Originally Posted by moonfirefaery
hakeber, we're not responsible for what other people choose to do. We are responsible for what we do. That others are reacting to us doesn't make us responsible for their reaction; they could have chosen differently.
But we have not been held accountible for what we have done around the world in the name of capitalism, and "democracy". We have not been made responsible in the same ways that these people are constantly made responsible for their actions. It is as though ONLY the developing world must learn to keep its place and the rich global north can continue to trample all over the impoverished of the world with total moral impunity because...wait...why is that? I still don't get it. The 9/11 attacks if we are to believe they were the work of Osama (and again the so called confession tapes have been shown to be fakes, the source dubious and the figure speaking most definitely NOT Osama Bin Laden) and his gang, but more specifically more recent attacks and attempts are proclaimed to be doing EXACTLY what we did this weekend...holding responsible the people who have acted in violence and collusion against THEM. Albeit indirectly, we individuals are responsible for the continual abuse of the impoverished people of the world. Our obvliouness does not absolve us from responsibilty, in my humble opinion. No one deserves to be attacked or murdered (NO ONE), but we as individuals are and should be held responsible for othe actions of our governments against peoples smaller, less heavily armed, and less richly funded than we are. We need to stand up and demand answers and demand justice for everyone, not just the pain we feel.
I think his confession is a smoking gun. I am not shut off to the idea that Bush, being affiliated with the bin Ladens, helped the attack along. I'm not at all. But we, the American people, are responsible for punishing all involved. We know bin Laden was involved, and if we ever have more evidence that Bush was, we can try and hang him too.
If his confession were real, I might agree. But I don't think it is. If it was, UN forces would have finished this thing 10 years ago.
Yes, we have the right to use fire power against a wanted man and anyone defended him to bring him to justice for killing thousands. We were at war with his organization, and he conspired to murder thousands on our soil by attacking a military installation and the capitol, as well as two large buildings important to the world. He admitted to the murder, then evaded capture for ten years while continuing to incite violence.
International Law of war does not allow a STATE to declare war on a MAN or an organization unaffiliated with a state. It is a State to state thing, and it is an act that can only be done by those who are recognized heads of state. That is why we have declared war on Iraq and on Afghanistan, but NOT Osama...Because he is not a head of State. We are not at war with Al-Qaeda. That is not how war works in international law. Check out the wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
In addition to this, non-state or terrorist organisations may claim to or be described as "declaring war" when engaging in violent acts.These declarations...have no legal standing in themselves....
He has come out again and again denying those "confession tapes" and denying his involvement in the towers. Was he evading arrest or were we really not looking all that hard? A few months ago he was "believed to be in a cave somewhere on northern border of Pakistan"...turns out he's in the burbs of a major city...c'mon! How stupid do they think we are?
Furhermore, if we respond to the illegal declaration of war upon us by a a group of armed forces made up mostly of impoverished and undereducated people manipulated by someone we believe to be an evil genius with retalliation...what does that make us? The bully on the playground who proudly shoves down anyone who dares to question our authority? Even if it means playing dirty? I'm not comfortable with that.
And I do question people...doesn't make me less glad there's one less terrorist in the world.
Our SEALS were ordered to take him in only if they could do so safely. They had no idea what could have been on him; I am glad they did not endanger themselves to find out, even if he turned up unarmed. Had he been armed and wounded someone or escaped, we'd have wondered why they didn't just shoot him ASAP.
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.