| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> > "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.
>
> In fact, it does. State-provided sanctuary for a terrorist, conspirator, • and
> murderer, is de facto identical to committing terrorism, conspiracy, and
> murder.
According to whom?
> Is it acceptable to you that bin Laden and his followers commit
> whatever acts they please and then "tag home" by running to the protective
> apron of Afghanistan? What if Afghanistan should refuse to extradite him? Do
> we just say, "oh well, thanks anyway"?
In fact it's unlikely bin Laden actually leaves his "protective apron" - he
probably delegates any international tasks to others.
And how is applying military force to the people of Afghanistan, many of whom
don't follow the Taliban regime, gonna provide any result. It's likely to kill
a lot of innocent people, and unlikely to cause any major harm to bin Laden.
And what if you later find out that bin Laden *wasn't* the perpetrator?
> > 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?
>
> They're undergoing civil war already, and if what they believe in is the
> wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians by a cowardly aggressor, then I say
> that they should be dealt with as severely and thoroughly as possible. If • they
> want to be left alone while simultaneously harboring a mass murderer, too bad
> for them. They've made their alliances--let them enjoy the consequences.
Again, you're lumping the whole Afghan population together here, and I very
much doubt that they all support bin Laden, in fact I'd be surprised if more
than a small minority even knows he's there. If it's OK to let these innocent
people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments, but that's
just how I feel about Dave's comments.
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) I would call it self-evident, though I will attempt to construct a syllogism for you. In the meantime, I likewise would ask you for your refutation of my assertion. (...) Do (...) Well, now you're quibbling. Whether he actually leaves the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: War
|
| Ross, your stance here completely baffles me. You're nitpicking against taking action but you (and Jason) haven't proposed any concrete plan of your own other than (paraphrasing and guessing) "right all the injustice in the world everywhere and the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
