Taking out the trash in Yemen!!!

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: Personally, I'd still rather have ten 'suspected' terrorists on the loose then one innocent bystander in a bodybag. And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? No matter how much evidence there is against someone, he/she is still innocent until (here we go again)this person is found guilty. Of course I'm still young and naive, so what do I know. *shrugs.

Velkyn, it just took a little more than ten terrorists to ram those planes into the WTC. Better safe than sorry, say I.

Originally posted by Dreamer128: Personally, I'd still rather have ten 'suspected' terrorists on the loose then one innocent bystander in a bodybag. And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? No matter how much evidence there is against someone, he/she is still innocent until (here we go again)this person is found guilty. Of course I'm still young and naive, so what do I know. *shrugs.

Dreamer, what do you then say to the families and survivors, when one of those "suspected" terrorists causes the death of ten, a hundred, or a thousand other innocent lives? You save one innocent bystander to allow an evil person go on to kill many more times. I think the math is wrong,if not the morality. In war, casualties happen, and I don't care what nation you are talking about, In a war, you make the other side pay with casualties and not your own. I have pointed out repeatedly over the last few months that no nation on earth goes to greater lengths than the USA to avoid unnecessary collateral damage, we spend billions on ever more accurate weapons, we spend hundreds of millions to help clean up the collateral damage we do inflict. All in all not a perfect system, but as close to it as humanly possible at this time.

Edit: Also forgot to mention that court room niceties do not apply in war. if you hang out with the enemy you take the risk of being wasted with the enemy. Remember, make your choices wisely, for every choice has a consequence. In this case it has already been more or less proven that everyone in the car was an Al-Queda member. And We HAVE declared war on Al-Queda and terrorists.

[ 11-06-2002, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Wurm]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: Personally, I'd still rather have ten 'suspected' terrorists on the loose then one innocent bystander in a bodybag. And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? No matter how much evidence there is against someone, he/she is still innocent until (here we go again)this person is found guilty. Of course I'm still young and naive, so what do I know. *shrugs.

I think it very unlikely the CIA controller acted without them knowing who they were firing at.

Or there would be reports of people getting wasted over there everyday.

[Gammit]

I believe the band Filter said it best... "Hey man, nice shot."

Im not sure if I should start a new thread or just bring this up here. Well the Mods can let me know if this is too off topic or not.

I read this morning that several groups of american citizens intend to go to Iraq to act as human shields to keep the US military from opening fire.

What do you think the US Military/Government should say or do about this?


[ 11-06-2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: Personally, I'd still rather have ten 'suspected' terrorists on the loose then one innocent bystander in a bodybag. And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? No matter how much evidence there is against someone, he/she is still innocent until (here we go again)this person is found guilty.

This is a fine and moral sentiment, Dreamer. It's why we have such a high standard of proof ("Beyond a reasonable doubt") in our criminal courts in the U.S. But, it doesn't apply to war. By the very nature of war, innocents will die. Seriously - most people on a battlefield are there because the rich and powerful guy sitting atop his horse in the back told them to be there. At least, that's what I've learned from years of fantasy RP.

War is a struggle for survival by one group against another. Concern for the innocence of a single individual is irrelevant.

And, I'll note that where Al Queda is concerned, the members did actually *choose* to join a radical group, and weren't exactly pressed into service by a draft or anything. Making them actually somewhat more culpable than in your more average warlike situations.

Finally, as to your "suspected" language, did you read the previous posts? This guy was a top Bin Laden lover. The car had in it: 2 top Al Queda operatives, 4 low-level Al Queda thugs, and explosives. What gives? Does having a bodyguard with you mean no one can attack you?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: Im not sure if I should start a new thread or just bring this up here. Well the Mods can let me know if this is too off topic or not. I read this morning that several groups of american citizens intend to go to Iraq to act as human shields to keep the US military from opening fire. What do you think the US Military/Government should say or do about this?

Mmmm... address the issue at home, I would say. If 10 people show up, you "take custody" of them for their safety, as is the government's duty in a foreign country. Better politically than pursuing any treason, anti-American activity, or other sorts of action against them. If 100 show up, however, the government has issues it should address before acting. Democracy, you see.

[Gandar]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: Personally, I'd still rather have ten 'suspected' terrorists on the loose then one innocent bystander in a bodybag. And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? No matter how much evidence there is against someone, he/she is still innocent until (here we go again)this person is found guilty. Of course I'm still young and naive, so what do I know. *shrugs.

I, for one would rather be the "one innocent bystander in a bodybag" than to allow 10 suspected terrorists to continue murdering hundreds or thousands of people. I have 5 kids that could just as easily have been victims of a terrorist attack as the ones that were killed on 9/11. Would you still feel the same way if these sacks of camel-dung were let get away, and then found out they were responsible for a school bombing that left dozens of your family and friends dead?

[Gandar]

Originally posted by MagiK: Im not sure if I should start a new thread or just bring this up here. Well the Mods can let me know if this is too off topic or not. I read this morning that several groups of american citizens intend to go to Iraq to act as human shields to keep the US military from opening fire. What do you think the US Military/Government should say or do about this?

I believe the military should do the same as they would do with other "neutrals" such as the press, or embassy's of other countries; inform them that they are in a hot-zone and that hostilities are imminent, and that for their safety it is recommended they leave, and then proceed with the operations.It would be a waste of time, money, and manpower to persue treason charges against them. Let them know plainly that "we acknowledge your presence, but it will not deter what must be done". Then they are responsible for what happens to themselves, they were warned.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Mmmm... address the issue at home, I would say. If 10 people show up, you "take custody" of them for their safety, as is the government's duty in a foreign country. Better politically than pursuing any treason, anti-American activity, or other sorts of action against them. If 100 show up, however, the government has issues it should address before acting. Democracy, you see.

So your saying, that 100 or 50 people should be able to blackmail the US government into doing things their way? Democracy in our country is not practiced in its true form (mob rule) We have a democratic republic, and the Voters have just voted, so their representatives are expressing the will of the majority when they act. Or at least that is the theory.