pap Posted 5 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 5 October, 2011 god, it must be easy running the world from your laptop It's harder than you think. But don't let the facts get in the way of something you think "must be true". It'll make future extra-judicial killings easier to bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 (edited) It's harder than you think. But don't let the facts get in the way of something you think "must be true". It'll make future extra-judicial killings easier to bear. I love how, the way you see things 'must be right" all I am saying that I would be confident that what ever obama has done was infact done so with international legal advice or, im sure the president of yemen (or whoever) will have him up for war crimes.... Edited 5 October, 2011 by Thedelldays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 How would you feel if it were you that were targeted as an enemy of the state? Wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself? It's not like this guy was 'picked on'. He was an extremely vocal very senior member of an organisation whose aims are the death of you, me, and everyone else on this forum. See this is the thing that people don't understand about AQ. Someone earlier in the thread compared it to the IRA/Martin McGuinness. The comparison doesn't stand up. The Republicans' aim is the 'liberation' of the island of Ireland. They have/had a political motivation. Generally, when the IRA planted bombs, they phoned in a warning. Their objective was to undermine and humiliate the Government to effect change. When the IRA killed people, it was *usually* either a mistake, or targeting what they considered valid military targets (Police, Army, Loyalist paramilitaries). The IRA realised there was no mileage in the indiscriminate murder of civilians, as it would negatively affect the support they needed to engender to achieve their aims. Al Qaeda is the polar opposite of this. Their beliefs are idealogical, not political. The stated aims of AQ are 1) the destruction of Western democratic society 2) the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate throughout the Middle East, Africa and Europe 3) the imposition of Sharia law. They believe that *any* act is not only justified but encouraged in the support of violent Jihad and the achievement of those aims. It also has nothing to do with religion - your common or garden 'non Islamist' muslim is just as fair game, and in some ways is a higher target, than your jews, christians, etc. I'm not making this up, it isnt opinion or 'propaganda', these are the openly stated aims of Al Qaeda. You cannot negotiate with fanatics. There is no wiggle room there, there's nothing 'we' can offer them - other than to no longer exist. It's not as if AAA became a political enemy buy speaking out of turn and criticising the establishment. You cant compare him with someone under house arrest in Burma. He advocated, supported, encouraged and authorised acts of mass murder with the specific intent of killing as many people as possible. He made himself, by his beliefs and actions, a military target, not a political one. His death was the result of a legitimate military action. You should be no more concerned about his death than that of any other murderous fanatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 Alright, stu0x - where's the proof that would hold up in court? Where are you getting your facts from? The man has never been indicted on criminal charges, and never been proven to be involved in a terrorist conspiracy. Do your research. Nothing that I have posted is in any way restricted, it's all in the public domain. I happen to know a lot about terrorism as a result of my job, but there's nothing stopping you from doing a bit of reading. Pol Pot was never indicted either. In fact he held majority UN support whilst presiding over some of the worst genocides in history. So I guess he never did it either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 5 October, 2011 stu0x - you make a lot of decent points, but is this the way that democracy conducts itself in response? Is this the limit of our wit? Have we ever stopped terrorists by simply killing them all? Is it your belief that Al Qaeda and its stated motives are so implacable that the only way that we can win is by killing them all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now