Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 02:30:10 -0600 From: "Stephen Hurd" <deuce@lordlegacy.org> To: <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, "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: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAAEEFCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> In-Reply-To: <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. Jury of their peers... sorry to slap that one in there, I actually HAVE been seeing similar statements, but are they any more likely to come to a fair, impartial decision as a jusy chosen from a country that has been screming for his blood for the last few years? > > 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.. I won't have to pick a different example, extradition is often fought and sometimes not granted. The extradition treaties don't flat out guarantee that the person will be extridited. One of the resons for not extriditing is a lack of evidence, or (essentially) if the offense is not considered an offense by the country granting refuge... I seem to remember somebody being not extridited because he was sentenced to be caned... > > 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. Who has proof? Have you seen it? I haven't. Until they make it public, or even say that they have it, they are proceeding without proof. > > 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? Proof of the suicide bomber being sent by the government? I'm not aware of any. I haven't looked into this though. As for the "blind eye" I'll have to dig up a bit more information... but the government seems to believe that they have cut off all of Bin Ladens communitaction with the outside world (I don't believe this, but they do - or say they do) in the US, that is not done even to prisoners on death row. > > 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. I would be perfectly happy with generalizations and data that would not compromise U.S. Intelligence assests. If the head of the CIA comes out and says "A source in Bin Ladens camp has been told by someone close to Bin Laden that Bin Laden did in fact organise the attack" I don't think that would compromise anyone or anything. But they don't say that. What Rumsfeld says is: "... what we do know is that this is not a problem of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. It is a problem of a number of networks of terrorists that have been active across the globe, and it is something that strikes at the very heart of what Americans are, which is free people. " What it boils down to is "Afghanistan is first" I've spend the last hour looking for any press statement even saying that the government posses proof that bin laden was responsible... I couldn't find a single one. Now I don't think "We posess proof that it was bin laden... no further comment" would compromise any U.S. Intelligence assets, or any others countries assets either. > > 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? It was before. And after the US said they would not differentiate between the terrorists themselves and the countries that harboured them and after it was apparent that they were convinced that bin laden was responsible. > > 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...". In hostage situations, terrorists get the hostages into a position where they can be killed from, then demand that their demands be met or they will kill the hostages. They do NOT kill the hostages first, they make demands first such as "hand the following 10 prisoners over to us" A quote from President Bush -- WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2001 "Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land ... Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities ... These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion, The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." --- end quote If Afghanistan refuses to capture bin laden and hand him over, that is the (stupid analogy bit) equivelant of ordering a landlord to go in and arrest a murderer on threat of death when there is a swat team sitting outside with the house surrounded. I feel that these are unreasonable demands... the the Afghanistan government does not have the resources to implement them. And they are being threatened with their very lives if they do not. > > 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. I'm not saying there must be no civilian casualties. That is, always has been, and probobly always will be flat out impossible in most situations. I'm saying take the war to the terrorists who perpetrated the crime, not the people who run the country in which they live. That would still result in a war with Afghanistan. 1) The US starts bombing terrorist camps in Afghanistan 2) The US sends in special units to kill or capture all known terrorists in Afghanistan 3) Afghanistan, responding to the US troops invading their country attack the special units. 4) Afghanistan declares was in the US and vice-versa. It's the REASON to go to war with Afghanistan not the war itself that I take exception to. If Afghanistan does NOT attack the US troops, they are then NOT protecting bin laden and his troops. With their army and their internal problems, I would be hesitant to try to go in, capture bin laden, and hand him over to the United States government. 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?NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAAEEFCEAA.deuce>