<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ziroc:



No need for a trial for Binny.. The CIA should have at him first, then all the victims familys (In a circle around him) and beat his ass 4821 times. Then if he's still alive, let the cops and NYFD finish his ass off.

Trial? lol.. you MUST be joking.. Would you have wanted HITLER to get a fair and impartial trial too? Give me a break (As the 20/20 guy says) ;)<hr></blockquote>

I thought everyone had the right to a fair trial under article 10 of the Universal declaration of human rights, indeed fair trials are just the sort of thing we are supposed to be defending with our war on terrorism. Summary executions makes terorrists of us, and of course Hitler deserved a fair trial as that would differentiate us from dictators and tyrants.

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]</p>

Keep in mind, people who keep fighting are legitimate targets and can be killed. You don't have to figure out a way to capture an enemy who is actively shooting at you, you can shoot back with the intent to kill, not wound.

The goal in fighting a war is not to capture the enemy, but to stop them with the use of force up to and including killing them. If that enemy surrenders then it is wrong to kill him, but it always amazes me that the agressors seem to have more rights than the victims. I guess the victims don't need rights anymore because they're dead. :(

A few interesting points I saw on the History Channel. A paratrooper should not be shot at until he lands, but there is no rule against a paratrooper shooting on his way down. Unarmed combatants cannot be shot, so a man could unload his machine gun on his enemy but would be protected from counter-fire once his ammo is depleted.

We won't have to worry about that with Osama since he's sworn not to be taken alive.

there are many treaties and such about what are legit targets and what sort of ammunition not to use. but most of the time they are ignored or obeyed whenever it is convenient. anyway capturing osama bin laden and bringing him to trial would be a triumph for the coalition, so why don't these people who say "we must expect some casulties, this is a war, some soldiers will die etc etc" put their money where their mouth is and go and capture him alive even if it costs a few lives?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:
there are many treaties and such about what are legit targets and what sort of ammunition not to use. but most of the time they are ignored or obeyed whenever it is convenient. anyway capturing osama bin laden and bringing him to trial would be a triumph for the coalition, so why don't these people who say "we must expect some casulties, this is a war, some soldiers will die etc etc" put their money where their mouth is and go and capture him alive even if it costs a few lives?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]<hr></blockquote>

Put our money where our mouth is? Will the operation be more credible if American's start dying in big numbers? Is that why people are against this because not enough American's have died?

There is no reason to send in large numbers of standard ground troops, and if we do, it won't be to hunt down one man. Not using the weapons at your disposal would be ridiculous. American's have died and will die. To imply our shoulders are more important than civilians because we use technology to reduce casualties is grossly unfair.

Maybe enough Americans will die before this is over with to make everyone happy.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Put our money where our mouth is? Will the operation be more credible if American's start dying in big numbers? Is that why people are against this because not enough American's have died?

There is no reason to send in large numbers of standard ground troops, and if we do, it won't be to hunt down one man. Not using the weapons at your disposal would be ridiculous. American's have died and will die. To imply our shoulders are more important than civilians because we use technology to reduce casualties is grossly unfair.

Maybe enough Americans will die before this is over with to make everyone happy.<hr></blockquote>

Ronn, calm down, people are not against this because not enough Americans have died. People are against it for various reasons ranging from "there's a less costly way to get to him than to kill the civilians on the ground" to "this is a totally stupid course of action because it really goes against the best interest of the State".

Yes, American men of arms will unfortunately die. That's the way it is. But, if you ask me, it's a cowards attitude to simply rely on technology that kills civilian (which are off limit in war) when the end objective could be attained at no loss to the civilian population.

The aim of war, I know, is not to die for you country but to make the other bastard die for his. However, this does not extend to the population whatever the reason or the excuse might be!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:


Ronn, calm down, people are not against this because not enough Americans have died. People are against it for various reasons ranging from "there's a less costly way to get to him than to kill the civilians on the ground" to "this is a totally stupid course of action because it really goes against the best interest of the State".

Yes, American men of arms will unfortunately die. That's the way it is. But, if you ask me, it's a cowards attitude to simply rely on technology that kills civilian (which are off limit in war) when the end objective could be attained at no loss to the civilian population.

The aim of war, I know, is not to die for you country but to make the other bastard die for his. However, this does not extend to the population whatever the reason or the excuse might be!<hr></blockquote>

I'm calm, but the posts regarding "put you money where your mouth is", and "it's the cowards way" are a bit much.

Everyone says this could have ended without the loss of civilian life, but after 0930 September 11th, there were nearly 5,000 international civilians dead, thus eliminating the possibility.

Do you think less civilians would have died, if we dropped half a million troops in country with no bombing? The number of US dead would increase well beyond civilian casualties, would we be brave then?

The bombing campaign has been effective at it's goals and the civilian casualties were kept to a minimum. No they weren't eliminated, but when someone comes up with a method for war without civilian deaths we'll use it.

How could the end result have been achieved without a single civilian death in Afghanistan? Negotiation with the Taliban? Beyond the fact that they inititially said he couldn't have done it because they'd been monitering him, and he then admitted it. Did you read the post where they promise to massacre the civilian population in the last of their cities if the NA moves in?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>

I raise this point by Barry the Spout..
Since Osama has sworn to kill himself or fight to the death(far more likely), what then?
What shall the free world do with the dead body of a mass murderer?

He will die sometime, but what are we going to do then? I cant remember who it was that mentioned rubbing salt into the wound but are we going to let the healing process begin as we rightly should? Or will be hang him up like some sort of morbid trophy? Would that make anyone feel better? How far would we have to fall to get our petty revenge? We've bombed the heck out of the Taliban, and I'm only thinking people arent satisfied yet because we havent seen the death toll. We've gotten what we wanted, or we will soon. We've got to remember that this is a war of principle as much as anything else! What good would we have accomplished with the lives of all the people who have died in these events if we betray that which we entered the fight in the first place? I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seriously taken Skunk's unfortunate experience into the equation! I stand by Skunk's viewpoint and I agree with him! A war of ideas cannot be won with guns and bullets! What if we captured Osama? What would we gain by killing him? What would we gain by making him our largest advocate for peace and freedom(impossible as that might sound)? Paul was the most ferverent persecuter of Christianity before he became one of its most faithful! Too many people have died so that one man can die in chains. Even more will die so that we can kill others like him. A single man should not be able to demand so many lives! But if we took away their fire, if we took away his spirit and broke his will, wiped out his memory except in the history books and destroyed his ideas, we would have truely won.
We've seen the fall of many an-impossible enemy, the Communists and the IRA being the most prominent. We didnt win by killing them all. We won by making them admit defeat.

Has anyone seen Swordfish? An interesting show with an interesting take on terrorism, especially after the Sept 11th attacks. It almost seems like a viable future.

I'm sorry if I've cluttered up the thread with my rant among other serious discussions..

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lifetime:
I raise this point by Barry the Spout..
Since Osama has sworn to kill himself or fight to the death(far more likely), what then?
What shall the free world do with the dead body of a mass murderer?

He will die sometime, but what are we going to do then? I cant remember who it was that mentioned rubbing salt into the wound but are we going to let the healing process begin as we rightly should? Or will be hang him up like some sort of morbid trophy? Would that make anyone feel better? How far would we have to fall to get our petty revenge? We've bombed the heck out of the Taliban, and I'm only thinking people arent satisfied yet because we havent seen the death toll. We've gotten what we wanted, or we will soon. We've got to remember that this is a war of principle as much as anything else! What good would we have accomplished with the lives of all the people who have died in these events if we betray that which we entered the fight in the first place? I'm sure I'm not the only one who's seriously taken Skunk's unfortunate experience into the equation! I stand by Skunk's viewpoint and I agree with him! A war of ideas cannot be won with guns and bullets! What if we captured Osama? What would we gain by killing him? What would we gain by making him our largest advocate for peace and freedom(impossible as that might sound)? Paul was the most ferverent persecuter of Christianity before he became one of its most faithful! Too many people have died so that one man can die in chains. Even more will die so that we can kill others like him. A single man should not be able to demand so many lives! But if we took away their fire, if we took away his spirit and broke his will, wiped out his memory except in the history books and destroyed his ideas, we would have truely won.
We've seen the fall of many an-impossible enemy, the Communists and the IRA being the most prominent. We didnt win by killing them all. We won by making them admit defeat.

Has anyone seen Swordfish? An interesting show with an interesting take on terrorism, especially after the Sept 11th attacks. It almost seems like a viable future.

I'm sorry if I've cluttered up the thread with my rant among other serious discussions..<hr></blockquote>

This effort is not about the death of one man and never has been. Everyone involved realizes this is bigger than one man. One man didn't do these things, but his network of terrorists did. I don't care if they kill him or not, as long they remove his ability to act.

It is a time for healing. We must repair relations in the Middle East, but even those nations admit this is a danger to them and must be stopped. No rubbing of salt into the wounds is necessary.

Hopefully, the UN will be able to oversee the establishment of a government in Afghanistan that is for the Afghan people and not the leadership. They are getting more aid into the country now than ever before and believe they will be able to fed all the refuges. Also with the fall back of the Taliban, the number of refuges is almost back to it's pre bombing level as people return home. Now those who were refuges because of the Taliban itself can be cared for by relief workers without the fear of being "detained".

Maybe the appeal of Osama can be removed, and we must work toward that goal in the region, but we can't afford to wait while doing nothing to defend ourselves. Terrorists' abilities to act on a global scale must be removed.

I understand your point about Paul, but he didn't change because of men and ideas, he changed because God "showed him the light"(quite literally). ;)

No clutter at all, and it wasn't a [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] , but instead, clearly hopeful thoughts.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


I'm calm, but your posts regarding "put you money where your mouth is", and "it's the cowards way" are a bit much.

Everyone says this could have ended without the loss of civilian life, but after 0930 September 11th, there were nearly 5,000 international civilians dead, thus eliminating the possibility.

Do you think less civilians would have died, if we dropped half a million troops in country with no bombing? The number of US dead would increase well beyond civilian casualties, would we be brave then?

The bombing campaign has been effective at it's goals and the civilian casualties were kept to a minimum. No they weren't eliminated, but when someone comes up with a method for war without civilian deaths we'll use it.

How could the end result have been achieved without a single civilian death in Afghanistan? Negotiation with the Taliban? Beyond the fact that they inititially said he couldn't have done it because they'd been monitering him, and he then admitted it. Did you read the post where they promise to massacre the civilian population in the last of their cities if the NA moves in?

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]<hr></blockquote>

Sorry Ronn but I only made one of those comments... and I still stand by it. I'm not proud of the way my nation is getting involved in this mess. My country is a coward for taking the path the most travel and failing to act in an honorable way. How our leaders say that they act in righteousness is beyond me. The fact remains that if our leaders would have done their jobs years back, those terrorist attacks probably would not have happened. I said it before and I'll say it again: "people in office don't care about making the though decisions that are bad in the view of the people but that are good for them and for a nation. They are more preocupied about getting reelected!".

Yes, those attacks could have been averted. The only problem is that the governements that we put in place were not ready to do what needed to be done to ensure our security. Instead, they kept feeding us that bullshit that the world was pink and beautiful. Now, they are putting the blame on others when they share a very important part of responsibility for the 9-11 attacks.

Has the campaing against Afghanistan been effective? I'll guess will only know if there is another terrorist strike against the us and by the magnitude of that strike should it ever come. If there's no future strike or if the strikes are minute attacks then yes, I will conceide that the military campaign was effective. However, should another 9-11 happen or something similar to it done by Al-Queada or another terrorist group affiliated to them, I guess I'd be quite right into saying that Bush was wrong and I was partly right (I say partly because we didn't try my course of action).

It's funny that Westerners think that it's cowardice to kill civilians in an attack aimed at a symbol of capitalism but that it's perfectly acceptable to kill Afghans in a strike to remove the Talibans. It's the same thing: people that shouldn't have died are now dead! To claim that one is cowardice and the other is just normal colateral damage is nothing more than hypocrassy!

About the Talibans shoothing the civilians, yes, I did read the posts. Now, I'll ask would this have happened if we just went after the terrorists and let the Talibans and the NA battle it out by themselves. I'm not saying that the Talibans are "nice guys". By any standard they are monsters... but then again so are the NA members!

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ryanamur:
Sorry Ronn but I only made one of those comments... and I still stand by it.

It's funny that Westerners think that it's cowardice to kill civilians in an attack aimed at a symbol of capitalism but that it's perfectly acceptable to kill Afghans in a strike to remove the Talibans. It's the same thing: people that shouldn't have died are now dead! To claim that one is cowardice and the other is just normal colateral damage is nothing more than hypocrassy!<hr></blockquote>

My post should have said "the posts" not "your posts". (I've edited) [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

About collateral damage, you and I have been "around and around" with this one.

The difference is intent. Purposely targeting and killing civilians is completely different from their accidental deaths in combat. Completely, totally, and absolutely different. You are a sensible ( at least for the most part ;) ),educated man, and you know the difference, whether or not you admit it.

There is no such thing as "just normal collateral damage". Collateral damage is not a term meant to dehumanize the loss of innocents, it's just simpler to say than "non-targets hit or killed, accidentally, while aiming for valid military targets". In the same sense that "targets" is simpler to say than "people, or things, we are are aiming military force at".

The definition of collateral damage doesn't apply to September 11th, while it does apply to innocent Afghan civilians killed in the 6 weeks of attacks.

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]</p>