Ok sexy lets look at this from a loss of life standpoint.
Which course of action makes more sense. To bomb a country that is known for harboring terrorists killing thousands of innocent people in the process or surgically killing the terrorist in the harboring country maybe killing NO innocent people.
Well? Does my plan still seem that far fetched after looking at it that way?
and you all thought I was crazy…
What would be a better alternative? Even if some of the “suspected terrorists” weren’t guilty, the number of “mistakes” would be far less than the “collateral damage” of a full scale war.
I hate the idea of subjecting innocent Afghans (or whomever) to the ire of our great nation when they have little or nothing to do with the actions of their misled government(s). The suggestion in the OP is a retaliatory measure on one end of the scale, the other end being to transform Afghanistan (or wherever) into the worlds largest glass-lined punchbowl. Is there any other way to effectively combat our enemies while at the same time minimize the senseless waste of human life?
From what I’ve heard (e.g., Gulf War), U.S. law forbids the military from assassinating an enemy leader. Does this law extend to terrorist groups (i.e., not leaders of a state)?
Of course it does. First off, I’m smart enough to figure out the repercussions of assassination vs. war all by myself. Yours is not some novel idea that you came up with over your Budweiser at breakfast this morning.
Let’s consider your ludicrous assassination route, shall we? You have some sniper hunt down and kill a person we believe to be a terrorist. Does the terrorist have a family, Bill? does he have brothers who will step up to take his place? Are there other followers of his cause that will be further enraged by his death?
It is also likely that others who didn’t PREVIOUSLY support his cause will come to see American’s as terrorists themselves, thereby taking up arms against us. The entire country from which the dead citizen came will be likely to attempt to strike back.
You can’t possibly eliminate all potential threats. And while it may seem to some like America would be “showing its muscle” by planning and carrying out assassinations, it will seem to many others like we are taking path most likely to cause further revenge plots and start an enormous war, involving not only the two countries initially involved, but numerous other sympathizers with the terrorists for various reasons.
Have you ever heard of war crimes, Bill?
-L
Sexy,
You made some valid points but it still is better than the alternative is it not? As far as family members who cares what the stupid terrorist think. If you try them in a court of law and punish them, do you think that is going to make them(the terrorist families)less mad? So both ways if the terrorist families become terrorist they will need to be wiped out too.
Also what is your suggestion? Do You think a full scale war would be a better solution or should we just sweep this under the rug after all only 10,000 Americans died yesterday?
If it does, that is one stupid law. And the lawmakers that voted for that one need to be FIRED(not re-elected)!
Bill, it is not “better than the alternative” since the results would be no different at all from the alternative.
We have no idea how many people died yesterday, so please avoid spreading rumors involving the number of deceased.
I don’t have a solution to this problem. If I did, I’d probably be in high demand right now. But it is still my contention that YOUR solution has already been considered and dismissed as ridiculous and dangerous. It’s not a new brilliant thought…it’s something we already know we cannot do.
-L
I bet you are wrong. I bet we do it all the time you just don’t know about it.
As far as the number of casulaties I heard that number from a few different news sources. But they did say “estimated” so I should have said that. Sorry.
If we did it all the time, Osama bin Laden wouldn’t be around to be a suspect in this incident. Nor would Saddam Hussein.
You know of any terrorists who’ve been assassinated?
Didn’t think so.
-L
Bomzaway wrote:
Much as I hate to admit it, this is kinda what happens to the innocent citizens of any country when another country goes to war with it.
Bill, I believe the CIA trained Osama, and used him in the past.
Please.
If we kill all suspected terrorists, we’d have to take out a lot of our own in the CIA.
The larger majority of people in the world would think that America would be “showing its muscle” if we engaged in Desert Storm part II (“DS2” for you movie buffs). Selective hits would be far less provocative, and would show considerable restraint on our part.
Besides, I think it’s painfully obvious to everyone that the actions that would start an enormous war have already occurred. Systematic disposal of terrorists would, at least for the short term, PREVENT an enourmous war rather than start one. Revenge plots from friends or family members of terrorist targets may or may not happen, and if they do, we could deal with them as they occur.
Long term, we should re-think our Mid-east strategy, understand why we are the focal point for aggression, and work to reduce the number of reasons for people to hate us. A sort of P.R. job, if you will.
Desert Storm brings up a good point. We’ve already flexed our muscle in that region of the world, and successfully beat the living snot out of the aggressor. It doesn’t seem to me that it was much of a deterrent. Perhaps a different tactic is necessary.
Hell of point Guin. Let me give that some thought.
Are you sure we trained Bin Laden? I did not know that. So he is like a rogue CIA agent or what?
gobear said:
Unfortunately in this instance and in many/most terrorist incidents, it is virtually impossible to gather such evidence. It is extremely unlikely that credible (stand up in a court of law) evidence linking this heinous crime to its masterminds will ever be found. It is highly likely that superficial evidence suggesting the involvement of certain groups or individuals shall be found.
SexyWriter sarcastically said:
Though you were sarcastic, you spoke the truth. This is not a problem that can be solved in a court of law. A message will have to be sent.
That message is likely to be one of two things:
1)Attack America; pay a swift (relatively) and terrible price. A message must be sent that terrorism is not acceptable.
2)Attack America; gain notoriety and fame amongst comrades as you spend the rest of your life traveling from one safe haven to the next to avoid extradition and trial.
Option 2 is unacceptable.
Should option 1 be the response, we must rely on the judgment and decisions made by our elected representatives as to who shall be held accountable, and how they will pay. It will likely be some hard decision making, but that is what we put them there to do.
Sexywriter continues:
Then be smart enough to also realize the difference between terrorist actions that are state sanctioned and for the benefit of the state. Just who do we declare war on? Terrorists? Alright then, they are all fair game.
And just to be sure no innocents are killed in this war, would all the terrorists please sequester themselves in one geographic region, and don a common uniform. :rolleyes:
Which is why we should not and can not expect our response to have surgical precision. It is unfortunate that in order to punish those responsible and to make it clear this is not acceptable further innocents will likely perish. That is why we must be as judicious and careful as reasonable in our response.
Guinastasia, a cite for this?
Further you claim to equate CIA operatives to terrorists?
Now if you mean we have terrorists on the CIA payroll as informants, I say take 'em out too. If all the terrorists are gone, we won’t need informants.
In all honesty, how can WAR be fought reasonably? Morally?
Is it possible to fight a war – really go all out to decisively win and almost completely disable the ability of the enemy to fight back later – while respecting ordinary rules and protocols?
Does it take temporary evil to fight evil? Are we willing to turn into bloodthirsty monsters to fight terrorism? Can we turn back once we do turn to monsters?
Personally, I cannot conceive of a military reaction from the USA that I would consider too severe. My mind is defintely open to civilian deaths abroad IF those deaths are collateral to targeting military strongholds in a terrorist-abetting nation.
That is war, folks. General Patton was right on the money.
Jesus, Wildest Bill.*
Y’know, political definitions change as often as political winds change. Today’s incovenient foreign activist becomes tomorrow’s “terrorist”. Nice world you’re trying to build, WB.
*[sub]Really. WWJD? I think he’d tell you to find an American Muslim, embrace him and say “I know it wasn’t you, brother.” But hey, maybe I’m just reading the guy’s words wrong…[/sub]
Bill think about this. What you are suggesting is that one country goes into another country with the expressed and single notion to seek out and kill people living in that other country.
Problem # 1. We certainly would object to other nations identifying miscreants here, wandering to our shores and killing them. We’d arrest, try, convict & punish some one for doing exactly that, even if the person who was killed was a bad guy.
Problem # 2. What you are talking about is execution without trial/jury etc. I personally would not want the US to be now known as the country that only applies their laws some of the time.
While you believe that ‘we know’ who did this, (and all of our suspicions could be correct, I know), our nation was built on the concept that everyone deserves a trail, and their guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt at such a trial.
Please, I beg of you, do not let this outrageous act cause us to loose the very principals upon which our country was based.
IOW - no to the OP.
http://www.soaw.com
http://www.patweb.com/soa/index.cfm
We not only supported them, we trained them. The Somoza Dynasty. Pinochet. The contras. Nicaragua. El Salvador. Guatemala.
Most of them trained and supported, funded by the CIA. DIRRECTLY.
On Bin Laden, I’m looking it up right now-I read just this morning somewhere that he was used in the war against the Russians in Afghanistan, or something like that.
If I’m wrong, I will appologize and retract it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_155000/155236.stm
From the BBC. Hmmmm…
Wring,
Well, we need to establish is what happened yesterday a act of war or was it a crime. If it was an act of war, we can indeed declare war on terrorism and that means to anniliate and enemy. If it was a crime, then I guess you need to do the ole jury thing.
So first what happened yesterday was it war or was it a crime? Then we can proceed with this thread.
xeno,
Foreign activist and terrorist are two different things are they not?