that, by killing this
> man, they have hampered the US's attempts to gather intelligence on
> their enemy.
Want to tell me something I don't know ? Again, Al Queda cannot make any case, Why ? Wasn't their country in the first place. Civilised nations deport suspected spies, or catch them legally. Not a bullet through a windscreen. "For the record" HUMINT most often comes from sources within the local population and organisations/government in Middle Eastern countries, whilst HUMINT in Western Nations is gathered electronically/remotely e.t.c. Too many Cold War books for you methinks. US Embassy staff stand out miles away in the Middle East, for obvious reasons, they'd be rubbish for collecting the information that mattered and you'd never infiltrate them into a group.
> I heartily agree. But war is not just Good against Evil.
Good and Evil don't exist, they're concepts and nothing more than that. I never claimed this was about good and evil. It's about stopping the terrorists and those who support them because of what they have done, adn what they will do if not stopped.
~~Belldandy~~
You are not making sense Belldandy.
Your perspective:
Terrorists blow up car of US embassy worker = bad
CIA blow car up containing Al Quaeda people = good
Al-Quaeda perspective
Freedom fighters blow up car of evil American = good
Evil Americans blow up car containing freedom fighters = bad
It's been said before, but the facts are identical, just each side sees the other as evil.
Your perspective:
Terrorists blow up car of US embassy worker = bad
CIA blow car up containing Al Quaeda people = good
Al-Quaeda perspective
Freedom fighters blow up car of evil American = good
Evil Americans blow up car containing freedom fighters = bad
It's been said before, but the facts are identical, just each side sees the other as evil.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Well I think I can.
>
> To me the difference is in the people behind those who commit such
> actions and their reasons. Like Rosalind said, those guys in that car
> were terrorists, they'd hit the USS Cole and were planning more
> attacks. The CIA elminated them believing that without them they'd be
> on step closer to a better future. I can't argue with that. CIA Death
> Squads ? Same thing as the SAS Nemesis teams in Ireland. They commit
> actions many find unpalatable, but if those actions are committed with
> the right reasons in mind then I don't see the problem.
Yet the American constitution makes a big deal of the fact that no man shall have his life deprived from him or her unless it is by due process. The arbitary assassination of 6 people? Is that any more due process than the planning of the Sept 11 atrocities?
> Okay, you can argue that to Al Queda their actions are for the right
> reasons to, but Al Queda's reasons are not acceptable or shared by
> many.
Or in other words, the only difference is that you approve of one side but not the other. Al Quaida's reasons are, in fact, shared by huge swathes of the Arabic world who are angry at what they see as the US's double standards in dealing with Israel. Hence, Al-Quaida have a fertile recruiting ground in the middle east. When you say that they are not accepted, I presume that you are only talking about the western world?
You say they are acting for the "right" reasons; says who? You? If so, fine; you're entitled to your opinion. If you can't produce anything beyond "I think they're doing the right thing" as your arguement, then what gives it any authority over the argument "I don't think they are"?
>
> A week ago a US Embassy member in the Middle East (I forget which
> country) was shot and killed in his car by terrorists as he went to
> work. Can Al Queda justify that ? I mean, even if you use there own
> logic, killing him does not degrade the ability of the US an her
> allies to hit AL Queda, yet the missile strike on that car further
> degraded AL Queda's ability to hit the US.
Yes; Al-Quaida will say that he is part of a foreign power who are not welcome on Islamic soil. You're assuming that Al-Quaida will follow the same rules of engagement as the US, and lambast or ridicule if they do not. This would seem to be for no other reason than a difference of culture.
For the record however, embassy's are a renowned source of intelligence for their home nation. Saying that all embassy staff act on a purely legal footing would be naivr in the extreme. AL-Quaida would have little difficulty in making a case that, by killing this man, they have hampered the US's attempts to gather intelligence on their enemy.
> Peace is not just the absence of war.
I heartily agree. But war is not just Good against Evil.
>
> Well I think I can.
>
> To me the difference is in the people behind those who commit such
> actions and their reasons. Like Rosalind said, those guys in that car
> were terrorists, they'd hit the USS Cole and were planning more
> attacks. The CIA elminated them believing that without them they'd be
> on step closer to a better future. I can't argue with that. CIA Death
> Squads ? Same thing as the SAS Nemesis teams in Ireland. They commit
> actions many find unpalatable, but if those actions are committed with
> the right reasons in mind then I don't see the problem.
Yet the American constitution makes a big deal of the fact that no man shall have his life deprived from him or her unless it is by due process. The arbitary assassination of 6 people? Is that any more due process than the planning of the Sept 11 atrocities?
> Okay, you can argue that to Al Queda their actions are for the right
> reasons to, but Al Queda's reasons are not acceptable or shared by
> many.
Or in other words, the only difference is that you approve of one side but not the other. Al Quaida's reasons are, in fact, shared by huge swathes of the Arabic world who are angry at what they see as the US's double standards in dealing with Israel. Hence, Al-Quaida have a fertile recruiting ground in the middle east. When you say that they are not accepted, I presume that you are only talking about the western world?
You say they are acting for the "right" reasons; says who? You? If so, fine; you're entitled to your opinion. If you can't produce anything beyond "I think they're doing the right thing" as your arguement, then what gives it any authority over the argument "I don't think they are"?
>
> A week ago a US Embassy member in the Middle East (I forget which
> country) was shot and killed in his car by terrorists as he went to
> work. Can Al Queda justify that ? I mean, even if you use there own
> logic, killing him does not degrade the ability of the US an her
> allies to hit AL Queda, yet the missile strike on that car further
> degraded AL Queda's ability to hit the US.
Yes; Al-Quaida will say that he is part of a foreign power who are not welcome on Islamic soil. You're assuming that Al-Quaida will follow the same rules of engagement as the US, and lambast or ridicule if they do not. This would seem to be for no other reason than a difference of culture.
For the record however, embassy's are a renowned source of intelligence for their home nation. Saying that all embassy staff act on a purely legal footing would be naivr in the extreme. AL-Quaida would have little difficulty in making a case that, by killing this man, they have hampered the US's attempts to gather intelligence on their enemy.
> Peace is not just the absence of war.
I heartily agree. But war is not just Good against Evil.
*chuckles*
Page: