Originally posted by clive59Well, if you insist...
I didn't 'hear' anyone answer you...........
I didn't answer because his analogy is nonanalogous.
Civilians getting killed during a military engagement - especially when the fighters of one side deliberately imbeds themselves into civilian populations - is a far cry from targeting civilians during a terrorist act.
Originally posted by David TebbThat has a lot to do with the fact that they have no intention of trying him for 9/11. They would by far rather have him dead or have him disappear.
Well, the F.B.I.'s Most Wanted Terrorists list accuses him of the following:-
"MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH"
"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in ...[text shortened]... responsible for 9/11 or they believe that there isn't a shred of evidence to convict him.
They will try him if he gets captured, but that's not the goal.
Originally posted by MerkErm I think civillians live in most capital cities🙄
Well, if you insist...
I didn't answer because his analogy is nonanalogous.
Civilians getting killed during a military engagement - especially when the fighters of one side deliberately imbeds themselves into civilian populations - is a far cry from targeting civilians during a terrorist act.
It was a military entanglement based on a lie.
As a Brit, I am ashamed Tony Blair (an intelligent man) should follow an oaf like Bush into a mindless war to secure natural resources for the US for the next few decades.
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchDoth protest the war. Bush is stupid. That's fabulous and all, but that doesn't make the two situations analogous.
Erm I think civillians live in most capital cities🙄
It was a military entanglement based on a lie.
As a Brit, I am ashamed Tony Blair (an intelligent man) should follow an oaf like Bush into a mindless war to secure natural resources for the US for the next few decades.
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
Originally posted by MerkIf they don't want to try him, why are they offering a reward of $25 million "for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden."?
That has a lot to do with the fact that they have no intention of trying him for 9/11. They would by far rather have him dead or have him disappear.
They will try him if he gets captured, but that's not the goal.
By your logic, instead of putting him at the top of the F.B.I. 'Most Wanted Terrorist' list, he should be heading the 'Please Quietly Disappear' list.
Originally posted by David TebbDo you think he's not?
If they don't want to try him, why are they offering a reward of $25 million "for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden."?
By your logic, instead of putting him at the top of the F.B.I. 'Most Wanted Terrorist' list, he should be heading the 'Please Quietly Disappear' list.
Bin Laden disappearing has always been the cleanest way. Capturing him is a media party, but that opens us to a whole new set of problems. We would be asking for hostage situations, etc.
Originally posted by MerkUm, obvious and completely fatal logic flaw - Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
Well, if you insist...
I didn't answer because his analogy is nonanalogous.
Civilians getting killed during a military engagement - especially when the fighters of one side deliberately imbeds themselves into civilian populations - is a far cry from targeting civilians during a terrorist act.
Originally posted by clive59Did I miss the part where I said Iraq had something to do with 9/11?
Um, obvious and completely fatal logic flaw - Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.
And what is it with you people? What do you insist on trying to make the War on Terror into the War on al-Qeada?
How is it that the liberal intelligencia can be such self-honored sophisticated thinkers yet suffer a complete lack of critical thinking skills as soon as the subject of war or terrorism comes up? Why is it that your brains cannot operate properly when the subject of a large scale conflict comes up?
With RedMike being the sole exception, I have never seen even one liberal on this site be able to process information relating to large scale conflict in a rational way.