Obama displayed 'weakness' in Arab TV interview

[Jim DeVito]

Got a fresh batch brewing right now. What are you doing tonight.

Ohhhh Yeahh! (clicky)

I see your clicky and raise you one......... well clicky

[Brian Pedaci]

The six men who actively and directly conspired and committed the 1993 bombing were all tried and are serving life sentences with no chance of parole.

7 men were indicted for the bombing of the WTC in 1993. Abdul Rahman Yasin (the main bomb maker)was released by our government and went back to Iraq. The handling of this incident by our government only encouraged terrorist world wide. Do you understand how a terrorist cell operates? It is obvious that the Clinton admin did not.

Huh. I either didn't know or forgot about him - just remembered Ramzi Yousef and the rest of those guys. But doing a bit of reading, it seems that the FBI let him go because he ratted out the rest of the guys but there was no evidence at the time to charge him directly. Calling him 'the main bomb maker' is stretching the facts a bit, given the evidence we have even today. The official charge against him is that he helped mix chemicals for the bomb, but Yousef was the ringleader and main bomb-maker.

So we're back to our original dilemma - at what point do you drop the due process of law for criminal suspects and call them 'enemy combatants'? There have certainly been those in the US who have had complicity in equally heinous criminal acts who were given leniency because of their cooperation with lawmakers. What makes this guy significantly more dangerous? The Clinton administration doesn't seem to have had much to do with the case at all.

Is there any evidence at all that this guy went on to actively participate in further plots against the US? I couldn't find any. Furthermore, what evidence do you have for your contention that the release of Yasin encouraged terrorists more than the imprisonment of the rest of them deterred them? As has been argued before, our policies of torture have encouraged more terrorism (and there are copious direct testimonials available to back up that assertion) than releasing one guy on scanty evidence could possibly have.

The constant refrain of "we haven't been attacked since 9/11" is a weak argument that supposes that there is only one means to the end, and that the ends justify the means.

If you ignore history, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, the bomb that was exploded outiside the U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, then you are correct. [/quote]

So you think the ends DO justify the means? Is that what you're saying? If so, how are we morally any different than them?

[Stephen Eisel]

So you think the ends DO justify the means? Is that what you're saying? If so, how are we morally any different than them?

I did not notice the terrorist in Iraq helping the people of Iraq. I did not see the terrorist building schools, power plants, hospitals, Mosque, water treatment plants, and ensuring that the Iraqi people could vote in free elections.

[Jim DeVito]

So you think the ends DO justify the means? Is that what you're saying? If so, how are we morally any different than them?

I did not notice the terrorist in Iraq helping the people of Iraq. I did not see the terrorist building schools, power plants, hospitals, Mosque, water treatment plants, and ensuring that the Iraqi people could vote in free elections.

Haven't we already established there were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there. Yeah Yeah I know saddam was no princes, but at least you could say he made sure he was the only terrorist in town.

[Stephen Eisel]

So you think the ends DO justify the means? Is that what you're saying? If so, how are we morally any different than them?

I did not notice the terrorist in Iraq helping the people of Iraq. I did not see the terrorist building schools, power plants, hospitals, Mosque, water treatment plants, and ensuring that the Iraqi people could vote in free elections.

Haven't we already established there were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there. Yeah Yeah I know saddam was no princes, but at least you could say he made sure he was the only terrorist in town.

The question was are we morally different from the terrorist. My answer was yes.

[Stephen Eisel]

Haven't we already established there were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there

Yes, if you have been completely brainwashed by the drive by media and ignore history then yes there were no terrorist in Iraq until the US invaded Iraq ...


PS Abdul Rahman lives in Iraq and he is a terrorist.. just sayin

[Jim DeVito]

I think he was referring to things like gitmo and renditions and water-boarding and torture and the like when asking that question.

[Jim DeVito]

And in that respect you have to wonder what the end game of the evil doers is. Is to to bring the mighty US down to there level. With no regard for justice or life or the rule of law. In some respects over the last eight they have won.
Time and time again we have lost our moral footing in the name of fighting the immoral out there.

[Stephen Eisel]

And in that respect you have to wonder what the end game of the evil doers is. Is to to bring the mighty US down to there level. With no regard for justice or life or the rule of law. In some respects over the last eight they have won.
Time and time again we have lost our moral footing in the name of fighting the immoral out there.

Bringing the US down to a terrorist level is the job of the left wing media in this country. Reacting to a threat with the proper force to protect innocent lives does not make us like the terrorist. Our goal is to spread freedom not terror.

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/200 ... ember.html

My brother was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. I have been waiting for justice ever since. Last month, I went to Guantanamo Bay to try to find it.

What I witnessed was shocking. I saw a place where prisoners toy with the authorities, read the newspaper and get one hour breaks for prayer. I saw a place where detainees are treated far better than many ordinary American criminal defendants - and, as far as I'm concerned, far better than they deserve.

I looked straight into the eyes of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who masterminded the attacks that killed my brother and almost 3,000 other Americans. I was there when President Obama was inaugurated - and, soon thereafter, when he called a four-month halt to the criminal trials that were just getting underway.

I left with a deep fear that some day the men we now hold in custody will be free to inspire others who hate - if not to continue to kill innocent people themselves.

My presence at Guantanamo was rare. My brothers were chosen by lottery to be among the small number of family members able to observe the proceedings there; with their one remaining slot, they invited me. In retrospect, it turns out we may have been among the very last civilians to set eyes on the detention camp as we know it today.

[Brian Pedaci]

So you think the ends DO justify the means? Is that what you're saying? If so, how are we morally any different than them?

I did not notice the terrorist in Iraq helping the people of Iraq. I did not see the terrorist building schools, power plants, hospitals, Mosque, water treatment plants, and ensuring that the Iraqi people could vote in free elections.

And Hitler made the trains run on time. What's that have to do with anything?

You're skirting my question, really. I did not ask what good we do in Iraq. Those things you listed are unambiguously good, but they're simply not germane to the conversation at hand.

Let's get back to the question at hand. Perhaps if I rephrase it in a clearer manner, you'll find it easier to answer directly.

Is there any boundary over which our actions would be considered unacceptable to you, as long as it was in the name of keeping America safe, and successful in that goal? If so, can you give an example of an act which you would find unacceptable?

Do not quote a news article, make a rolly-eye icon or link a youtube video. Simply answer the question. Where DO we cross the line and become the thing we're fighting against?

Furthermore, this statement

Bringing the US down to a terrorist level is the job of the left wing media in this country.

comes out of nowhere and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Let's take a look at the next line:

Reacting to a threat with the proper force to protect innocent lives does not make us like the terrorist. Our goal is to spread freedom not terror.

There's not a thing wrong with what you just wrote there. The problem is in the definition of 'proper force', and how exactly acts such as torture, rendition, indefinite detainments with no due process of law, and acting like dictators rather than partners to the other powers of the world further the goal of "spreading freedom".

You simply cannot have it both ways. You either live by the tenets of freedom and democracy you'd set out to spread to the rest of the world, or you cast your lot with the dictators, fascists and tinpot tyrants. All of our noble and grand gestures of rebuilding (which is only the right thing to do, seeing as how it was us who destroyed much of it in the first place) are for nought if we allow free rein to our crueler and more brutal natures. There will always be those with irrational hatred of America and the West, but why pursue policies that radicalize the rational moderates?

This brings us back to the original post, and why it's such a ludicrous proposition that extending a hand of cooperation to those in the Muslim world who want to see peace is a sign of unmanly weakness. We can continue to build all the hospitals and schools we can, but if the average Muslim does not trust and believe that America has their best interests at heart, or worse - that we're actively waging war on Islam itself - then we're putting ourselves on a path to a war we simply cannot win. I think America sometimes thinks of conflict like a football game - at the whistle, one side wins and everyone slaps each other's butt and heads to the showers in camaraderie. We're setting the stage now for our relations with the Muslim world centuries down the line.

I've said my peace here. I'm going on vacation and will likely not be checking back in on this thread for a while.

[Stephen Eisel]

The question was

So you think the ends DO justify the means? Is that what you're saying? If so, how are we morally any different than them?[/quote] Just for the record, I am not a mind reader . You asked how are we morally different from the terrorist and I gave you a very clear answer. The first question you asked, so do you think the ends do justify the means is also very unclear. Are you talking about Guantanamo? waterboarding? versus the acts of the terrorist?

at what point do you drop the due process of law for criminal suspects and call them 'enemy combatants'?

It depends. If you are talking about the Guantanamo detainees, who are foreign enemy combatants captured on foreign soil and being held at a U.S. naval base abroad, then my answer is no for due process. If you are talking about a US citizen who has no ties to a terrorist group (and committed a terrorist act) then my answer is yes for due process.

[Stephen Eisel]

I think he was referring to things like gitmo and renditions and water-boarding and torture and the like when asking that question.

Does he realize that the CIA only used the water boarding technique 3 times from 2001 to 2003. Water boarding does not kill, injure or leave a mark (the water boarding technique used by the CIA). The process usually takes less than minute. The CIA “brokeâ€

[Jim DeVito]

Enough bickering lets just hire Jack Bauer. And call it a day. He can save us all and do it in secret so we can go about our lives not knowing how close we all come to being blown up

[Stephen Eisel]

Enough bickering lets just hire Jack Bauer. And call it a day. He can save us all and do it in secret so we can go about our lives not knowing how close we all come to being blown up

Agreed! Did you watch 24 last night?