| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Now, here's the issue. Why would they provide sanctuary? Because each
> > citizen is planning similar attacks? Because they support and fund anti-US
> > agression? Because they don't happen to sympathise with the US? Or because
> > they feel they'll be damned[1] if they're going to hand anyone over to the
> > US?
> I'm sorry, I am struggling a bit with your inability to understand what
> providing sanctuary means. If the Taliban is giving bin Laden facilities,
> materiel, and allowing him to come and go as he pleases, how exactly is that
> not "providing sanctuary"? They say they are the government of Afghanistan.
"SANCTUARY: place of safety for a fugitive". Yes, they are providing
sanctuary. My point is that that in itself does not make them a legitimate
target.
The Afghan government do not need to provide anything material for bin
Laden; he has enough funds and contacts of his own. All they need to
provide as "sanctuary" is to refuse to open their borders or otherwise
co-operate with the US. If this in itself makes a nation as evil as the
terrorist and a legitimate target of US agression then you have a lot more
enemies than you think.
> Are you saying that they are not? Great. Let's get with the real government
> and round them up too. (perhaps we can put them on trial for the crime of
> destroying priceless works of art if we can't think of anything else).
>
> But if they ARE the government they are in fact giving sanctuary. Their
> little government needs to be disassembled and the afghan people given a
> chance to determine their own fate, free from religious shackles.
And what if what they want is for you to leave them alone - to not actually
depose their government and plunge them into civil war? To not ride
rough-shod over what they truly believe in?
> Dealing with nests of snakes sometimes requires cutting a bit of underbrush
> away to get at the snakes...
>
> ++Lar
I was always taught that if you don't bother them, they won't bother you...
Jason J Railton
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) In fact, it does. State-provided sanctuary for a terrorist, conspirator, and murderer, is de facto identical to committing terrorism, conspiracy, and murder. Is it acceptable to you that bin Laden and his followers commit whatever acts they (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) And the Barbary Pirates did not represent any particular country but the US nevertheless declared war on them and dealt with them, quite effectively. If we should decide to make the symbolic act of declaring war on terrorism, it will be the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
