Should the US go after ALL terrorists now?

[Andy]

Initially I brought up British-IRA conflict to demonstrate that labelling terrorists as domestic or international didn’t seem very helpful IMO.

Capacitor then came up with

Hey if you are going to talk about N. ireland, then do something about the Ulsters like the ones who were sick enough to throw a firebomb at a bunch of girls going to school.

I’m not sure where this came from. Perhaps capacitor thought I was a policeman or judge or something. If not, I wasn’t aware of exactly why I was being blamed for these sickening acts. So I decided to reply in kind:

Oh, it’s schoolyard time is it? Well why don’t you do something about the 40 or so attacks on innocent sikhs, muslims etc in your country. See how stupid that sounds?

*I called it schoolyard because, to me, it seemed ridiculous to accuse a poster of complicity in the face of a crime for no reason other than his or her nationality.

Beagle then replied with this

f caught the attackers will be arrested. After trial upon conviction–probably for assault, battery, attempted murder, and hate crimes (or some combination)–they will face long prison terms. No guarantees though, as the trial in our country actually means something.

What sounds stupid? Are you familiar with the U.S.?

Which seems to suggest, well, what I wrote…

Should the police and the legal system do something? Without question. Are they trying to catch those responsible? I damn well hope so. Are you familiar with any country other than the US? Legal systems and democracy do operate independantly of the US, unbelievable as it might seem.

Beagle then became confused and asserted

Andy, read it again. What are you talking about? You made an absurd claim that the U.S. would do nothing to punish those who attack innocent Muslims or others. That is simply categorically untrue.

What is categorically untrue is that I ever made that claim. Read what I wrote. See above* It was a retort based on the stupidity of capacitor’s first suggestion, and was of course never meant to imply that the US would take these crimes less than seriously. In the same manner, to suggest that the police in NI would simply ignore these crimes is ludicrous. You must remember that in these tense sectarian stand offs, the police had a duty primarily to protect the innocent kids. Arresting suspects was rightly secondary.

Now you say I want to go intervene in Northern Ireland.

Where did I say this?

I know nothing about legal systems outside the U.S.? You made a foolish argument, attacking me won’t help.

Again, show me the foolish argument.

beagle said:

No guarantees though, as the trial in our country actually means something.

Which I took to be an all too common feeling among some people that fair trials cannot be achieved anywhere else in the world other than the US. Is this what you meant? Care to expand?

What is your last point, that we should try people we cannot catch? If Bin Laden had been arrested, could be arrested, or was not the puppet master of the government of Afghanistan we would try him. He could be executed. Now tell me the death penalty is bad. But first, note, I did not argue for the death penalty.

At least if you tried OBL in absentia, you could hold up the evidence and say look, this guy is guilty, it’s not just a conspiracy. But that’s not too practical I suppose.

If OBL could be arrested?

I’m assuming then that all thoughts of arrest have gone out the window?

So my last point was very simple: “…a trial in in our country actually means something…”. It seems to me (and you from the statement above) that whether or not a trial ‘means something’ is largely irrelevant if you’re unlikely to get one (although as I said, these circumstances are a little different).

[ruadh]

*Originally posted by capacitor *
Hey Beagle, we are arresting the perpertrators of the crimes against the Muslims and the Sikhs. What about the Ulsters who were never arrested in the first place?

FYI, eight men have been arrested in connection with the Holy Cross “protest”.

[capacitor]

Sorry for getting into a tit-for-tat. But one has to realize that terrorism comes in all colors, from all nationalities, all races. If you are going to take one side in favor over the other, notwithstanding the terror campaign the one on your side perpetrates against the other, then you will never truly break the cycle of terrorism. Taking one side at the expense of the other all but guarantees that the perverted terrorist notions will gain popularity among the ones they themselves perceive to be oppressed.