Originally Posted by Imperator

hey good stuff…so, he wants to end violence? okayyyyy invite dad to a bar a que, and invite me too...there will be one very short sharp blip of “violence”..then we can move on…

Originally Posted by proUSA

He left with his fathers blessing? hmmm.....

I'm not sure what you expect the west to explore, Binny Boy is an asshole that needs to die slow and painfully. Just because his kid sheds a tear, doesn't mean squat IMO.

Originally Posted by Steve

Thinking about this, quite honestly, why should the west be the ones to explore this? He's the one who wants the violence to stop; let him broker a deal between Pops and the mean ol' USA.

The mere fact that he wants the violence to stop means complete dick. Fuck him. Al Qaeda was active while he was a member. He should, therefore, be captured, tried, convicted, and executed.

Fuck him.

Originally Posted by Steve

Thinking about this, quite honestly, why should the west be the ones to explore this? He's the one who wants the violence to stop; let him broker a deal between Pops and the mean ol' USA.

The mere fact that he wants the violence to stop means complete dick. Fuck him. Al Qaeda was active while he was a member. He should, therefore, be captured, tried, convicted, and executed.

Fuck him.

Originally Posted by lostinacause

You make it sound as though you want to continue, as though this war does not cause American deaths. If there is something to be gained America should take it.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Depends how you define 'targeting' civilians. Does giving weapons to terrorists count as targeting civilians? Does destroying the infrastructure that keeps civilians alive count? Does the certainty of collateral damage with no casus belli count? US weapons have killed more civilians over the last few decades than other other single group could hope to achieve.

If the only option for resistance was guerrilla tactics i suspect american nationalists would use whatever means was necessary to achieve their goals. Or are you saying americans would just surrender if they couldn't find the proper clothing?

Andrew

Originally Posted by Steve

No, what I have a problem with is someone suggesting that, because Bin Laden's son wants peace, the United States are the only ones who should do something about it.

Why should we care what Bin Laden's son wants? Is he "former" Al Qaeda? Well, then fuck him. He should be treated as such, and not shown deference. He wants peace. Is he willing to do anything about it; something other than whine about his wanting to live in Egypt?

Or will he just continue, as Danny does, to find no fault at all with what Al Qaeda does, and blame the United States for everything from beheadings to roadside bombings?

No, I don't want it to continue. But I also don't think we should leave because Bin Laden's boy wants us to...

Originally Posted by Danny

I think you have an over exaggerated opinion of my positions. I have said nothing of the sort about US being responsible for beheading and roadside bombings. Your emotional rants only harm your credibility which is why I tend not to respond to you anymore.

Originally Posted by Danny

Bin Laden's son to father: Change your ways - CNN.com

Whats do yo think of the fact that Omar, who left Al Qaeda in 2000 with the blessing of his father is advocating a peaceful resolution to the conflict. I think there is an opportunity here and the west should explore it further.

Originally Posted by cwklay

If the US redefines terrorists as enemy soldiers and considers itself in a state of total war against any nation that supports those soldiers then any (and I mean any) action taken to defeat that enemy would become Justifiable.

Originally Posted by cwklay

The US can never negotiate with Bin Laden without giving legitimacy to his attacks.

Originally Posted by cwklay

The US can never give legitimacy to the 9/11 attacks without redefining terrorists as enemy soldiers fighting a total war with the US. (In order to target civilians the only possible justification is total war.)

Originally Posted by cwklay

If the US redefines terrorists as enemy soldiers and considers itself in a state of total war against any nation that supports those soldiers then any (and I mean any) action taken to defeat that enemy would become Justifiable.

Originally Posted by cwklay

Therefore the most restrained and humanitarian course possible would be to refuse any negotiation and continue to treat Al-Queada as criminals. If UBLs son has seperated himself from his father's madness then thats great, but I don't think the west ever can, or should reconcile with Bin Laden.

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

dont think we would ever kill our own people like the guys you support do

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Yes i do. I have no doubt. In fact, you already have. It was called the American civil war.

Originally Posted by crisis

The U.S. (and allies) negotiated the surrender of Japan and the exoneration of the Emperor for the attacks on Pearl Harbour. Did that give legitimacy to the them?


They were “enemy soldiers” when they were Russia’s enemies. The term terrorist is used so broadly now that it is fairly ambiguous.

• An agent of a sub-national group who uses premeditated, politically motivated violence against non-combatant targets, usually intended to ...
www.asme-iti.org/RAMCAP/Terminology.cfm

Al-Qaida do not fall exactly into this category as the also use violence against military targets.

• One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
Glossary

Again they do not always fight disguised as civilian non combatants but this one is perhaps closer however by this definition it appears the most serious transgression is that due to their disguise they are not recognisable as combatants.

• Use should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or non-combatant targets.
CareerJournal | Style & Substance Glossary

Again they attack military targets as well and governmental organisations also execute acts of violence against civilian and non combatant targets.

• a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

This one suits Al Qaeda up to the bit about religion as a cover. But then again what is terror?

• Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals (fear in latin). ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

Again not exclusively civilians.

Really whatever these people are labelled is irrelevant except that that label can be used to galvanise public opinion against whatever group the user wishes.

Al Qaeda are a politically motivated group of religious fundamentalists who use the scriptures of their religion to originally defend fellow Muslims. His resentment to his home country allowing U.S. (un Muslim) military bases spawned his hatred of the U.S. That in itself could easily happen were a Muslim country to set up military bases in the U.S. for example. Many of his initial attacks were actually targeted at U.S. military targets.

The principal stated aims of al-Qaeda are to drive Americans and American influence out of all Muslim nations, especially Saudi Arabia; destroy Israel; and topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East. Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs.
Al-Qaeda
So while the shocking attacks on the WTC remain as the defining symbol of Al Queadas actions the motivation (not Bush’s crap about hating our/the U.S.’s freedom) is based in strict nationalism framed in a fanatical belief in his version of Islam.




Which side are we talking about here? Any action is not necessarily justifiable in my opinion and in the opinion of the Geneva Convention. However how can the U.S. use the Geneva Convention as a set of rules when they themselves flaunt the parts they choose to?


Put simply given what his stated aims appear to be the U.S. would need to withdraw its influence from all Muslim nations. Given that some of them have no issue with U.S. presence as far as is discernable then those aims are unreasonable. Perhaps negotiation along those lines is an avenue.
UBLs sons comments are unlikely to have any real influence. That shit really seems just a news story. But we can be assured that until one party is prepared to negotiate we will be engaged in an endless cycle of killing and both sides will be responsible for it.