The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
62 dead is the figure at the moment. I hate hearing about things like this, wherever they are. Nothing can justify ripping through peoples' lives in a supposedly safe environment.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> The coalition did not sweep up the entire Afghan population into
> Guantanamo so clearly those there did something
How you can say this is beyond me. Neither you nor anyone else have any idea what evidence the US has, what confessions the prisoners have given or what crimes they are being presumed guilty of. Presumably if you are so certain of their guilt then you would support giving them a fair trial like anyone else?
> The coalition did not sweep up the entire Afghan population into
> Guantanamo so clearly those there did something
How you can say this is beyond me. Neither you nor anyone else have any idea what evidence the US has, what confessions the prisoners have given or what crimes they are being presumed guilty of. Presumably if you are so certain of their guilt then you would support giving them a fair trial like anyone else?
Lindgren wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Lindgren wrote:
> I never said anything about negotiation...
>
> Well what would your "seeking out by peaceful means" be?
>
> I'm quite sure that the US could capture the people they want/wanted
> to get hold of without bombing the hell out of places first.
> Kidnapping is a far less bloody means, I'm sure they have people well
> trained fr that kind of thing.
How experianced are you in capturing International Terrorist Cell leaders? If it was as easy as you believe, there would be none anywhere in the world.
> >Do you think we just send special forces into Afghanistan
> running after tribesmen asking "you seen Bin Laden mate?".
>
> They might as well for all the success they've had in finding him!
They have came close to capturing him a number of times. Also, they might not have found Bin Laden, but they have got a lot of his deputies.
> Even so, Afghanistan was about destroying the whole network of
> terrorism in the country - the network which allowed 9/11 to happen.
>
> Yeah, and it really broke up the organisation, didnt it! I can see
> Al-Qaeda trembling in their boots!
Well i don't think it would have been acceptable to the people of the world post 9/11 to just leave Al-Qaeda with Afganistan as a base of operations.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Lindgren wrote:
> I never said anything about negotiation...
>
> Well what would your "seeking out by peaceful means" be?
>
> I'm quite sure that the US could capture the people they want/wanted
> to get hold of without bombing the hell out of places first.
> Kidnapping is a far less bloody means, I'm sure they have people well
> trained fr that kind of thing.
How experianced are you in capturing International Terrorist Cell leaders? If it was as easy as you believe, there would be none anywhere in the world.
> >Do you think we just send special forces into Afghanistan
> running after tribesmen asking "you seen Bin Laden mate?".
>
> They might as well for all the success they've had in finding him!
They have came close to capturing him a number of times. Also, they might not have found Bin Laden, but they have got a lot of his deputies.
> Even so, Afghanistan was about destroying the whole network of
> terrorism in the country - the network which allowed 9/11 to happen.
>
> Yeah, and it really broke up the organisation, didnt it! I can see
> Al-Qaeda trembling in their boots!
Well i don't think it would have been acceptable to the people of the world post 9/11 to just leave Al-Qaeda with Afganistan as a base of operations.
Lindgren wrote:
> I'm quite sure that the US could capture the people they want/wanted
> to get hold of without bombing the hell out of places first.
> Kidnapping is a far less bloody means, I'm sure they have people well
> trained fr that kind of thing.
You watch too many films. And you also don't seem to know the scale of the threat. To defeat Al Qaeda you cannot simply remove certain people, you have to destroy their entire infrastructure, their funding, their logistics, everything.
> They might as well for all the success they've had in finding him!
We haven't got him but we have plenty of others and crucially - although yesterday may prove to be the undoing of this - Al Qaeda has been unable to hit western targets since 9/11 and has gone for soft targets in other countries. Even so the US DOD announced a few weeks back that they reckon they have narrowed down the area Bin Laden is in and they've set up a massive cordon of surveillance around the area. They'll get him, one way or the other.
> Yeah, and it really broke up the organisation, didnt it! I can see
> Al-Qaeda trembling in their boots!
Well I'll wager it did far more than your "peaceful" means would have. Trying to be peaceful and doing little against such groups is what got us in this mess in the first place...
> I'm quite sure that the US could capture the people they want/wanted
> to get hold of without bombing the hell out of places first.
> Kidnapping is a far less bloody means, I'm sure they have people well
> trained fr that kind of thing.
You watch too many films. And you also don't seem to know the scale of the threat. To defeat Al Qaeda you cannot simply remove certain people, you have to destroy their entire infrastructure, their funding, their logistics, everything.
> They might as well for all the success they've had in finding him!
We haven't got him but we have plenty of others and crucially - although yesterday may prove to be the undoing of this - Al Qaeda has been unable to hit western targets since 9/11 and has gone for soft targets in other countries. Even so the US DOD announced a few weeks back that they reckon they have narrowed down the area Bin Laden is in and they've set up a massive cordon of surveillance around the area. They'll get him, one way or the other.
> Yeah, and it really broke up the organisation, didnt it! I can see
> Al-Qaeda trembling in their boots!
Well I'll wager it did far more than your "peaceful" means would have. Trying to be peaceful and doing little against such groups is what got us in this mess in the first place...
Silent Scope wrote:
> I mean could of done it.
Only one person on these forums could edit a post and then still post a correction :)
> I mean could of done it.
Only one person on these forums could edit a post and then still post a correction :)
Belldandy wrote:
> Lindgren wrote:
> I never said anything about negotiation...
>
> Well what would your "seeking out by peaceful means" be?
I'm quite sure that the US could capture the people they want/wanted to get hold of without bombing the hell out of places first. Kidnapping is a far less bloody means, I'm sure they have people well trained fr that kind of thing.
>Do you think we just send special forces into Afghanistan
> running after tribesmen asking "you seen Bin Laden mate?".
They might as well for all the success they've had in finding him!
> Even so, Afghanistan was about destroying the whole network of
> terrorism in the country - the network which allowed 9/11 to happen.
Yeah, and it really broke up the organisation, didnt it! I can see Al-Qaeda trembling in their boots!
> Lindgren wrote:
> I never said anything about negotiation...
>
> Well what would your "seeking out by peaceful means" be?
I'm quite sure that the US could capture the people they want/wanted to get hold of without bombing the hell out of places first. Kidnapping is a far less bloody means, I'm sure they have people well trained fr that kind of thing.
>Do you think we just send special forces into Afghanistan
> running after tribesmen asking "you seen Bin Laden mate?".
They might as well for all the success they've had in finding him!
> Even so, Afghanistan was about destroying the whole network of
> terrorism in the country - the network which allowed 9/11 to happen.
Yeah, and it really broke up the organisation, didnt it! I can see Al-Qaeda trembling in their boots!
Lindgren wrote:
> I never said anything about negotiation...
Well what would your "seeking out by peaceful means" be?
Have you ever considered how you peacefully destroy a terrorist regime? Do you think we just send special forces into Afghanistan running after tribesmen asking "you seen Bin Laden mate?". Even so, Afghanistan was about destroying the whole network of terrorism in the country - the network which allowed 9/11 to happen.
> I never said anything about negotiation...
Well what would your "seeking out by peaceful means" be?
Have you ever considered how you peacefully destroy a terrorist regime? Do you think we just send special forces into Afghanistan running after tribesmen asking "you seen Bin Laden mate?". Even so, Afghanistan was about destroying the whole network of terrorism in the country - the network which allowed 9/11 to happen.
Belldandy wrote:
> The coalition did not sweep up the entire Afghan population into
> Guantanamo so clearly those there did something - I suspect our
> nationals that have been released have only been done to so as to
> help Blair out politically.
good point.
*throws another dart at picture of tony blair*
> The coalition did not sweep up the entire Afghan population into
> Guantanamo so clearly those there did something - I suspect our
> nationals that have been released have only been done to so as to
> help Blair out politically.
good point.
*throws another dart at picture of tony blair*
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> What's the next stage - lock up all the muslims? It's not the way
> we, being the supposedly most civilised of societies, should be
> doing. We cannot give way to our fear and paranoia - it will only
> get worse.
The Irish groups aren't Muslims, nor are the extreme anti-abortion movement, or ETA, or any number of groups around the world.
The problem is how to counter a threat which uses the freedom of our society against us, without countering those same freedoms in doing so.
It's a hard balancing act and has no "right" answer. I think there has to reliance on reasonable doubt - for instance if you are a british national, in an area of a country that is hostile to british nationals, and in the company of people who are not british nationals, during a war, then there is going to be reasonable doubt.
The coalition did not sweep up the entire Afghan population into Guantanamo so clearly those there did something - I suspect our nationals that have been released have only been done to so as to help Blair out politically.
> What's the next stage - lock up all the muslims? It's not the way
> we, being the supposedly most civilised of societies, should be
> doing. We cannot give way to our fear and paranoia - it will only
> get worse.
The Irish groups aren't Muslims, nor are the extreme anti-abortion movement, or ETA, or any number of groups around the world.
The problem is how to counter a threat which uses the freedom of our society against us, without countering those same freedoms in doing so.
It's a hard balancing act and has no "right" answer. I think there has to reliance on reasonable doubt - for instance if you are a british national, in an area of a country that is hostile to british nationals, and in the company of people who are not british nationals, during a war, then there is going to be reasonable doubt.
The coalition did not sweep up the entire Afghan population into Guantanamo so clearly those there did something - I suspect our nationals that have been released have only been done to so as to help Blair out politically.
Belldandy wrote:
> Oh, well you'll be glad to note that the US gave the Taliban an
> ultimatum in September 2001 - you have three weeks to find and hand
> over Bin Laden or face the consequences. The Taliban claimed they
> had 'lost him' - which was quite funny as they've claimed that
> constantly even when we can prove they haven't. They chose not to.
> They chose war.
>
> On a wider scale, how the hell do you suggest we negotiate with
> terrorists who issue no demands? How do you negotiate with people
> whose goal, in Bin Laden's case, is nothing less than an Islamic
> Empire and the destruction of the Western World?
>
> You cannot.
I never said anything about negotiation...
> Oh, well you'll be glad to note that the US gave the Taliban an
> ultimatum in September 2001 - you have three weeks to find and hand
> over Bin Laden or face the consequences. The Taliban claimed they
> had 'lost him' - which was quite funny as they've claimed that
> constantly even when we can prove they haven't. They chose not to.
> They chose war.
>
> On a wider scale, how the hell do you suggest we negotiate with
> terrorists who issue no demands? How do you negotiate with people
> whose goal, in Bin Laden's case, is nothing less than an Islamic
> Empire and the destruction of the Western World?
>
> You cannot.
I never said anything about negotiation...
Lindgren wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
>
> What would you have him do? Forget about 9/11 and hope the problem
> goes away?
>
> No, go about seeking them out through more peaceful means, not
> bombing the hell out of a country and detaining people without any
> lawyers or proof for 2 years.
Oh, well you'll be glad to note that the US gave the Taliban an ultimatum in September 2001 - you have three weeks to find and hand over Bin Laden or face the consequences. The Taliban claimed they had 'lost him' - which was quite funny as they've claimed that constantly even when we can prove they haven't. They chose not to. They chose war.
On a wider scale, how the hell do you suggest we negotiate with terrorists who issue no demands? How do you negotiate with people whose goal, in Bin Laden's case, is nothing less than an Islamic Empire and the destruction of the Western World?
You cannot.
> Skarra wrote:
>
> What would you have him do? Forget about 9/11 and hope the problem
> goes away?
>
> No, go about seeking them out through more peaceful means, not
> bombing the hell out of a country and detaining people without any
> lawyers or proof for 2 years.
Oh, well you'll be glad to note that the US gave the Taliban an ultimatum in September 2001 - you have three weeks to find and hand over Bin Laden or face the consequences. The Taliban claimed they had 'lost him' - which was quite funny as they've claimed that constantly even when we can prove they haven't. They chose not to. They chose war.
On a wider scale, how the hell do you suggest we negotiate with terrorists who issue no demands? How do you negotiate with people whose goal, in Bin Laden's case, is nothing less than an Islamic Empire and the destruction of the Western World?
You cannot.
Page: