Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:57:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org> Cc: Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com> References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAGEDNCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephen Hurd wrote: > In my mind, the most important bit of this is that in this case, Country A > hasn't DONE anything. Afghanistan has NOT attacked the United States yet the > United States wants retribution against Afghanistan because there is a person > there who has been grated asylum that the US government THINKS organised the > attack. You must no be seeing the same statements from the Taliban that I've been seeing. They want Osama bin Laden tried by a court of religious leaders, chosen from similar radical members of a sect of an otherwise peaceful religion. We are then supposed to trust that these people -- who have stated similar opinions of the U.S. as "The Great Satan", and expressed a desire for its destruction at every available opportunity -- will come to a fair, impartial decision. > If the US granted asylum to someone say (totally random example) from > the IRA, and the British said "Hand him over, or we'll bomb the hell > out of you. You're harbouring him, so that makes you responsible for > all he has done... You'll have to pick a different example; the U.S. and the U.K. have extradition treaties which would preclude this happening; it was, in fact, these treaties which allowed the U.S. to take custody of the Osama bin Laden sponsored terrorist responsible for the bombing of the Pan Am jetliner over Lacherby Scotland, and who was scheduled to be sentenced in U.S. courts September 12th -- the day after the attack on the U.S.. > including this stuff that we don't have any hard evidence that > he actually did." This is idiotic. We have proof, which we have shared with our allies. We would be incredibly stupid to compromise both our intelligence assets, as well as disclosing our reconissance capabilities, to people who have shown themselves to be our enimies by killing our civilians. > the entire US public would be outraged, refuse to hand the > refugee over and quite possibly be happy to go to war over it > KNOWING they were right. Yet this is the position that the US > has put the Afghanistan government into. This would be the same government who dynamited some of the largest and oldest Buddist statues in the world a month or so ago, in an extreme demonstration of religious intolerance, and an attempt to rewrite the history of their country. This would be the same government which just assasinated their major opposition leader via the auspices of a terrorist suicide bomber, a short week before the attack on the U.S.. This would be the same government which has permitted Osama bin Laden to operate his international terrorist organization unchecked from within their borders, turning a blind eye to his activities, such as the bombing of civilian airliners in Scotland, U.S. embassies in Nigeria and other African countries, and the recent attempt to sink the U.S.S. Cole. Right? > They have not offered convincing evidence that Bin Ladden is > responsible for this attack. With the evidence that has been > made public, they would NOT get a conviction in a court of law. > Doubtless they know something we don't, but the entire US piblic > is going along with this WITHOUT being offered the proof. I'd be perfectly happy with a grand jury and sealed testimony, which would not compromise U.S. Intelligence assets. If Osama bin Laden would be so kind as to turn himself in to the world court, I'm sure that the information would be presented in the case against him, under sealed testimony. > So now the United States uses terrorist tactics itself "We want > Bin Ladden or we will start killing people who have had no part > of the attack, did not condone the attack, and have publicly > expressed their outrage at the attack... and keep it up until > you hand him over." They "publically expressed outrage"? Was this before or after they stated that a religious court should judge him, and we should accept the outcome, if the activist zealots of the same stripe as Osama bin Laden found in his favor? > This sounds a lot like the traditional hostage situation... only > now, the United States is holding an ENTIRE COUNTRY hostage. This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The U.S. is in no way acting as terrorists: terrorists bomb first, and claim credit afterwards -- assuming that they don't say to themselves "Oh shit... I've stepped in it this time...". > That is the bit that scares me. If the United States said "We are > going to hunt all terrorists down no matter where they hide - that's > why we have special forces and are justifiably pround of our ability > to effect pinpoint strikes with massive firepower." I would be about > 87% behind them. That's not what they're saying though. Pinpoint strikes are not effective at avoiding civilian casualties, when you are fighting against people who hide behind civilians. The best chance at avoiding collateral damage would be if they were willing to excise the cancer themselves, rather than forcing the U.S. to go hunting for it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BAC3644.1CB0C626>