Taking out the trash in Yemen!!!

[The Hierophant]

Lennoncook- I see where you are coming from, and I think your questioning of this attack comes from a noble standpoint (in that you are concerned for the lives of others who may be innocent). The harsh fact is, lawful trial is not a guaranteed human right, despite what a constitutional declamation may say. It is at best a circumstantial luxury, something that is undertaken when the cameras are rolling and the eyes of the world are watching. There is simply no real opportunity to provide lawful trial to these men as they are almost perpetually on hostile terms with the allied military. Capturing them alive is simply alot more difficult than destorying them outright on the battlefield.
And yes, perhaps I was being a little bit sweeping in my terminology of the desert as a warzone. What I meant to say is that it is a battlefield , a battlefield upon which allied troops are at war with the Al Qaeda guerilla network. And sadly, the realities of life demand that there can be no courts of law amid the chaos of the battlefield.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by LennonCook: What I don`t like is that the US (= the US government) doesn`t seem to have tried anything but kill these people, and *seems* to have only thought of Yemen a few weeks ago (thus not taking the proper steps to prove them guilty).

The US has been searching for those involved in the bombing of the USS Cole for the past two years, so I'm not really sure where the idea that the US *seems* to have only thought of Yemen a few weeks ago comes from?

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by LennonCook: ****snip**** ...how can you say that they were *definately* guilty when they haven`t been formally trialled under international law??

Easy. Common Sense and facts. (Facts tha the CIA no doubt had.)

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Ziroc: 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.

What I was implying with the post was that governments around the world are inflating the size of their catches in order to curry favour. Its a dangerous world if its run by international martial law and a lot of dodgy governments need to know they have the Wests ever fickle opinion behind it.

Well, this may be war. If its war for us though, then you have to accept that its war for them. If we persist with the "Kill them all" attitude then pretty soon there won't be anyone left to protect, and no values left to fight for. These people aren't born angry against the West, they are made that way - for right or wrong. We can't go around thinking that if we kill them then no more will appear, there are certain root causes that need to be dealt with before people like this will stop occuring. Sorry, but I just don't think killing more people is helpful or actually morally right.

And yes, Ronn, I understand that the criminals who were tried were the survivors. But they were still tried. Do you honestly think that if people start surrendering now that we will actually ever get round to trying them fairly? Even the people at Camp X ray, or whatever the hell its being called these days, are probably never going to see a civil court room, yet they will be tried for terrorism not for war crimes. You've got to admit thats a bit of a discrepancy.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: quote: Originally posted by LennonCook: What I don`t like is that the US (= the US government) doesn`t seem to have tried anything but kill these people, and *seems* to have only thought of Yemen a few weeks ago (thus not taking the proper steps to prove them guilty).

The US has been searching for those involved in the bombing of the USS Cole for the past two years, so I'm not really sure where the idea that the US *seems* to have only thought of Yemen a few weeks ago comes from?[/QUOTE]Exactly. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I am beginning to think some people think Billy Bob is sitting there watching the satellite images and jumps up and says "Gosh darn Duke, there be a truck full of them Muslims in Yemen, let's drop a bomb on them!" "Sounds like fun Billy Bob, grab me a beer and a slice of that tasty beef jerky before ya hit that shiny red button though." [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

I SURE hope not. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The fact is everyone, The Yemen Goverment has been working hand in hand with us to help them rid their Country of Terrorists. We don't do whatever we please in the world (as so many often believe). We MUST go by the book, or you wouldn't hear the end of it from the United Nations.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Well, this may be war. If its war for us though, then you have to accept that its war for them. If we persist with the "Kill them all" attitude then pretty soon there won't be anyone left to protect, and no values left to fight for. These people aren't born angry against the West, they are made that way - for right or wrong. We can't go around thinking that if we kill them then no more will appear, there are certain root causes that need to be dealt with before people like this will stop occuring. Sorry, but I just don't think killing more people is helpful or actually morally right. And yes, Ronn, I understand that the criminals who were tried were the survivors. But they were still tried. Do you honestly think that if people start surrendering now that we will actually ever get round to trying them fairly? Even the people at Camp X ray, or whatever the hell its being called these days, are probably never going to see a civil court room, yet they will be tried for terrorism not for war crimes. You've got to admit thats a bit of a discrepancy.

Oh God, I pray that is not what it happening. I personally don't.
Just remember, it was THEM that began the war, by attacking us. I wish they just left us alone.

As Japan said once, "I am afraid we have awaken a giant".

[Barry the Sprout]

I don't doubt that the people had been investigated, but its still not been through a court of law. I still don't think it was morally acceptable to kill them all, and I certainly don't think it will help matters.

As far as I was aware the US constitution was against overbearing state power, so I don't quite see how you can justify giving the power of life and death to the military and then say: "Well, we trust them, because this is obviously something they wouldn'thave done without thinking it through.". It just doesn't add up to proof, sorry...

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: Well, this may be war. If its war for us though, then you have to accept that its war for them. If we persist with the "Kill them all" attitude then pretty soon there won't be anyone left to protect, and no values left to fight for. These people aren't born angry against the West, they are made that way - for right or wrong. We can't go around thinking that if we kill them then no more will appear, there are certain root causes that need to be dealt with before people like this will stop occuring. Sorry, but I just don't think killing more people is helpful or actually morally right.

Indeed, to kill those who have no quarrel with the 'Western Alliance' so to speak would be as morally reprehensible as any terrorist attack. However, the men that died in that car, through their involvment with the Al Qaeda network, more likely than not had already made up their minds as to what they wish to devote their lives to. In response to such dedication to violence the only course of action can be to meet them with violence in kind. Their deaths came as the inevitable conclusion of the decisions they had made in their lives, the actions they had undertaken, and the company they had kept.

however...

The innocent men, women and children of the middle-eastern region, those who seek nothing more than to carry on with their lives in peace, they must not pay for the actions of these few. This is where diplomacy takes precedence over warfare. An increased effort must be made by all of us to help those in need in the region and not blanket-mark them as enemies. There are more allies out there than enemies, the true test of our wisdom and prowess shall be in how shrewdly we differentiate between the two...

[ 11-05-2002, 07:16 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Ziroc:

Oh God, I pray that is not what it happening. I personally don't.
Just remember, it was THEM that began the war, by attacking us. I wish they just left us alone.

As Japan said once, "I am afraid we have awaken a giant".[/QUOTE]

I know this has been said a lot since the war on terror started, but I really don't think we can look at this as a black and white issue: "They started it, so its their fault if the world blows up eventually.".

If we end up buggering everything up I doubt that anyone will particularly care who started it. OK, so they may have started it, we still have to deal with it and take the best course of action for getting the world to peace. I don't think this is it.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: Indeed, to kill those who have no quarrel with the 'Western Alliance' so to speak would be as morally reprehensible as any terrorist attack. However, the men that died in that car, through their involvment with the Al Qaeda network, more likely than not had already made up their minds as to what they wish to devote their lives to. In response to such dedication to violence the only course of action can be to meet them with violence in kind. Their deaths came as the inevitable conclusion of the decisions they had made in their lives, the actions they had undertaken, and the company they had kept. however... The innocent men, women and children of the middle-eastern region, those who seek nothing more than to carry on with their lives in peace, they must not pay for the actions of these few. This is where diplomacy takes precedence over warfare. An increased effort must be made by all of us to help those in need in the region and not blanket-mark them as enemies. There are more allies out there than enemies, the true test of our wisdom and prowess shall be in how shrewdly we differentiate between the two...

I understand what you are saying, and I understand the principle of justice, or the prevention of violence, that underlines your thought on the matter. However if we kill everyone who we think is violent then more people will become sickened with their previous alliance (or at least complacency) with us and become violent themselves. People become Islamic militants because of perceived repression, how do we respond? We give them more acts that can be perceived as repression. I just don't see how this can help, there aren't a finite amount of "evil" people out there. What we do determines who will fight with us or against us. My point is that with all the bombs in all the world we could never defeat all of the threats to peace, the more bombs we use the more threats are created.

And I would personally say that our true test of wisdom and prowess (in my eyes) is in not turning the moderates away from us, not taking them for granted.