Bin Laden Innocent?

by dubla 44 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dubla

  wow, alot has went on here since i left yesterday. ill answer a few here:

  REX-

  yes, i still think they are all solid arguments from alan, but in order to prove my stance on it i would have to break down each point the way you did, and frankly im not as interested in this argument as you are. call it a cop out if you wish, but im simply not going to sit here for hours ripping your post apart (as easy as that would be). to me, you sound foolish every time you post.

  ALANF-

  when rex says "jdub", i think hes referring to me. the first time you two were having this argument, i stuck my nose in it, saying he couldnt or wouldnt respond to your post, and now he thinks hes got something to prove to me. i read about half of his post up there and got bored.

  PATH-

  This debate is getting tired. It all comes down to whether we want to live by the laws of justice, that ALL deserve their day in court for a fair and impartial trial where the evidence is weighed and then, judgement is passed.

  you are still holding on to this neat little idea that we can settle this whole issue in a courtroom. this is war; bin laden has declared war against the united states, the taliban regime stands behind that declaration, and now he and his group have admittedly attacked the united states (the wtc and the pentagon). after declaring war against a country, an attack on that country by the same group can only be considered an act of war. it would be great if everything could be fixed with a judge or jury, but in reality it just doesnt work that way, not when war has been waged against your country.

  One has to ask themselves if this was all about terrorism, then why didn't the US government seek Bin Laden sooner? If they had evidence of him being a terrorist, then failure to indite him sooner for past crimes makes them somewhat guilty for what happened September 11.

  actually they have been seeking him for over a decade, and he was indicted YEARS ago. the thing is though, hes been under the safe haven of the taliban regime, so if they wont release him to us(which they have refused to do for years now) that makes it awfully difficult to serve out that indictment without going in and using force.

  As far as Bin Laden's comments go, they are hardly evidence, since we all have freedom of speech, which unfortunately includes freedom to say things that are hateful.

  i cant imagine anyone seeing the translation of those two videos and thinking they are just "hateful" words. the al qaeda group has cleary taken responsibility for the acts, and the new acts that will follow.

  America's actions have been inflamatory to the middle-eastern community and likely come at the price of justified (in the minds of much of the middle east population) retalitory terrorist attacks and America living in fear.

  i hate to tell you this, but if we just sit back and wait for the taliban to try bin laden in their courts, terrorist attacks would still be acted out on the u.s. they can call it retalitory if they wish, but bin laden has minced no words about his holy war against the u.s., and this was long before sep.11, and long before any action was taken against the taliban. the holy war will continue until such time when there are no american troops in the "holy land", this we already know. so retalitory or not, attacks will keep coming unless we bend to the terrorists demands.

  so tell me something. while we are waiting on this taliban trial you propose (that is the only trial possible, as they have refused to release him to us no matter how strong the evidence), what happens to all the al qaeda training camps in the interim? do they continue to run full time, with new young teenagers being taught to fly planes and build bombs for this holy war against the u.s.? how many more major cities are brought to their knees during this trial? if we dont turn this sep. 11 tragedy into an offensive movement against terrorism, who will? will any other countries step up to the plate to shut down these camps? are you naive enough to think the taliban would actually shut them down? will iraq, iran, and syria start to ship the terrorists they have (from our most wanted list) over to the u.s. for trials?

  we have to be realistic, and the idea of a nice little courtroom drama cleaning up this mess and ending this war is just simply not realistic. i agree, it sounds great, and would be much cleaner. but the safety of americans, christians, jews, etc., etc., is at stake here.

  aa
• 

  Pathofthorns

  we have to be realistic, and the idea of a nice little courtroom drama cleaning up this mess and ending this war is just simply not realistic. i agree, it sounds great, and would be much cleaner. but the safety of americans, christians, jews, etc., etc., is at stake here.

  The taliban said they would give up Bin Laden to a neutral country to be tried and requested the evidence to be presented to them. This is hardly an unreasonable request, a request that most countries require for them to extradite accused people to other countries for a trial.

  Whether the taliban would have made good on such an offer, we do not know as the US found that unacceptable. Would the US allow other countries to demand people living in the US to be handed over without evidence? Would the arrogance of the US allow anything to be DEMANDED of them without negotiation?

  It would have been interesting to see the Muslim countries indite Bin Laden based on publically presented evidence, and such a condemnation from the Muslim world would have done much to dispell the Islam vs America propaganda. But this also was not given a chance.

  If the path of violence HAD to be followed, then why would the US not go through the United Nations? By leading this war themselves and not acting as a member of the world community, they only perpetuate the misconceptions the middle-eastern community has of America and increased tentions.

  These sorts of actions have now given just cause in the minds of many Muslim extremists for increased terrorist attacks since the US bombings began. The US actions have began a cycle of violence that is difficult to get out of.

  I agree the safety of people is at stake, but since the US bombings is the world any safer? Are people willing to trade their illusions of safety at the expense of their freedoms and civil liberties?

  America is at a greater risk than ever, live in more fear and with less civil liberties. History judges the actions of all and it will be interesting to see how today's choices shape tomorrow's world.

  Path
• 

  dubla

  path-

  it appears you are in the habit, as many are on this forum, of selective responding. you are obviously unable or unwilling to reply to the points and questions i raised to your post.

  I agree the safety of people is at stake, but since the US bombings is the world any safer?

  safer from the immediate threat of terrorists already in our country or other countries? no. but its not in worse danger either. safer from the threat of new terrorists being trained for this holy war against us? yes, absolutely the world is safer from this "since the u.s. bombings".

  Are people willing to trade their illusions of safety at the expense of their freedoms and civil liberties?

  people are VERY willing to take on greater safety at the expense of their freedoms and civil liberties, yes. many polls have been taken on this very matter, and they are overwhelmingly the same: ABSOLUTELY its worth it.

  America is at a greater risk than ever..

  true. mainly due to the fact that we live in such a free country, and we were simply not NEARLY as prepared as we should have been to deal with terrorist activities. any joe sixpack can detonate a bomb on a bus if he so chooses, thats the problem with our great society.

  aa
• 

  Rex B13

  Hi Al,
  Concerning the above post: I was answering a post in another thread where JDUBLA said your arguments were 'rock solid'. He has been avoiding answering me and I decided to respond here when he started this thread. I do feel flattered that you look for my posts and ignore the one who started the thread. BTW, your 'rock solid reasoning' (Jdubla's words) looks a little like sandstone after my response.
  Cheers,
  Rex
• 

  Seeker

  safer from the threat of new terrorists being trained for this holy war against us? yes, absolutely the world is safer from this "since the u.s. bombings".

  Time will tell on that. Although I am in favor of bringing justic to those responsible for these attacks, I don't necessarily agree that this will lead to a safer world. In fact, given the reaction of the Arab world toward the U.S. bombings, it wouldn't surprise me if for every potential terrorist killed in these bombings, two new potential terrorists are inspired to attack the U.S. It may ultimately turn out that an unintended consequence of U.S. actions is a rise in terror throughout the world. This is a very complex issue, and I doubt even those in command can fully predict the outcome of these events. Time will tell.

  people are VERY willing to take on greater safety at the expense of their freedoms and civil liberties, yes. many polls have been taken on this very matter, and they are overwhelmingly the same: ABSOLUTELY its worth it.

  It is not worth it, for the civil liberties being taken away will do very little to protect the public from terrorism. Most people haven't a clue, and so going by poll numbers is pointless. They believe it when a congressman says we need to ban strong encryption to fight terrorism, mainly because they don't realize that the terrorists didn't use strong encryption, and have many alternate solutions to use instead. So while they are cheering on a congressman lying to them about the purpose of his legislation, I am not impressed by their responses to the polls.

  Some people won't realize what they have given up, while not helping fight terrorism at all, until they have lost that civil liberty. It is not worth giving up, no matter how many uninformed citizens rah-rah their way to darkness.
• 

  Rex B13

  Hi Jdubla,
  I don't care if you (think) you can easily deal with my arguments. The fact that you haven't done so does not prove you wrong, per se, but it does lower your opinion to that of an unproven assertion.
  You asked, I delivered, now you have no gripe with me.
  As far as Alan goes, we always get into an insult match and that is a waste of time.
  Rex
• 

  teejay

  Seeker, I can only say that I am amazed by how much alike we view recent events. I think there should be an investigation. Seriously, I often have the intention to post to a particular thread but find that you've posted already with views exactly like my own. I go, "dammit, Seeker... well said."

  On the other hand, it goes to show that the longer two people talk, the more they realize how much they have in common. In spite of our differences, we really aren't so different, are we?

  If only Bush and bin Laden could drop the baggage and just sit, talk, and have a bit of tea... Do you 'spose it'd do any good? Save a lot of lives, maybe.

  Peace,
  tj

  p.s. if you see this note...

  the other day (i lost the thread), you mentioned the possibility of U.S. fighters shooting down the flight in Penn. Question: would it make any difference to you if they did? Do you think it would matter to the average U.S. citizen?
• 

  dubla

  REX-

  first off, i wasnt ignoring any responses to your other post with alan, in fact i wasnt even aware that you had responded. i didnt put that particular one on my email alerts, because frankly i wasnt that interested in it to begin with, it was simply ammusing, as your comments continue to be. as far as my opinion being lowered, thats fine, i really could care less about the whole topic.

  SEEKER-

  It is not worth it

  that is entirely a personal opinion, and i respect yours. personally, i believe it is well worth it. i am willing, as most americans are, to give up some freedoms in order to have greater safety.

  aa
• 

  Seeker

  i am willing, as most americans are, to give up some freedoms in order to have greater safety.

  I would be too, if it worked. Unfortunately, most of the measures I've heard so far will have little or not effect against terrorism, but will take another piece of civil liberty away from ordinary citizens. That's where I draw the line.

  Is the airport scan constitutional? No, not really, it is an "unreasonable search" for it assumes we are all guilty until proven innocent. However, I am in favor of the search anyway, for it does reduce the number of hijackings that occur. So you see, I'm not so hung up on principle that I will stand on it to the bitter end. I will compromise if I feel it will do some good without intruding too harshly on my rights. But when 90% of Americans tell their politicians "Take my rights away! Make me safe!" while agreeing to measures that won't actually make them any safer, I object.
• 

  dubla

  seeker-

  However, I am in favor of the search anyway, for it does reduce the number of hijackings that occur.

  yes, you and i agree with most americans, that measures such as these make the united states safer, and are worth giving up some freedoms for.

  But when 90% of Americans tell their politicians "Take my rights away! Make me safe!" while agreeing to measures that won't actually make them any safer, I object.

  i would probably object to that as well. i havent seen this poll you speak of where 90% agree to worthless measures. the polls i spoke of did center around new security issues, like the airports for example.

  aa