Taking out the trash in Yemen!!!

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by LennonCook: I think that that`s what Ar-Cunin was trying to get at- those other people who were in the car might not have been a part of the terrorist attacks, might not have even known about them, and yet they are still considered as *definately* guilty. Does that seem right to you ?? Because it sure doesn`t to me.

I think that that is true for the most part, and it is good to see that you are approaching this situation with a sense of objectivity and general compassion.

however

This is for all intents and purposes a wartime situation. That a confirmed terrorist target was placed within the weapon-range of a US attack drone placed the military under a certain degree of obligation to see that the target was destroyed, despite the costs to the other passengers within the vehicle. That these men were driving alone out in the arid desert suggests that they had a degree of connectivity to terrorist actions with each other. In wartime, when each side is fighting for their lives, it is better to shoot first and ask questions later. War is chaos, war is brutality, but it is still war. In circumstances such as these we need to steel ourselves and embrace the harsh realities of our times. In all liklihood the noble thing was done in punishing these transgressors here. Were they driving in a civilian area, in peacetime, then their wholesale destruction could be seen as questionable. Yet out there, in the warzone, it was the sensible, and likely the just thing to do.

[ 11-05-2002, 06:16 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Ziroc: I seriously doubt that this Terrorist leader hangs out with nice innocent people. Come on!!! You think Hitlers closest friends were innocent too? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Thats still hardly proof. Even the Nazi War Criminals stood trial before they were hung.

Violence is the only thing they understand? Theres probably a lot of Islamic fundamentalists saying exactly the same thing right now, but about the Western world instead. And they aren't right either.

Also, anyone else noticed how the governments of the world seem to be playing a sick sort of Al-Queda top-trumps at the moment. Everyone seems to have caught a "key Al-Queda figure" recently. How many "masterminds" did Sept 11th have...

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: Interesting logic [img]graemlins/headshake.gif[/img] Lets look a little closer. So Ziroc - do you also think that f.x. if a driver is pulled to for speeding, all the passengers should be fined. Apparently anyone near a terrorist/murderer is now as quilty as him - and can be killed without consequence. Do you also think it would be OK if some of the 'bystandrs' had been children - as has been the case in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?

Actually, If you drive the car for a bank robbery, whether or not you enter the bank and/or brandish a weapon, you are still guilty of bank robbery.

The same would be true for someone who harbors a murder. He might be your friend, but if you know what he did and you aid him, you become an accessory "after the fact" to murder.

Bystanders weren't an issue in this attack. It is certainly terrible though about the innocents killed in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Especially terrible that the suicide murderers intentionally target innocents for death.

[ 11-05-2002, 06:38 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by LennonCook: I think that that`s what Ar-Cunin was trying to get at- those other people who were in the car might not have been a part of the terrorist attacks, might not have even known about them, and yet they are still considered as *definately* guilty. Does that seem right to you ?? Because it sure doesn`t to me.

I think that that is true for the most part, and it is good to see that you are approaching this situation with a sense of objectivity and general compassion.

however

This is for all intents and purposes a wartime situation. That a confirmed terrorist target was placed within the weapon-range of a US attack drone placed the military under a certain degree of obligation to see that the target was destroyed, despite the costs to the other passengers within the vehicle. That these men were driving alone out in the arid desert suggests that they had a degree of connectivity to terrorist actions with each other. In wartime, when each side is fighting for their lives, it is better to shoot first and ask questions later. War is chaos, war is brutality, but it is still war. In circumstances such as these we need to steel ourselves and embrace the harsh realities of our times. In all liklihood the noble thing was done in punishing these transgressors here. Were they driving in a civilian area, in peacetime, then their wholesale destruction could be seen as questionable. Yet out there, in the warzone, it was the sensible, and likely the just thing to do.[/QUOTE]Brilliantly said!

[LennonCook]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: I think that that is true for the most part, and it is good to see that you are approaching this situation with a sense of objectivity and general compassion. however This is for all intents and purposes a wartime situation. That a confirmed terrorist target was placed within the weapon-range of a US attack drone placed the military under a certain degree of obligation to see that the target was destroyed, despite the costs to the other passengers within the vehicle. That these men were driving alone out in the arid desert suggests that they had a degree of connectivity to terrorist actions with each other. In wartime, when each side is fighting for their lives, it is better to shoot first and ask questions later. War is chaos, war is brutality, but it is still war. In circumstances such as these we need to steel ourselves and embrace the harsh realities of our times. In all liklihood the noble thing was done in punishing these transgressors here. Were they driving in a civilian area, in peacetime, then their wholesale destruction could be seen as questionable. Yet out there, in the warzone, it was the sensible, and likely the just thing to do.

Has the US officially declared war on Yemen; or Yemen officially declared war on the US ??

From what i`ve seen down here atleast, the answer to both is "no".

Therefore, from an official capacity there is no war. How can you have a warzone if there isn`t a war ??

Originally Posted by Ziroc I seriously doubt that this Terrorist leader hangs out with nice innocent people. Come on!!! You think Hitlers closest friends were innocent too? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Not quite what i`m saying.
If you want to compare it to WW2, then we have to think back to before the Nazis were trialled.
From anyone`s point of view, were they *definately* guilty ?? No.
The US hadn`t tried them, and couldn`t just assume guilt without a formal trial, because they *could* be proven innocent (ok, they weren`t, but they didn`t know that yet).
Even those Nazis weren`t definately guilty from their *own* point of view- they truly believed that what they were doing was right.

So, the "terrorists" that were killed in this car - how can you say that they were *definately* guilty when they haven`t been formally trialled under international law ??

[ 11-05-2002, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: LennonCook ]

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Hayashi: 6 people died in the car. I hope, for the US's sake, that all 6 were truly guilty. Otherwise the US wouldn't be much better than the terrorists, would they?

Actually quite a bit of the world wouldn't think the US was any better than the terrorists even if the car had been filled with Osama, 5 of his clones, a nuclear weapon, a plane ticket to NY, an entry pass for the UN, and a note that said, "remember to detonate".

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: I seriously doubt that this Terrorist leader hangs out with nice innocent people. Come on!!! You think Hitlers closest friends were innocent too? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Thats still hardly proof. Even the Nazi War Criminals stood trial before they were hung.

Violence is the only thing they understand? Theres probably a lot of Islamic fundamentalists saying exactly the same thing right now, but about the Western world instead. And they aren't right either.

Also, anyone else noticed how the governments of the world seem to be playing a sick sort of Al-Queda top-trumps at the moment. Everyone seems to have caught a "key Al-Queda figure" recently. How many "masterminds" did Sept 11th have...[/QUOTE]This is Wartime. See 'em, Kill 'em.

When they mean 'key' they mean a top leader of a group. There are 100's of small groups.. That's how I take it [img]smile.gif[/img]

We missed most of the 'Elite' top people though, and we're just now nabbing them. I guess they are coming out of hiding since 9|11.

How many masterminds did it take? Well, 20+ MANY others. You think it was simple to hijack 4 (FOUR!!!!!) Planes (and at once!!!) and level 2 of the United States largest Buildings in New York, as well as do some damage to our Flagship Military Building? Hell yes it took a lot of Masterminds! I was shaken to my core at how planned this was. From a MILITARY standpoint, what they did was extremely well planned. BUT..... It's time to pay the piper, and we're playing a LONG tune.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Thats still hardly proof. Even the Nazi War Criminals stood trial before they were hung

Actually Barry, the only war criminals that stood trial were the war criminals who survived the war.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Actually, If you drive the car for a bank robbery, whether or not you enter the bank and/or brandish a weapon, you are still guilty of bank robbery. The same would be true for someone who harbors a murder. He might be your friend, but if you know what he did and you aid him, you become an accessory "after the fact" to murder. Bystanders weren't an issue in this attack. It is certainly terrible though about the innocents killed in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Especially terrible that the suicide murderers intentionally target innocents for death.

So now the penalty for harboring a criminal is death is it? Sounds a little bit harsh to me...

And a little O/T point - the only reason a lot of the Palestinian militant groups (until recently) targeted civilians was because the Isreali army has a policy of extreme violent retribution against both civilian and military targets in response to attacks on soldiers. Its the Isreali government who seem to think its nicer to kill civilians than soldiers. And the reason I say "until recently" is that despite this fact Hamas (the largest "militant" Palestinian group) has recently stated it will only target soldiers from now on. Gotta keep up with the intricacies of the various Islamic groups Ronn...

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by LennonCook: quote: Originally posted by The Hierophant: I think that that is true for the most part, and it is good to see that you are approaching this situation with a sense of objectivity and general compassion. however This is for all intents and purposes a wartime situation. That a confirmed terrorist target was placed within the weapon-range of a US attack drone placed the military under a certain degree of obligation to see that the target was destroyed, despite the costs to the other passengers within the vehicle. That these men were driving alone out in the arid desert suggests that they had a degree of connectivity to terrorist actions with each other. In wartime, when each side is fighting for their lives, it is better to shoot first and ask questions later. War is chaos, war is brutality, but it is still war. In circumstances such as these we need to steel ourselves and embrace the harsh realities of our times. In all liklihood the noble thing was done in punishing these transgressors here. Were they driving in a civilian area, in peacetime, then their wholesale destruction could be seen as questionable. Yet out there, in the warzone, it was the sensible, and likely the just thing to do.

Has the US officially declared war on Yemen; or Yemen officially declared war on the US ??

From what i`ve seen down here atleast, the answer to both is "no".

Therefore, from an official capacity there is no war. How can you have a warzone if there isn`t a war ??

Originally Posted by Ziroc I seriously doubt that this Terrorist leader hangs out with nice innocent people. Come on!!! You think Hitlers closest friends were innocent too? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

Not quite what i`m saying.
If you want to compare it to WW2, then we have to think back to before the Nazis were trialled.
From anyone`s point of view, were they *definately* guilty ?? No.
The US hadn`t tried them, and couldn`t just assume guilt without a formal trial, because they *could* be proven innocent (ok, they weren`t, but they didn`t know that yet).
Even those Nazis weren`t definately guilty from their *own* point of view- they truly believed that what they were doing was right.

So, the "terrorists" that were killed in this car - how can you say that they were *definately* guilty when they haven`t been formally trialled under international law ?? [/QUOTE]Actually, the United States of America HAS Declared war. (On al Qaeda).

Yemenis Government is working WITH The USA to help rid their Country of Terrorists. We didn't just go "Hey, there's a Terrorist in Yemen, lets go blast him". [img]smile.gif[/img] Nope. You gotta go by the book, and Yemen law *does* allow the execution of *Killers*. (And you don't sit on deathrow-you're shot the next week). lol.

[ 11-05-2002, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]