Taking out the trash in Yemen!!!

[Larry_OHF]

magik...those IDIOTS would only become hostages! As soon as they stepped into those buildings, they would be grabbed by the terrorists, and held on some sort of hostage agreement. Then...we would have to go rescue them! I hope no women are planning to go over...they'd be raped by those crazy people. What a stupid idea...becoming a voluntary hostage...DO THESE PEOPLE NOT HAVE FAMILIES??? Their mothers would be screaming their heads off, begging them not to be so dumb! Their children would never see them again!
That is not an honorable way to die...nor is it a good plan. I hope they were only thinking of doing it, and not actually having the gall to try it.

[andrewas]

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?

Sounds like a bunch of furture Darwin awards to me.

On the bombing of the terrorists - I do not believe that it was a good thing the americans did, but it was probably the best thing they could have done in the circumstances, given the risk to many troops involved in taking them alive. War sucks, this is why.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Well, I couldn't get in from home AGAIN yesterday, and it seems I missed alot. There is no way I could respond to all I agree and disagree with in this thread, but I would like to address this quote: Originally Posted By Barry The Sprout: And Ziroc, because we don't support a military strike against a target without proof we are the naive ones? Seems a bit awry to me... Surely the world-weary response to this event would be that we really don't know for certain what information the decision to strike was made on.

Barry, what seems awry to me...is that you think, in a situation like this, its possible to provide you with evidence, prior to the strike, so you can approve the operation.

Obviously, we don't have the evidence, but isn't it a bit ridiculous to assume we should have it prior to an action.

Since we can't go and run the operation ourselves, we have to trust in the judgement of others. It's not naive, its the way the system works.[/QUOTE]I wasn't suggesting that we should personally have evidence ourselves before the strike, but has some sort of court ever seen the evidence? Will any sort of court ever see the evidence? Even if the evidence is analysed afterwards it would help as the military would be unable to carry out this sort of strike in the future - they would know they had to have evidence against the people they were killing.

The point of my post was simply to respond to Ziroc's theory that we were naive if we thought we should see the evidence. In my view the idea that nobody should see the evidence and that we should trust our soldiers is the naive one. But I never said that I personally wanted to see the evidence before the strike. I said they should prove that they had evidence, either before or after, to some kind of court. Preferably an impartial one.

And my final point is against the argument that this is "war" and that we therefore have to kill our enemy. Well, what is the objective of this war - ultimately it is peace. The objective of this war is to end the war, i.e. make it a safe world to live in. All I'm saying is that in order to acheive that objective this war cannot be fought in a conventional way. You can't go around bombing your enemies and then expect them to roll over and give in. It won't happen and we will never win. This is not a normal war and we have no hope in hell of winning it in the normal way.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: The point of my post was simply to respond to Ziroc's theory that we were naive if we thought we should see the evidence. In my view the idea that nobody should see the evidence and that we should trust our soldiers is the naive one. But I never said that I personally wanted to see the evidence before the strike. I said they should prove that they had evidence, either before or after, to some kind of court. Preferably an impartial one. And my final point is against the argument that this is "war" and that we therefore have to kill our enemy. Well, what is the objective of this war - ultimately it is peace. The objective of this war is to end the war, i.e. make it a safe world to live in. All I'm saying is that in order to achieve that objective this war cannot be fought in a conventional way. You can't go around bombing your enemies and then expect them to roll over and give in. It won't happen and we will never win. This is not a normal war and we have no hope in hell of winning it in the normal way.

I knew you weren't asking to personally see the information, but what you’re talking about really is the same thing.

Your assumption is that no one sees the evidence, or at least that no one sees it who matters, and that just isn't true. Yemeni officials have been working with the US on this for quite awhile, and they were satisfied these were the correct people. After turning over the information to the US, our officials were convinced as well. Prove it to a court? Military action pre-authorized or approved post-operation by some impartial, international, omnipotent tribunal? A judge instead of a general? Bringing more politics onto the battlefield? Sorry, but that's pretty unrealistic and generally a bad idea.

On a positive note, the information and evidence leading to actions like these is usually released if it doesn't compromise future operations. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No hope in hell of winning it in a normal way? Maybe not, but I doubt the use of a court order would have stopped that jeep in the desert. Loving them despite their hatred may help in the long term, but it won't do anything to help the problem today. Constantly "turning the other cheek" will not result in an end to this.

It is not naive to believe that those who were tasked with undertaking these actions did what was right under the circumstances. There are lots of checks and balances in this system. I don't believe letting people do their jobs, under supervision, within the reasonable scope of an assignment is naive at all.

I look forward to the future and have to plan for it, but we all have to live today, and I balance the two accordingly.

[Ronn_Bman]

Reports indicate that one of the six killed in the attack was an American. They don't know yet if he is of Yemeni decent. Of course I don't mention this because it makes any difference about my feelings on the attack, I mention it because it sickens me.

[ 11-07-2002, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Barry, what seems awry to me...is that you think, in a situation like this, its possible to provide you with evidence, prior to the strike, so you can approve the operation. Obviously, we don't have the evidence, but isn't it a bit ridiculous to assume we should have it prior to an action. Since we can't go and run the operation ourselves, we have to trust in the judgement of others. It's not naive, its the way the system works.

I wasn't suggesting that we should personally have evidence ourselves before the strike, but has some sort of court ever seen the evidence? Will any sort of court ever see the evidence? Even if the evidence is analysed afterwards it would help as the military would be unable to carry out this sort of strike in the future - they would know they had to have evidence against the people they were killing.

Barry, I do not recall the Brits ever hauling any of the Argentine soldiers into court before firing on them from their Harriers. As a matter of fact, there is no real proof that they were soldiers at all, just burnt remnants that could have been on green work shirts.

The point of my post was simply to respond to Ziroc's theory that we were naive if we thought we should see the evidence. In my view the idea that nobody should see the evidence and that we should trust our soldiers is the naive one. But I never said that I personally wanted to see the evidence before the strike. I said they should prove that they had evidence, either before or after, to some kind of court. Preferably an impartial one.

Again I defy you to show me any other declared war where a combatant was required to bring targets to court before opening fire.

And my final point is against the argument that this is "war" and that we therefore have to kill our enemy. Well, what is the objective of this war - ultimately it is peace. The objective of this war is to end the war, i.e. make it a safe world to live in. All I'm saying is that in order to acheive that objective this war cannot be fought in a conventional way. You can't go around bombing your enemies and then expect them to roll over and give in. It won't happen and we will never win. This is not a normal war and we have no hope in hell of winning it in the normal way.[/QB][/QUOTE]

You are right, no hope in hell of winning it in a "normal" way, which is why predator unmanned aerial vehicles are used [img]smile.gif[/img] Not conventional at all. We might even use first strike mini-nukes to burrow into mountain strongholds (but thats doubtful). Perhaps America's war on terrorism isn't as big an issue for some of you but you don't win any war by being nice to the enemy.

PS. Good Mornign [img]smile.gif[/img] Didn't want to come off as being gruff, just matter of fact.

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Report indicate that one of the six killed in the attack was an American. They don't know yet if he is of Yemeni decent. Of course I don't mention this because it makes any difference about my feelings on the attack, I mention it because it sickens me.

There was just a big $25,000,000 arms sting, it netted some Al-queda people and a US business person. There are definately some people who call them selves Americans who are aiding and abetting.

[Thoran]

[quote]Originally posted by Barry the Sprout:

I wasn't suggesting that we should personally have evidence ourselves before the strike, but has some sort of court ever seen the evidence? Will any sort of court ever see the evidence? Even if the evidence is analysed afterwards it would help as the military would be unable to carry out this sort of strike in the future - they would know they had to have evidence against the people they were killing. The point of my post was simply to respond to Ziroc's theory that we were naive if we thought we should see the evidence. In my view the idea that nobody should see the evidence and that we should trust our soldiers is the naive one. But I never said that I personally wanted to see the evidence before the strike. I said they should prove that they had evidence, either before or after, to some kind of court. Preferably an impartial one. And my final point is against the argument that this is "war" and that we therefore have to kill our enemy. Well, what is the objective of this war - ultimately it is peace. The objective of this war is to end the war, i.e. make it a safe world to live in. All I'm saying is that in order to acheive that objective this war cannot be fought in a conventional way. You can't go around bombing your enemies and then expect them to roll over and give in. It won't happen and we will never win. This is not a normal war and we have no hope in hell of winning it in the normal way.

If you look at the psychology of the situation I think you'll get the evidence you're interested in. Think of it this way... this attack was a major slap in the face to Al Queda... it weakens them in the eyes of their rabid brethren. If it starts to look like the only thing their organization can do is die then the funds will stop flowing - bad for them. SO - IF we didn't hit the guys the government claims we hit, I'll personally GUARANTEE that you see video of them parading around alive and well to prove how inept the US is. (within a week I'd guess) (that guarantee and a buck will get you a cup of cheap coffee [img]smile.gif[/img] )

In any event this is a blow to their network... it means that if they have operations in countries where we have an active intelligence network (which is just about EVERYWHERE) then they're vulnerable to attack.

[ 11-07-2002, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Attalus]

Besides which, the Arab world doesn't believe a thing that we say, anyway, witness the widespread delusion that "the Jews" caused the WTC attack to blame Bin Laden and the Arabs. They didn't even believe that videotape that showed him exulting in the casualties. And, Ronn, it sickens me, too that an American would be taken part in Al-Quaeda, but look at John Walker Lindh.

Doesn't matter who believes who, it doesnt alter the fact that if you make it a gaurenteed death sentence to be a big shot in Al-queda they will quit applying for the job, or at the least it will rid the world of some undesireables.