A curious question

[Ryanamur]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:



*in his whiniest voice*

BUT THEY STARTED IT!

That was "tongue in cheek", but really goes a long way to answer the question

The logical answer is, partly, provided in your post.

President Bush is a head-of-state charged with protecting the American public both at home and abroad. America was attacked and he is retaliating. He is not using the military to target civilians. In short, he is legally doing his job. I'm not a student of this, but I don't think he's causing the US to violate internation laws either.

Osama Bin Laden is a wandering fanatical killer(hope you don't mind me elaborating on his title [img]smile.gif[/img] ). He seeks the deaths of innocents to further his political ideals and encourages other to kill for the same purpose. He is an international lawbreaking criminal. Even if he was a head of state his actions are grounds for war.

---

First of all, Bin didn't start it. The USA did. They trained and founded Bin Ladden then they went and set up airbases in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Bin is reacting to past foreing policies.

Now, the US did break a few international agreements in their attacks (I'm not saying they were wrong in doing it, I'm just saying they did it). They 1- enforced USA laws outside their own borders 2- sent USA forces personnel in Afghanistan before an actual declaration of war was issued (we are still waiting on this BTW) 3- they did kill civilians. 4- They held a nation accountable for the actions of a criminal (not the government) and the list goes on.

Sorry but Georgie did screw up (not that it matters because the winners always sets down the law once the war is over... and the USA will most likely win. If they don't, we are in serious problem.

BTW: I don't mind at all your addtion to Bin Ladden's title, in fact, we could also elaborate it by pointing out that Osama Bin Laden is a crazy wandering fanatical killer that will most likely cause the Third WW because of is idiotic views.

[Ronn_Bman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryanamur:



First of all, Bin didn't start it. The USA did. They trained and founded Bin Ladden then they went and set up airbases in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Bin is reacting to past foreing policies.

Now, the US did break a few international agreements in their attacks (I'm not saying they were wrong in doing it, I'm just saying they did it). They 1- enforced USA laws outside their own borders 2- sent USA forces personnel in Afghanistan before an actual declaration of war was issued (we are still waiting on this BTW) 3- they did kill civilians. 4- They held a nation accountable for the actions of a criminal (not the government) and the list goes on.

Sorry but Georgie did screw up (not that it matters because the winners always sets down the law once the war is over... and the USA will most likely win. If they don't, we are in serious problem.

BTW: I don't mind at all your addtion to Bin Ladden's title, in fact, we could also elaborate it by pointing out that Osama Bin Laden is a crazy wandering fanatical killer that will most likely cause the Third WW because of is idiotic views.

---

The air bases in Saudi Arabia, which were set up to US specs because they buy most of their planes from US, were set up in the mid 80's, at the request and expense of the Saudi's, for their own use. We did use them in the Gulf war with permission, but we didn't build them then for our use.

Osama may be reacting to US foreign policy, but it's not his right to do so with force. He can complain all he wants with the hope of convincing the Saudi's not to let us return, but what he did is unjustifiable and indefensible. If he has a problem with the US in Saudi Arabia, shouldn't his problem be with the Saudi's and not US.

As to the breaking of international laws, I'm not sure you have any better idea than I do about what those specific laws might be. I think you're guessing, just like I was/am [img]smile.gif[/img]

1.) What US laws are we enforcing outside our own borders? No US laws have been enforce internationally to my knowledge. We are in the process of protecting ourselves through proactive measures.

2.) Done with international consent.

3.) Civilians died accidentally, but were not targeted. The targeting of civilians is a crime, but the unfortunate loss of civilian life in war isn't.

4.) America held a nation, which harbored and supported a criminal with hostile, military-like intent against innocent, international civilians within the borders of the US, responsible because they supported Osama (still do) and therefore his actions. If nothing more, they are guilty "after the fact". He is not merely a criminal, he is an operative who waged war against another country. Due to their support he is "their" operative. They know what he does and are guilty by association and, more importantly, co-operation. Whether they control Osama or Osama controls them doesn't really matter.

President Bush did his job!

Osama screwed up!

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]