Assassinating terrorists OK?

[Scott J]

Which Russians no less? In precisely what way did he intend to "promote and facilitate" terrorism against the US? Your evidence for this is....?

Putin. It came out not too long after the military operation was complete if I remember right.

Of course, folks with liberal blinders on didn't think that was front page news like Abu Ghraib or "evidence" that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11.

 

[Scott J]

What evidence do you have that he spent his days and nights plotting against us - other than your own paranoid fantasies?

OK Daisy, I give up. You're right.

Saddam was completely benign. His allowing terrorist training camps in Iraq was made up by the CIA. Saddam never desired revenge on the US. He never intended to sponsor or support terrorism against us. He wasn't manipulating the inspectors to keep them away from his secrets. Bush and other leaders didn't actually have more info on him than you do... they just made stuff up. The armies of people in intelligence whose business is to profile foreign leaders lied to both Clinton (who established regime change in Iraq as a matter of official policy) and Bush.

In short, Saddam was a victim. We picked on him and made up lies about him. He was an honest, truthful guy who we just decided to beat up on for no good reason.

You are so right. We're evil and Saddam is just misunderstood.

 

[poncho]

The armies of people in intelligence whose business is to profile foreign leaders lied to both Clinton (who established regime change in Iraq as a matter of official policy) and Bush.

The Clinton "regime change policy" came about by the insistance of the PNAC founders. You know the same ones who said Saddam was just the immediate justification for a wider conflict in the middle east.

 

[elijah_lives]

What is "PNAC"?

 

[poncho]

Project For The New American Century. Click Here

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.

William Kristol, Chairman

 

[elijah_lives]

Ah, thankyou. PNAC fits in well with my philosophy.

 

[poncho]

Corporatist then eh? I believe in individual liberty and a constitutional government myself. Mussolini and Machiavelli have their appeal too I guess, mostly to rich corporatist PNACers and their followers.

 

[elijah_lives]

Well, I'm certainly not rich; can't hardly keep up with my medical bills

 

[poncho]

Don't have to be rich to be corporatist. All you have to do is share their philosophy. Hard not to with the amount of disinfo and propaganda they pump out through their think tanks and corporate media these days.

 

[Scott J]

Did anyone catch this:

"Negroponte told the panel that some 40 terror groups, insurgencies or cults have obtained or want chemical, biological or nuclear weapons."

Source: http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20060202/D8FH66H03.html?PG=home&SEC=news

I suppose this guy is just paranoid too, huh? Or maybe he is another player in Poncho's international conspiracy theory...

FTR, Saddam might have been the source of some of these weapons or perhaps not. What we now know for sure is that he will not be a future source. Good riddance- THREAT REDUCED.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Since when does UN resolutions trump the US congress and constitution?

While I agree that the UN needs to be abolished, that in no way diminishes the fact that we are a member nation. And as such, the UN resolution calling for us to invade the moment Hussein kicked out the inspectors gave us all the authorization we needed.

But, with all the kickbacks that were being taken by those in charge of the UN, it's no wonder they were vocally opposed to actually enforcing such.

France, Germany, and Russia all had illegal financial dealings going on there, Anan (sp?) got billions from the oil for food scam, and the list goes on and on.

 

[npc]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
that is a possibility in the sense that it is extremely easy to build up a dossier on someone and portray him/her as terrorist pushing him/her up in the Order of Battle until he/she is on the top 10 targets, either because he/she is an annoying personality, or for money's sake (the rewards for capture, dead or alive).
in the 'killing fields' of my country back in the early 70's are the bones of such victims.

but I don't think the US will stoop so low as to do the above.

That's not what I mean at all. I don't trust our government to actually ensure that assassination targets are truly terrorists. In our supposed mission to protect American soldiers' lives we've recently shown ourselves to be unconcerned with the lives of foreign civilians.

 

[fromtheright]

Scott J,

FTR, Saddam might have been the source of some of these weapons or perhaps not. What we now know for sure is that he will not be a future source. Good riddance- THREAT REDUCED.

One down...


Daisy,

Hi, it's great to hear from you! I must approach with my head down in embarrassment, though. I still owe you an answer on failed states, have been kinda busy lately, though. I think I'm going to have to stand you up on that one. I'm sorry.

I could have sworn the UN turned us down thanks to France, Germany (who have veto power) and China (can they veto?). That's why the Bush admin began its anti-France PR campaign.

Daisy, the French open up an anti-France PR campaign every time they open their mouths. It doesn't take much of an orchestrated campaign to do that. Yes, I believe China can veto (didn't they take Taiwan's permanent seat on the Security Council?).

Of course it was brutal and barbaric (although brilliant in a really evil way), but that wasn't Saddam or Iraq. That was the Arab Afghanis, al Qaeda and the Taliban - a different set of bad guys.

Daisy, that's what the thread is about, is taking out those who planned 9/11. I'm not debating Iraq here. Wrong thread (but it's always great to "talk" with you).

I apologize for derailing your thread.

No apology necessary...

Back on topic

but thanks.

Murdering bin Laden would make him a martyr to too many. Arresting him as we did Saddam and treating him like a common criminal would be far more effective in defusing his power.

I understand and appreciate that as a tactical argument. I believe that sure justice has its own rewards. The downside of trying him though, in court, is that he also gets a "stage" for public attention as Saddam has had with his adolescent shenanigans (Oh, I don't want to get started on how a beast that would operate rape rooms and run victims through plastic shredders gets the patience he has gotten in court). There is also the added benefit of bin Laden no longer being in this world.

If we, the world's only superpower, resort to assassination, how could we ever criticize some podunk regime for the same thing?

Daisy, I do understand this point made by you and others but I see absolutely no comparison between the clear justice of taking out the mastermind of an operation deliberately targeting civilians in an unprovoked attack and some podunk regime using the same method because they want to thumb their nose at America.

 

[poncho]

I suppose this guy is just paranoid too, huh? Or maybe he is another player in Poncho's international conspiracy theory...

I don't understand, what would he have to be paranoid about, having the truth come out about Battalion 316? Too late. Click Here. And Here.

I'm sure he knew the plan was to balkanize Iraq and demonize Iran when he took the job of director of intelligence.

Scott, I am truely amazed that anyone that can read or is still breathing isn't convinced of the international conspiracy. It's right in your face, why you can't see it is beyond my powers of comprehension. They don't even bother to hide it anymore, now they have big parties in Davos and plan our future slavery right out in the open.

Do you know what Agenda 21 is?

Do you know what sustainable development is?

Do you know who funds the enviromentalists, I believe some call them "treehuggers or treelovers?

Ever heard of the Rio Earth Summit?

Do you know what the New Urbanism is?

Ever read the UN charter?

Ever read the the UN Earth charter?

Do you even know what the sustainable philosophy is?

If you answered no to any of these questions then as a patriotic freedom loving American or freedom lover from anyplace on the planet you should...

Check it out for yourself. Click Here.

 

[poncho]

I'll leave you the last five pages FTR. Justa cuz I like ya! Hey, fagitabotit!

 

[fromtheright]

Wotta guy!

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Scott J:
OK Daisy, I give up. You're right.

Saddam was completely benign. His allowing terrorist training camps in Iraq was made up by the CIA. Saddam never desired revenge on the US. He never intended to sponsor or support terrorism against us. He wasn't manipulating the inspectors to keep them away from his secrets. Bush and other leaders didn't actually have more info on him than you do... they just made stuff up. The armies of people in intelligence whose business is to profile foreign leaders lied to both Clinton (who established regime change in Iraq as a matter of official policy) and Bush.

In short, Saddam was a victim. We picked on him and made up lies about him. He was an honest, truthful guy who we just decided to beat up on for no good reason.

You are so right. We're evil and Saddam is just misunderstood.

Scott, substituting sarcasm and strawmen for actual evidence is so totally lame that is not worth refuting. It must be frustrating for you to have nothing of substance to offer.

Mischaracterising my position is dishonest; doing it repeatedly indicates that it is deliberate.

If you want to discuss issues like a reasonnable adult, I'm game, but if you simply want to employ hate-radio type tactics, find someone else to practise on.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
While I agree that the UN needs to be abolished, that in no way diminishes the fact that we are a member nation. And as such, the UN resolution calling for us to invade the moment Hussein kicked out the inspectors gave us all the authorization we needed.

No such resolution passed. The UN specifically rejected invading Iraq (France & Germany of the Security Council vetoed it and China would not support it). There was one resolution which called for "severe measures" but what that meant was not spelled out. At the time of the invasion, the inspectors had been let back in.

Were you following international news back in 2002-03? Did you read any of the resolutions?

Anyway, what about assassinating terrorists? If our leaders should engage or sponsor terrorism, should they be assassinated? If so, by whom? Hypothetical.

 

[elijah_lives]

I recommend contracting it out to Mossad. Our people could use some true expertise in this area.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
Daisy,

Hi, it's great to hear from you! I must approach with my head down in embarrassment, though. I still owe you an answer on failed states, have been kinda busy lately, though. I think I'm going to have to stand you up on that one. I'm sorry.

No apology necessary - I'm always losing track of threads or getting distracted by other matters.

Daisy, the French open up an anti-France PR campaign every time they open their mouths. It doesn't take much of an orchestrated campaign to do that.

Freedom fries? Surrender monkeys? It was so childish, but I imagine it was great fun (and a distraction from the actual issues surrounding that debate).

Yes, I believe China can veto (didn't they take Taiwan's permanent seat on the Security Council?).

Of course it was brutal and barbaric (although brilliant in a really evil way), but that wasn't Saddam or Iraq. That was the Arab Afghanis, al Qaeda and the Taliban - a different set of bad guys.

Daisy, that's what the thread is about, is taking out those who planned 9/11....

I understand and appreciate that as a tactical argument. I believe that sure justice has its own rewards. The downside of trying him though, in court, is that he also gets a "stage" for public attention as Saddam has had with his adolescent shenanigans (Oh, I don't want to get started on how a beast that would operate rape rooms and run victims through plastic shredders gets the patience he has gotten in court).

His adolescent shennanigans show him to be a petulant, flawed human being - it deglorifies him, which is a good thing. It also puts the Coalition (not to belittle the UK & Oz) in a good light - that we practice as well as preach the rule of law.

I consider the arrest and trial of Saddam to be one of the biggest successes of Bush's administration.

There is also the added benefit of bin Laden no longer being in this world.

It's an ill wind that blows no good (I love cliches). Assassinations are not without their upsides - including a biggie - far less collateral damage.

Daisy, I do understand this point made by you and others but I see absolutely no comparison between the clear justice of taking out the mastermind of an operation deliberately targeting civilians in an unprovoked attack and some podunk regime using the same method because they want to thumb their nose at America.

Not so much at America as at their neighboring rival states. If we justify assassination to right a wrong against us, why shouldn't the podunks againt them?

Um, are you equating assassinating a head of state with thumbing one's nose? I think we have some confusion of terms here.