bltserv - 14 October 2009 03:16 PM

Very Gratefull.
But should we let the tragedy of 9/11 ruin our common sense and kill more and more for decades to come ?

I see our leaders repeating the errors of our past.
Fighting a prolonged war in a far away land without the support of the local population.
An ill defined enemy that blends in with the civilians. Lack of support at home.

You cant just keep throwing blood and treasure at the problem.
History is filled with examples of this strategy failing. Especially in Afghanistan.

Al Quida will be happy when they destablaize the globe. 

Do you suggest we allow them to do that?  Do you suggest we ignore their aggression?  Al Quida are international criminals and anyone helping or harboring them are Harboring and helping international criminals.

The day you allow someone to delcare war on you then run and hide until the day they attack you again is the day you may as well start learning another language.  Because one day you will need it.

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

I am not familiar enough with this particular situation to argue one side or the other.

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Are you suggesting that this is the same as Al Quida and the Taliban?

trrenter - 14 October 2009 04:45 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Are you suggesting that this is the same as Al Quida and the Taliban?

I’m suggesting it is a case where a foreign country is providing shelter to an individual who was the mastermind of a terrorist attack. I’m questioning whether the same justification can be applied in this case as in “If <name of country> has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the <name of country> on <name of country> soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.”

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 05:12 PM

trrenter - 14 October 2009 04:45 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Are you suggesting that this is the same as Al Quida and the Taliban?

I’m suggesting it is a case where a foreign country is providing shelter to an individual who was the mastermind of a terrorist attack. I’m questioning whether the same justification can be applied in this case as in “If <name of country> has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the <name of country> on <name of country> soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.”

Is that your perception of how the US operates?

trrenter - 14 October 2009 05:19 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 05:12 PM

trrenter - 14 October 2009 04:45 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Are you suggesting that this is the same as Al Quida and the Taliban?

I’m suggesting it is a case where a foreign country is providing shelter to an individual who was the mastermind of a terrorist attack. I’m questioning whether the same justification can be applied in this case as in “If <name of country> has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the <name of country> on <name of country> soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.”

Is that your perception of how the US operates?

trrenter

Goggle. “Convoy of Death”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Massacre_-_the_Convoy_of_Death

There are some very disturbing videos on YouTube as well.

bltserv - 14 October 2009 05:39 PM

trrenter - 14 October 2009 05:19 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 05:12 PM

trrenter - 14 October 2009 04:45 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Are you suggesting that this is the same as Al Quida and the Taliban?

I’m suggesting it is a case where a foreign country is providing shelter to an individual who was the mastermind of a terrorist attack. I’m questioning whether the same justification can be applied in this case as in “If <name of country> has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the <name of country> on <name of country> soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.”

Is that your perception of how the US operates?

trrenter

Goggle. “Convoy of Death”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Massacre_-_the_Convoy_of_Death

There are some very disturbing videos on YouTube as well.

I said the US, not some possibley rogue officers.

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Carriles is here because a judge determined that he will be tortured if returned to Venezuela, who tried to extradite him. If Chavez will guarantee a fair trial and humane treatment, we’d hand him over tomorrow. That is totally the opposite of what is happening with AQ terrorists in other countries.

You know this, so quit trying to equate apples and oranges.

trrenter - 14 October 2009 05:19 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 05:12 PM

trrenter - 14 October 2009 04:45 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Are you suggesting that this is the same as Al Quida and the Taliban?

I’m suggesting it is a case where a foreign country is providing shelter to an individual who was the mastermind of a terrorist attack. I’m questioning whether the same justification can be applied in this case as in “If <name of country> has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the <name of country> on <name of country> soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.”

Is that your perception of how the US operates?

That was Minimorty’s line of reasoning - see above.

Nude - 14 October 2009 06:09 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Carriles is here because a judge determined that he will be tortured if returned to Venezuela, who tried to extradite him. If Chavez will guarantee a fair trial and humane treatment, we’d hand him over tomorrow. That is totally the opposite of what is happening with AQ terrorists in other countries.

You know this, so quit trying to equate apples and oranges.

I would like to fuel the flames, so:

Are you saying that the US would have given Bin Laden fair and humane treatment if he had been handed over? I suspect not

Nude - 14 October 2009 06:09 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Carriles is here because a judge determined that he will be tortured if returned to Venezuela, who tried to extradite him. If Chavez will guarantee a fair trial and humane treatment, we’d hand him over tomorrow. That is totally the opposite of what is happening with AQ terrorists in other countries.

You know this, so quit trying to equate apples and oranges.

This cracks me up ... So an accused terrorist is given sanctuary in the US because of the fear that he may be tortured in Venezuela. Yet other accused terrorist are brought in by the US to be tortured in their custody. Priceless ...

Straw men in da’ house!!!! (I feel like AZDave)

Seriously… so we withdraw all of our military presence from terrorist regions of the world and then what?

(and I don’t think the goal of the military is to spread democracy over there… it’s to prevent blood from spreading over here)

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 06:35 PM

Nude - 14 October 2009 06:09 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Carriles is here because a judge determined that he will be tortured if returned to Venezuela, who tried to extradite him. If Chavez will guarantee a fair trial and humane treatment, we’d hand him over tomorrow. That is totally the opposite of what is happening with AQ terrorists in other countries.

You know this, so quit trying to equate apples and oranges.

This cracks me up ... So an accused terrorist is given sanctuary in the US because of the fear that he may be tortured in Venezuela. Yet other accused terrorist are brought in by the US to be tortured in their custody. Priceless ...

Thanks for acknowledging that your example was, in fact, completely irrelevant to the discussion and that you failed miserably in your attempt to paint the US as being hypocritical in it’s targeting of terrorists on foreign soil.

irvine_home_owner - 14 October 2009 06:39 PM

and I don’t think the goal of the military is to spread democracy over there… it’s to prevent blood from spreading over here

Thats a classic line.
So you have a bunch of guys hiding in caves. At last count around 15,000.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6869503.ece#

Now we may pay them off see the article above. I love this line too.

Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.

If giving some Towel Head on the otherside of the planet extra cash is your idea of feeling safer. So be It.
Your never going to stop a religon. Islamic Fundamentalism is a not a country you can wage war with either.
Until more Arab countries are forced to become Secular. Like Turkey. This problem will never go away.
Do some research. The Taliban form of Islam is very similar to the Saudi form called Wahhabi that is
the accepted way of life in Saudi Arabia.

Your going to do more good invading Saudi Arabia if you really want to make us safer.
Spending billions chasing a few thousand guys around the mountains of Afghanistan is a total waste.

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 06:29 PM

trrenter - 14 October 2009 05:19 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 05:12 PM

trrenter - 14 October 2009 04:45 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Are you suggesting that this is the same as Al Quida and the Taliban?

I’m suggesting it is a case where a foreign country is providing shelter to an individual who was the mastermind of a terrorist attack. I’m questioning whether the same justification can be applied in this case as in “If <name of country> has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the <name of country> on <name of country> soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.”

Is that your perception of how the US operates?

That was Minimorty’s line of reasoning - see above.

He said an organization not a single individual and I think you are taking what mini said too literally.

bltserv - 14 October 2009 07:00 PM

irvine_home_owner - 14 October 2009 06:39 PM

and I don’t think the goal of the military is to spread democracy over there… it’s to prevent blood from spreading over here

Thats a classic line.
So you have a bunch of guys hiding in caves. At last count around 15,000.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6869503.ece#

Now we may pay them off see the article above. I love this line too.

Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.

If giving some Towel Head on the otherside of the planet extra cash is your idea of feeling safer. So be It.
Your never going to stop a religon. Islamic Fundamentalism is a not a country you can wage war with either.
Until more Arab countries are forced to become Secular. Like Turkey. This problem will never go away.
Do some research. The Taliban form of Islam is very similar to the Saudi form called Wahhabi that is
the accepted way of life in Saudi Arabia.

Your going to do more good invading Saudi Arabia if you really want to make us safer.
Spending billions chasing a few thousand guys around the mountains of Afghanistan is a total waste.

Hold. You’re not even addressing what I posted.

Not once did I say we are trying to stop religion, in fact… what I’m saying is that’s what we are NOT doing. You are taking specifics and making generalizations out of them. I stated previously that I agree that some things don’t make sense… but I’m trying to address the general idea of our military presence in terrorist countries which you keep side stepping.

From what I’m getting from your remarks is that there is nothing we can do about it.

So then I ask you, is it better to pull everyone back and just wait for the next attack? I think you stated that we can react to whatever happens by just throwing bombs over there instead of sending people… have you logistically thought about that? I’m not military but I’m pretty sure that any type of counter attack is going to require some type of bodies-on-the-ground intelligence to be effective. And this still bypasses the whole reactive vs. preventative solution. We may not be converting anyone, but that’s not the point, it’s about keeping them in check.

Why don’t you ask your local police to stop wasting their time and putting their lives at risk patrolling your neighborhood and just wait at their station until you call them?

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 06:34 PM

Nude - 14 October 2009 06:09 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Carriles is here because a judge determined that he will be tortured if returned to Venezuela, who tried to extradite him. If Chavez will guarantee a fair trial and humane treatment, we’d hand him over tomorrow. That is totally the opposite of what is happening with AQ terrorists in other countries.

You know this, so quit trying to equate apples and oranges.

I would like to fuel the flames, so:

Are you saying that the US would have given Bin Laden fair and humane treatment if he had been handed over? I suspect not

Yes, Bin Laden would have been given a fair trial here. The evidence would have overwhelmingly showed his involvement in the 9/11 bombings. He would have been found guilt and been sentenced to death. He would have been given lawyers and he would have had the chance to defend himself in court though.

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 06:34 PM

I would like to fuel the flames, so:

Are you saying that the US would have given Bin Laden fair and humane treatment if he had been handed over? I suspect not

He would have been tried and, if found guilty, executed. Remember, we asked the Taliban to surrender ObL and AQ to us and they refused but we did make the request first. Exactly how he would have been tried might be arguable, but had the Taliban acted quickly to turn them over, they’d still be in power and we wouldn’t be at war with them.

bltserv - 14 October 2009 07:00 PM

If giving some Towel Head on the otherside of the planet extra cash is your idea of feeling safer. So be It.
Your never going to stop a religon. Islamic Fundamentalism is a not a country you can wage war with either.
Until more Arab countries are forced to become Secular. Like Turkey. This problem will never go away.
Do some research. The Taliban form of Islam is very similar to the Saudi form called Wahhabi that is
the accepted way of life in Saudi Arabia.

Your going to do more good invading Saudi Arabia if you really want to make us safer.
Spending billions chasing a few thousand guys around the mountains of Afghanistan is a total waste.

Well, at least you’ve finally come out as a racist bigot who has no problem forcing people to do things his way (as long as it’s not Bush *wink wink nudge nudge*). Combined with being an admitted liar, you are making quite the name for yourself here.

bltserv - 14 October 2009 07:00 PM

irvine_home_owner - 14 October 2009 06:39 PM

and I don’t think the goal of the military is to spread democracy over there… it’s to prevent blood from spreading over here

Thats a classic line.
So you have a bunch of guys hiding in caves. At last count around 15,000.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6869503.ece#

Now we may pay them off see the article above. I love this line too.

Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.

If giving some Towel Head on the otherside of the planet extra cash is your idea of feeling safer. So be It.
Your never going to stop a religon. Islamic Fundamentalism is a not a country you can wage war with either.
Until more Arab countries are forced to become Secular. Like Turkey. This problem will never go away.
Do some research. The Taliban form of Islam is very similar to the Saudi form called Wahhabi that is
the accepted way of life in Saudi Arabia.

Your going to do more good invading Saudi Arabia if you really want to make us safer.
Spending billions chasing a few thousand guys around the mountains of Afghanistan is a total waste.

Yet Obama promised to increase the amount of Troops in Afghanastan and promises that this is the way to keep the US safe. 

Will Obama Follow Through on his Afghanistan Promise?

Obama Stated

So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies—the terrorist who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks—are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Obama Stated

As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies,

So I guess Obama is needlessly waging a war and yet won a Peace Prize

.

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 07:24 PM

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 06:34 PM

Nude - 14 October 2009 06:09 PM

green_cactus - 14 October 2009 04:07 PM

Minimorty - 14 October 2009 02:50 PM

And you have no problem with that? You have no problem with the Taliban providing a safe place to Al Qaida to plot the next 9/11? F that! I dont care who is in charge there. If the US has credible evidence that organizations are planning on doing harm to the US on US soil, I say we go in and attack them. Civilian casualties, while unfortunate, are a part of war.

Let’s say the US is harboring a Cuban dissident that has been identified as the mastermind in a plot to bring down an airplane (killing 73 people) and the bombings of several hotels. Does your argument still hold that Cuba would be entitled to engage this target militarily without concern for civilian casualties??? You may want to look up who Luis Posada Carriles is.

Carriles is here because a judge determined that he will be tortured if returned to Venezuela, who tried to extradite him. If Chavez will guarantee a fair trial and humane treatment, we’d hand him over tomorrow. That is totally the opposite of what is happening with AQ terrorists in other countries.

You know this, so quit trying to equate apples and oranges.

I would like to fuel the flames, so:

Are you saying that the US would have given Bin Laden fair and humane treatment if he had been handed over? I suspect not

Yes, Bin Laden would have been given a fair trial here. The evidence would have overwhelmingly showed his involvement in the 9/11 bombings. He would have been found guilt and been sentenced to death. He would have been given lawyers and he would have had the chance to defend himself in court though.

I think you missed my point - or ignored it.

He would not have received humane treatment. He would have been tortured and then executed. Torturing is not considered humane treatment and in many states/countries execution is also not considered humane treatment.

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 08:10 PM

I think you missed my point - or ignored it.

He would not have received humane treatment. He would have been tortured and then executed. Torturing is not considered humane treatment and in many states/countries execution is also not considered humane treatment.

And you are basing that large assumption on what?

Nude - 14 October 2009 07:30 PM

Stuff It - 14 October 2009 06:34 PM

I would like to fuel the flames, so:

Are you saying that the US would have given Bin Laden fair and humane treatment if he had been handed over? I suspect not

He would have been tried and, if found guilty, executed. Remember, we asked the Taliban to surrender ObL and AQ to us and they refused but we did make the request first. Exactly how he would have been tried might be arguable, but had the Taliban acted quickly to turn them over, they’d still be in power and we wouldn’t be at war with them.

And you are basing that large assumption on what?