one word:
YES!
ID:193929
 Sep 18 2001, 3:06 pm
|
|
Well, there is an argument to be made that he wouldn't have the resources. I myself doubt the validity of it, but I do know that the Saudi Arabian government has frozen his bank accounts and taken away his holdings in his family's construction company, and has been doing so for the past decade or so. Other than that, I don't know what means he would have for raising money.
-AbyssDragon | |
XxxSnakexxX wrote:
one word: I'm giving up on one word or one line responses to this subject matter. I guess I'm being old-fashioned, but I actually think the conversation matters. I think that almost nothing can be said on the subject that doesn't require more elaboration than that, and even that statements such as this are irresponsible in how they can contribute to jingoism at a time when careful thought is what is required. | |
AbyssDragon wrote:
Well, there is an argument to be made that he wouldn't have the resources. I myself doubt the validity of it, but I do know that the Saudi Arabian government has frozen his bank accounts and taken away his holdings in his family's construction company, and has been doing so for the past decade or so. Other than that, I don't know what means he would have for raising money. Apparently... and I was just reading all this tonight... there are plenty of private Islamic organizations and individuals more than eager to make donations to his cause. As for whether he did it... while I think it could be traced back to him in some fashion, I'm not certain he ordered it or not. Apparently the terrorist networks he set up are fashioned to be able to operate independently, with no orders from the top. But even if he didn't make the plans or give the order, I'm thinking a good deal of responsibility can be pinned on him. Z | |
Oh yeah, of course it can.
You know what my favorite phrase is? Hint: it's used in the Criminal Justice System, thousands of people are convicted of it a year... "Intention to Sell". It means, they couldn't catch you selling drugs, but they want to nail you any way. <small><small>If you did not notice that this was a sarcastic post, I'll tell you now... it was...</small></small> | |
Zilal wrote:
AbyssDragon wrote: Yes, last time I checked he still had a couple of hundred million $$$$. | |
XxxSnakexxX wrote:
one word:</font> And heres a better question: Do you have any evidence is was Osama Bin Laden? | |
Bin Laden committed no acts of terrorism. His Taliban hosts were watching him the whole time. He was in his room, plotting acts of terrorism.
Really, though... whether you and I think he did it or not doesn't matter. The fact is, it's likely going to be tracked back to his network. Does this mean he did it? Depends on how you define "did". He could just supply his underlings with manpower and resources, and tell them to go unleash hell however they choose. If that's the case, does that mena he "did" it? Plainly speaking, we don't have to do any detective work to discover the whereabouts of the culprits. We don't even have to punish them. The people who "did it" are already dead. Their burnt corpses are lying, most likely intermixed with pieces of other burnt corpses, under tons of rubble. | |
XxxSnakexxX wrote:
one word: More to the point, does it matter in the least which specific terrorists did this? This is not a criminal justice matter. This is not a case where we need to find one person, arrest him, put him through a trial that lasts a few years, and finally put him in prison. Terrorism is not a crime but an act of war. (Domestic terrorism, as in the case of the deservedly late Tim McVeigh, is a different matter.) We can and should act more swiftly than that, because our prosecutorial approach for the last 15 years or so hasn't gotten us anywhere. We don't need the kind of solid evidence you'd use to get a conviction from a jury; we simply need intelligence about his terrorist actions against us, and that alone gives us justification to strike. All we know is that terrorists did it. Does it matter which one? Of course not, because all terrorist networks are threats to their respective targets (and usually to anyone who gets in the way). In this case, not just bin Laden's al Queda but several other terrorist organizations have outright declared war on the US, and several nations have harbored and supported these groups. All of them are our foes in this war, and their ability to fight the war must be crippled or eliminated. (That, after all, is the point of war.) We don't need to prove who did it because we're not interested in just nailing the one specific target; that won't solve the problem. Yeah, I think bin Laden did this. I think we should hunt the man down like the dog he is, shoot him, and never look back. But if we stop with him or with al Queda alone we'll be doing ourselves and the entire world a vast disservice. Iraq has shown complicity in the '93 WTC attack and some of its intelligence operatives have been known to have schemes in mind similar to the one that was finally carried out last week; the nation sponsors terrorism and Hussein in particular still wants revenge on the US, and is still hostile enough to keep trying to shoot down our planes. Is there any reason Saddam Hussein should remain in power, or even be breathing this time next year? No. Yassir Arafat has been promising peace to Israel and the world, while not just allowing but encouraging terrorism within the ranks of the PLO, which he could have easily put a stop to 8 years ago after the Oslo accord--if he cared to. His terror networks must be destroyed as well, and he too should pay with his life for this atrocity, as it was fomented by suicide bombers who undoubtedly were egged on by his encouragement. The Taliban has imprisoned American citizens for simply preaching their faith, and meanwhile has sponsored terrorism itself; they need to be driven forcefully from power. Sudan sponsors terrorism and commits acts far worse--ironically they took the US's place on the human rights council at the UN, a place the US was kicked out of basically out of spite. Is there any reason not to punish the government of Sudan for their part in world terrorism? Again, no. All complicit parties must pay. This is war, and the only way to achieve victory will be to practically shut down these terrorists and their support structures. We'll have to be vigilant to make sure they don't come back, to stamp them out whenever they spring up again, because failure to do that also helped bring this about. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Iraq has shown complicity in the '93 WTC attack I was really really hoping that Iraq wouldn't turn up in this one, though the signs are starting to be there. As for us getting kicked out of the human rights commmission...well, I think there is an imporant point there: The Bush administration was ignoring the rest of the world to a pretty unprecedented degree, and the rest of the world community was saying "Screw you, then." As shown by the last week, we can't be isolationists, we need friends and built up relationships. It was irresponsible to start ignoring treaties and stop participating in so many world issues. (I'm not too aware of all the details here, so this is the sense I got of the overall issue.) The human rights commission seems like a joke anyway, given its membership. | |
Hmm. I've heard many people refer to the Bush administration as "isolationist", and it always surprises me. Bush is a capitalist (or at least a "free market" enthusiast); capitalists love dealing with other nations. I think "isolationism", when used as an insult against the Bush administration, tends to be a clever shorthand for "not bending over backwards to pander to European social-democratic ideals." However, in the interests of fairness, let me disclose that I am not a trained political scientist, and I am also bitter beyond my years.
The human rights commission seems like a joke anyway, given its membership. I agree with that part wholeheartedly! | |
Deadron wrote:
I was really really hoping that Iraq wouldn't turn up in this one, though the signs are starting to be there. Me, I'm thrilled with an opportunity to take another well-deserved shot at Saddam. He's been part of the problem for a long time now. Anyway his government sponsors terrorists, so with or without direct involvement Saddam should find himself in the grinder for this one. As for us getting kicked out of the human rights commmission...well, I think there is an imporant point there: The Bush administration was ignoring the rest of the world to a pretty unprecedented degree, and the rest of the world community was saying "Screw you, then." Well, Gughunter made the point more concisely in his response, but I'll give you a few examples of the "isolationism" the US is accused of:
The human rights commission seems like a joke anyway, given its membership. Well, that's a given. Seems to me that countries that don't have such rights shouldn't be on the council at all. Lummox JR | |
Keeping with the original topic of this thread, here's a message sent to a mailing list I'm on from a guy whose wife worked in the World Trade Center (but thankfully hadn't gone in yet last Tuesday):
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 23:53:06 -0400 From: TrickyT <tricky_t@***.***> Subject: Pecan cookies Somewhere in the rubble is my wife's desk, computer, a picture of my daughter, and a box of Pecan cookies she brought into the office to share with her co-workers on Monday. Tim | |
Bush is a capitalist (or at least a "free market" enthusiast); Tell that to the B.C. softwood treecutters who are out of jobs thanks to the softwood tariff, which is supposedly a free-trade commodity. Remarkably NAFTA still hasn't been cancelled, an amazing feat given the breach of promise. Despite the fact that our lumber has been increasing in price, it has only come to meet the cost of living in addition to the difficulty in finding mature forests that we can harvest without crippling our landscape and ecosystem, which is already gagworthy as it is with Chrétien on the throne. And with all of the treehuggers, the lumber industry is only more hard pressed, especially on very rich lumbering regions like our West Coast islands. The solution to our higher prices? The price is reflexive of the difficulty -- if you want cheaper lumber, buy back your own forests from the private sector! | |
Bush is a capitalist (or at least a "free market" enthusiast); I didn't know anything at all about this until you pointed it out. Now, after a solid ten minutes of superficially skimming Internet articles on the subject, I can report: this sounds like a fair example of why I added the parenthetical qualification in the line you quoted.[1] But on the other hand, it sounds like Canada's provinces have an awfully shady approach to the forestry business. (Pun intended, of course.) So I guess it all evens out, or something. [1]<small>When I spoke of "free market", I used the wrong phrase; technically capitalism and a free market should go hand in hand, but in practice the media often uses "free market" where "mixed economy" or "relatively free market" would be more accurate.</small> | |
Unfortunately, the problem is that B.C.'s economy is somewhat built mostly on three things.
1) Softwood lumber exportation. 2) Computer technology. 3) American film production. And all three of those are beginning to be damped by tariffs. | |
Spuzzum wrote:
Bush is a capitalist (or at least a "free market" enthusiast); Naturally, Mr. Bush* supports a free market in America, the birthplace of democracy, capitalism, and Christianity, and believes the rest of the world's markets should be subservient to ours, as is reflective of their places in the greater scheme of things. *Isn't it interesting that our newscasters still refer to Bill as President Clinton, but Dubya is often just Bush or Mr. Bush? | |
<font size=72> THATS NICE!!!