Philosophically, how is killing Rantissi any different than killing Osama?

[Jersey Devil]

The only difference that I can discern is that Rantissi at least had some connnection with a "state" (Palestine) whereas Bin Laden does not claim to speak for any state other than some kind of fuzzy, ill defined Pan-Islamic movement.

Both were advocates of terrorism (Rantizzi in the past tense), both encouraged the deaths of civilians to make their political points, both were condemned by virtually the entire civilized world as murderers and terrorists, both admitted, proudly, their roles in promoting terror to reach their goals.

I for one would gladly stick an RPG down Bin Laden's throat and pull the trigger without hesitation. So why should I complain when the Israelis do the same thing to a man who has brought terror to their country on an equal scale (proportionately, considering population, etc.)?

I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinian cause to bring them a homeland. But sympathy with that cause should not be confused with support for terrorism as a means to achieve that goal. When does a cause become so "just" that it justifies the use of terror in order to accomplish its aims? In my opinion - never.

Nor should it be confused with the issue of whether Sharon is also committing acts of terrorism on Palestinians. I believe that he is doing so when he levels civilian populated areas and indiscriminately bombs Gaza and other Palestinian "targets" either in retaliation for Palestinian terror or acting pre-emptively.

But killing terrorists themselves? Why should I complain that there is one less madman in the world who urges others to kill in the name of politics? I don't cheer it, as I have heard others express themselves on these bulletin boards, because violence always begets more violence in a never ending cycle of death. It will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. But I understand it and I do not condemn it.

[KissMyAsscroft]

1. Well...

It really all depends on whether or not you consider the Palestinian resistance "terrorism"...personally, I don't because I believe Israel has overstepped their authority.

I believe in a two state solution, and the suicide bombings need to stop...but the US must be an honest broker and Bush is just a pro-Israel psychopath. There is no trust bewtween the two parties so right and wrong is basically thrown out of the window.

I guess you could argue that the US is "occupying" Arab land, but Saudi Arabia wants us there. And when they want us to leave, we leave so I don't think it's the same thing.

[Jersey Devil]

5. You seem to be saying that some causes justify terrorism

and some do not depending upon the strength of the underlying political argument.

I believe strongly in the two-state solution as you do. But I do not condone terrorism to achieve it any more than I condone Bin Laden's terrorism to achieve his goals, which many in the Arab world agree with just as strongly as the Palestinians believe in their goals.

Again, someone tell me what is the difference. I do not see any.

[KissMyAsscroft]

15. If Palestinians had tanks or missiles, they would use them..

They use the means that are available to them. I'm not saying it's right or moral. Neither is blowing up a house full of civlians with a helicopter gunship.

[blondeatlast]

57. Precisely, my friend. It's too easy to overlook those facts

given the subtle and not-so-subtle empathy of the Israelis by the US media.

[IronLionZion]

47. So George Washington was a terrorist too?

because the American Colonists should have just bent over and taken it instead of fighting back against the British occupiers? :crazy:

And of course the American Indians were flaming terrorists for fighting with the genocidal hordes of white men! :crazy:

I disagree with the killing of civilians because that is terrorism. But killing uniformed IDF soldiers is clearly guerilla warfare.

If it's OK for white christians to fight occupation then it's OK for brown muslims as well.

[blondeatlast]

52. The Palestinians haven't got a military, a State Department,

and not much of a voice in the UN. How are they to defend themselves?

While I can't condone suicide bombings, I can't condone the Uzi shootings of rock-throwers, either. I can't condone the detention of Palestinians at the gates.

Rantisi was not the best kind of Palestinian leader, but dammit, Sharon isn't an example of someon who is really interested in lasting peace, either.

We need to make some kind of disapproving statements regarding these assassinations.

[blondeatlast]

56. Then how do the Palestinians FORCE the issue?

The violence sickens me, but it is clear that the Palestinians feel they have no way of furthering their agenda, much less simply a civil debate.

It's obvious to those of us not in the fight that an agreement can be reached. But for those in the thick of it, I'm not sure they see an end, much leess a peaceful one.

I hate it, but I can understand why it happens--which is NOT to say I condone it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. So terrorists deliberately murdering women and children

is OK by you?

Scary...

[Snoggera]

74. I won't answer for the original poster to which your question is directed

but feel a response is required.

Terrorists deliberately murdering women and children is not okay by any sane person. Your reply is intentionally obtuse.

Why are you not in the military performing your duty to protect US citizens from the hordes of terrorist barbarians at your door? Do you have some kind of difficult to diagnose back problem or maybe a anal cyst?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

77. Seems to me that people use the word "terrorist" very freely

on both sides of the argument. Is killing women and children a terrorist act? Is someone NOT a terrorist because they define themselves as an official government of a state and they are recognized by other governments who also practice the killing of women and children? I propose that we discuss FACTS and not throw inflammatory words around like "terrorist". In fact, in my opinion, the very use of the word "terrorist" is often meant to categorize another without having to get at the underlying issues.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. I condemn extrajudicial assasination

as harshly as I condemn terrorism of any kind. Just because you understand the motivation behind it doesn't make it right, imho.

[rfranklin]

3. How is killing Sharon any different than killing Rantissi?

Also an advocate of terrorism (currently.) I have a great deal of sympathy for the Israelis, but although they sort of have a case that the invisible Cloud Being gave them that patch of sand, that doesn't justify terrorism.

[ButterflyBlood]

28. If Sharon was taken out, I wouldn't shed one tear

same for Rantisi. Fuck them both.

[blondeatlast]

58. Only problem is that we know their replacements will be worse.

It's simply the nature of the beast that is the conflict.

[sampsonblk]

43. Yep. I see no difference

Helicopter gunships against civilians in populated areas qualifies as terrorism in my view. Following that, agreeing with this assasination is the same as supporting terrorism.

[IronLionZion]

50. Sharon needs to die more than anyone

he terrorizes innocent people everyday with American-made Apache gunships and Abrams tanks. Not to mention the fucking fence and the fact that he is a corrupt racist bastard who killed everyone at Shabri and Shatila just for being Muslim.

[Muddleoftheroad]

71. I love this on a "Democratic" site

Discussing the murder of a democratically elected leader and having the audacity to compare to the elimination of a fucking terrorist.

[DrWeird]

76. Hitler was democratically elected.

Elections don't make Sharon any less a fucking terrorist.

[Djinn]

83. he was also

considered by his own country as being "unfit for political office" and responsible for the slaughter of men women and children in Sabra and Chatilla...he is a war criminal Muddle, being "democratically elected" - ruling over millions who were not allowed to vote - does not absolve him of being a vile murderer, didn't absolve Hitler either.

[Snoggera]

4. I'm a little behind the times, I guess

I still believe an individual, no matter where the place or what the accused crime, has the right to defend himself in a valid court of law.

Call me crazy, but I don't think it is okay to murder someone based on what the government tells you he did without proof being presented in a court. Actually, I don't think it's okay to murder anyone, for any reason. If guilty, lock him up.

I must have gotten off the bus at the wrong stop.

[Jersey Devil]

7. What if the terrorist admits his role?

If someone openly takes credit for terror doesn't that change the equation?

[Snoggera]

14. I don't think it changes the consequences

So what if someone admits to a crime? Some are coerced into doing so, others actually committed it. Who gave the right to a group of militaristic, non-elected and not even appointed, people to make the decision to murder someone?

Everyone deserves their day in court. Even bastard, POS terrorists. Even corrupt members of a non-elected administration.

Allowing a government to choose who to kill and when, without allowing for the facts to be displayed for the world to see, is crossing the boundary between civilized conduct and barbarism.

My opinion will not be altered on this one.

I remember before the war even began, and, supposedly, an unarmed drone flew over the region and blew up a group of "bad guys" in their car. I have no idea who those people were, or what atrocity they were accused of committing. I have no idea, because the court system was not involved. Military planners and administration officials decided to murder a car load of people because they were suspected of god knows what.

Is that "right"? In a civilized world? What if China decided that some former Chinese citizens living in the US were planning to go to Taiwan and instigate massive protests for sovereignty, and decided to send a cruise type missile to blow them up on interstate 40 near Flagstaff, AZ. Would we defend their right to do this? After all, they would see these people as anti-China, and therefore, terrorists.

This is not so far-fetched an idea as it may seem at first reading. The only reason this administration, and others who feel they are in the same situation (ie - protected from consequences), does this type of action is because they believe there will be no reaction.

There are many bubbles of more than just aggravation waiting to come to the surface in various countries of the world.

[Muddleoftheroad]

72. So we should have taken the Germans, Japanese and Italians

To court? Of course not. States kill their enemies that pose a threat to civilians.

[Snoggera]

75. And where, exactly, are the enemies that are threatening

your life or the lives of your loved ones, or even the lives of those you hate?

I ask again. If you believe the fight against these people is so important, then why aren't you actively a part of it?

[Djinn]

84. we did

after the war Axis war criminals WERE taken to court - they could have just shot Hess, Ribbentrop, Speer et al - or we could have bombed their home killing innocents in the process but instead they were sent to the Nuremberg trials and consequently the world found out more about what the Nazi's did (helping to discredit apologists and revisionists) and in understanding it perhaps helping to avoid the emergence of a similarly vile regime in the future

[IronLionZion]

51. Timothy McVeigh admit his role

but he got a trial because he's a white christian in America.

[blondeatlast]

59. Not necessarily, because some would never admit their responsibility.

For instance, Sharon; he can hide behind the fact that he is a head of state.

Souund familiar?

[MAlibdem]

8. He de facto admitted to crimes

Hamas claims responsibility for their terrorist attacks. He was proud of his guilt.

[Jersey Devil]

12. Yes, I agree

If someone were to deny any role in terror then I would not support their assassination, but these guys openly bragged about being responsible for it.

[Snoggera]

16. So what?

Jeffrey Dahmer admitted to many inconceivable crimes, but still had a trial and conviction.

Just because someone, and I don't care who it is or where they are, admits to a crime, they shouldn't be targeted by a government for assassination.

Remember, the rest of the world is now learning to play by the new and barbaric rules that have been thrust upon it by the US.

[KittyWampus]

21. Jeffrey Dahmer Didn't Recruit, Train & Associate With An Army

Big difference.

[Snoggera]

32. It still comes down to this

do you believe murder is wrong? If you believe it to be justified in certain cases, do you believe it is right/correct/civilized to murder someone based upon the pronouncements of your government and purported admissions to guilt by the potential victim without recourse to a trial that is intended, in name and in purpose, to determine truth? If you believe that is right/correct/civilized, why bother with critical thinking at all? One could just believe what they are told and move along to the next atrocity without thought of anyone directing questions regarding legality or morality towards their choices.

Murder is murder. Whether by an individual towards another individual, by a government towards an individual, or by a government towards a group. If an individual or a group has been accused of murder, let them have access to the courts so the entire world will see what murderous bastards they truly are. That is how to diminish support of terrorism.

[MAlibdem]

40. He (Dahmer) was caught without civilian deaths

which is not necessarily true of a hamas leader...

The Israelis had to wait to kill him because he kept surrounding himself with children like a total douche.

Edit-clarity

[Snoggera]

44. Yes. He was "caught"

Not murdered by a missile or a bomb or a bullet to the chest.

He also had a trial.

[Snoggera]

46. And you know he surrounded himself always with children - how?

because your government told you this?

Ah. Of course. It must be true.

Also, how is one to defend himself against barbarism and death? What would you do if it was suddenly open season on you and your family?

God knows I wish you, or others that think like you, no ill will.

[MAlibdem]

55. I can understand your point

That you believe in fair trials. Here I think such an excerise is superfluous and dangerous.

However, I can't exactly understand why you're willing to believe an admitted terrorist over independent news organizations (CNN) that he was surrounding himself with children.

Cynicism is one thing...but i think we might be talking paranoia

the ominous tone was impressive though

[Snoggera]

67. here is what is dangerous.

Those who use words and ideas with only cursory knowledge of the meaning.

How is a fair trial ever "superfluous?"

much less "dangerous."

If one is able to blow a car up, one is able to apprehend the accused.

I don't believe the story of anyone until a court, hopefully with a jury of "peers" listens to the evidence.

Do you really believe a news organization (CNN) that is run by two ex-CIA individuals is independent?

What is the definition of cynicism? I haven't displayed any on any of my posts here.

Paranoia relates to fear of the irrational. I am nothing if not rational, so this part makes no sense. Are you not the one fearful of groups and individuals that have done nothing to you or your family or anyone that you know? Are you the one fearful of an imaginary "boogyman?"

Ominous tone? That, in and of itself, without any of the rest of your post included, is laughable.

Perhaps we should get back on track here regarding the purpose of this thread.

how is killing Rantissi any different than killing Osama?

It isn't. It is murder.

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. It's not murder to kill a wild dog

And Rantisi wasn't that high on the evolutionary scale.

[troublemaker]

81. Okay, somebody has to say this...

I've read through this thread and I'm a little weirded out by this person here exulting in his/her having staked out bit of exceptionalist moral turf that's nothing but an island of self-righteous sophistry, and in this last post finally descending into out and out racism.

The avatar of MLK appears to be ironic--the poster could cite MLK's non-violence as being anti-terrorist but MLK's non-violent philosophy wouldn't have much use for targeted killings, either.

The punch-line, though, is the signature line from the Battle Hymn of the Republic (Among the more bloodthirsty poems ever written) As he dieed to make men holy let us die to make men free. (Has a nice Jihadist ring to it...) The invocation of the Union cause amuses me because General Sherman is, to me, both a hero and a villain. He judged his cause to be more important than the rules of war and fought to break the will of the enemy citizenry rather than merely the enemy troops. The Confederacy wasn't as different from the Third Reich as modern apologists pretend, so I rate Sherman alongside Churchill and Roosevelt. BUT he was sort of the poster boy of large scale just-ends-justify-all-means terrorism.

[Political_Junkie]

9. I agree

even Osama deserves a trial.

[MAlibdem]

6. It wasn't

Hamas is a terrorist organization which has claimed responsibility for many attacks on civilians. The fact they encourage their fighters to use suicide tactics at all is a human rights abuse...but that coupled with killing civilians is disgusting.

He deserved death, so that he could not continue to destroy life.

[KittyWampus]

23. Unfortunately, Someone Will Just Take His Place In The Organization.

and IMO, "deserve" isn't quite the right word to use.

Maybe "he contributed greatly to the violent culture that lead to his own death".

[buddhamama]

26. illegal war

illegal tactics, human rights abuses-

so you do not have a problem with say, Iraqis killing our soldiers or calling for the death of Bush*? because it is the same thing.

[MAlibdem]

42. i think you are comparing two different circumstances

comparing our soldiers to Rantassi seems a little bit of a stretch...He led and ordered human rights abuses explicitly, our soldiers do not issue orders AND operate until rules of engagement.

Bush is the head of a nation, Rantassi is the head of an organization that claims itself as terrorist in nature.

[buddhamama]

53. it makes little difference in the minds of those being 'terrorized'

head of a Nation or Organization. Illegal is illegal. No one can claim a moral high ground here. The U.S., Israel and Hamas have broken 'laws' but scream "foul" when the opposing 'party' does it.
Slap the terrorist label on and anything goes--totally unacceptable.

[MAlibdem]

60. fine...how about those whose stated goals are to kill as many people

of a particular ethnicity or religion can be characterized as terrorist? Then can we act on them?

[buddhamama]

65. it is the 'action'

that should be considered here. I am not defending Hamas or Rantizzi my concern here is how Israel's dealing with them. The rule of Law, be it domestic or International, has to be upheld.

I find it hard to believe that Israel could not apprehend Rantizzi and try him in a court of Law.

Collective Punishment is illegal, could be seen (is by me) as targeting a particular ethnicity and that is occurring in Palestine and Iraq- U.S. and Israel terrorists?

[blondeatlast]

62. Nation-states can hide behind their official status. Palestinians

aren't afforded that priveledge.

[buddhamama]

66. agreed.

n/t

[bicentennial_baby]

68. Yes, sovereignty is a great shield for gov't-sponsored violence

and so often used as an excuse for resourceful nations to not intervene in tragic situations.

[aquart]

10. When did "Palestine" become a state?

Isn't the big fat problem that Palestine is NOT a state? This is the second time I'm reading at DU that Palestine is a state. Do they have a vote in the UN? I thought their delegate was non-voting. Wait, it's the PLO that has a delegate, right? A different terrorist organization?

Hamas is a terrorist organization with an all or nothing objective. They will just as soon kill Palestinians who want to negotiate with Israel as Israelis themselves.

Perhaps people want the Hamas leaders arrested, tried, and then hanged. Whatever. Killing Israelis until they are all dead or give up and leave Israel is the goal. Negotiation is not an option.

No, there isn't a difference between killing al Qaida and Hamas leaders.

Israel's behavior isn't really part of the Iraq situation. Frankly, the Iraqis have plenty to be mad about without ever mentioning religion. It's just that a jihad makes people feel better. As if God will protect them while they're being machine gunned.

[CabalBuster]

11. Sharon is also a terrorist and I wouldn't mind if he met the same fate n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

29. yep, that's my view

most people use the whole "what if it was Sharon?" argument, well I'd have the same reaction. They're both terrorist scum.

[keithyboy]

13. By your logic, how is it any different than targeting Bush or Blair?

Probably is little difference in either case.

[maggrwaggr]

31. I'd rather they targeted Bush than 700 innocent soldiers

I have no problem with targeting leaders.

The leaders are the only ones who should be fighting. They're the ones who start it. They'll gladly send others to their deaths, but they're chickenshits who stay out of harm's way.

Fuck them. I say make 'em all targets. If you did, the world would get peaceful REAL FAST

[Djinn]

85. what if they got at Bush

with a missile while he was giving a speech to a bunch of kids??

would they just be regretable collateral damage - when bits of their skulls were being picked off the floor could you rationlise that with the fact that Bush is clearly a war criminal?

[buddhamama]

17. Philosophically,

i would recommend you give it more thought.

Hypothetical. A Head of State has declared You are a terrorist, based on 'evidence that the State has collected. You are now on their hit list. You are not given the opportunity to see the evidence against and defend yourself and are targeted for assassination.

Do you see a difference?

At least with bin Laden the U.S. collected evidence and presented it to a Grand Jury, i have heard of no such action on the part of Israel.

Regardless, the idea of extra-judicial killings is a dangerous slippery slope One should seriously consider before giving their tacit approval.

"Terrorist" has become the all purpose word/label to break laws, and abandon Principals and deny Rights.

[markomalley]

18. US Supports Terrorism and Assassination

The difference is that we support terrorists like the zionist invaders of Palestine. Look at what we supported during Ray-gun's years down in El Salvador. Look at our support for the Pahlavi's. We support terrorist groups and countries when it is in our interest to do so.

[Ms. Clio]

19. you have a point, sort of

Since Hamas was an Israeli creation and Osama was a CIA creation.

[tedzbear]

20. Good point.

One could say, "All's fair in love and war."

The problem is, the US and Israel are waging a full on war against the Palestinians and Iraqis, and not being honest about it. The US pretends to be an unbiased broker of peace while it is paying for Israel's military campaign and occupying Iraq with its army. The rest of the world sees the duplicity here and they're not buying it.

:kick:

[JHBowden]

22. I have no problem killing members of Hamas,

Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah.

[Snoggera]

24. Then you have no problem with murder?

because, that is, in effect, what you are saying. You are implying that what you hear from the media and your government is completely factual and without question, so it is okay to murder people.

If that's your belief, then so be it.

[JHBowden]

25. Rewarding enemies and punishing friends is irrational.

Murder is an appropriate response to terrorists, I might add.

[buddhamama]

27. who decides-

in this case when, Laws are suspended or ignored.
Israel has done its fair share of Breaking the Law
The U.S. has broken International Laws in Iraq,
so again, i ask, would it be acceptable for a citizen of Iraq, to declare our soldiers terrorists and call for the death of Bush?

The hypocrisy concerning this issue is astounding.

[JHBowden]

30. We decide if we want to be loyal to our friends or not.

Screwing over consistent allies for creeps who shout "death to America" at every opportunity isn't wisdom.

[Snoggera]

34. Wisdom implies an ability to obtain information

and use it to form knowledgeable opinions. Wisdom has nothing to do with standing by friends, whether right or wrong.

Who is a consistent ally? The UK went to bat for Bush because Blair also lied to his people, who, by the way, did not believe his lies from the outset. The Spanish government went against the will of its people.

Allies don't have to be international. It would be "nice" if the governments of sovereign nations listened to the voices of their inhabitants rather than the insane, lying rantings of a sociopath with WMD's.

[JHBowden]

35. Virtue has everything to do with Wisdom.

Societies do not flourish when they aid their own destruction.

Bush and Sharon are morons, but that doesn't imply we should snuggle up with terrorist thugs that desire the deaths of all of us.

[Snoggera]

37. Who is snuggling?

Who are the thugs?

Why do they desire revenge?

If Bush and Sharon are morons, why trust in their policies or believe that the results of those policies should be more death?

Who is aiding in the destruction of their own society when all that is asked of the members of that society is to practice a little less ethnocentrism, and a little more critical thought? That, to me at least, seems like a method for building the morals and strength of a society.

If one truly believes that a group of (what used to be, at least, prior to the over-response of the US government) disorganized and poorly funded Islamic revolutionaries that live half-way around the world are capable of launching an actual war against the US, then I question that individual's ability to think for oneself.

The US was attacked, and 3000 people were murdered in the WTC and pentagon. That gives the US carte blanche to launch a war on anyone, anywhere that the government disagrees with? That is questionable thinking if one wants to maintain a democracy.

[JHBowden]

78. International terrorism can't be reasoned with.

In addition, terrorist organizations are not states per se, so the rule of law by definition does not apply to them. Whether one trusts a leader or not has little bearing on how we treat an international terrorist organization.

Additionally, international terrorists obviously employ terror to obtain their political objectives, not war. If war is understood to mean a conflict between nation-states, it has little to do with it if a nation-state is not a sponsor of terrorism. While terrorists will never wage war against American civilians, they will remain capable of killing a lot of Americans, Israelis, Spaniards, et cetera if their organizations are not dismantled. If Israel wants to destroy the leadership of Hamas, more power to them.

I did not support the war in Iraq. To be explicit for the "critical thinkers," I also do not advocate launching wars against Germany, France, et cetera.

[uhhuh]

36. Consistent allies

Sharon was about to cancel meeting with the chimp if he didn't get his way.
If my friends were to say "you can go to hell if you don't agree with everything I say or do", I would look for new friends.

[buddhamama]

61. I'll repeat what i stated before

the hypocrisy is astounding.

The screwing over of Israel happens when we sell weapons to its Middle East neighbors and pour money into their bank accounts so they may fund another Org that will scream Death to America/Israel.

it is the citizens who are at risk not Heads of State.

If it acceptable to suspend, ignore and change Laws when it suits our purpose than You cannot be surprised when the opposing side applies the same logic and Laws cease to have any meaning.

[bicentennial_baby]

64. Whomp!-There it is

"If it acceptable to suspend, ignore and change Laws when it suits our purpose than You cannot be surprised when the opposing side applies the same logic and Laws cease to have any meaning."

Brava Cheryl!

:yourock:

[JHBowden]

80. International terrorists obey laws?

Fascinating.

[blondeatlast]

63. Delineate the difference between Sharon and Arafat for me--WITHOUT

using the following words:

State
Nation
Palestinian nation


Open to anyone; you get points for at least trying.

[sandnsea]

33. Perpetuating the violence

It just feeds the endless perpetuation of violence. And I have to wonder if Osama weren't in the picture, would we find the political need to support these assassinations. I don't know. But now that we have, if they assassinate in return, can we really call it terrorism? What a freakin' mess, that's all I really know for sure.

[corporatewhore]

38. what if a palestinian helicopter had blown up Sharons Car

would you approve of this

[Q]

39. Where does it end?

- Both Israel and America sponsor assassinations without any kind of due process or legal system to get in their way.

- What would stop them from assassinating people they ACCUSED of terrorism simply because they wanted them out of the way? They don't have to provide any proof...using 'national security' to classify information that could prove the accused's guilt or innocence. What would stop them from assassinating political enemies that are innocent of charges of terrorism?

- Due process is what used to separate the United States from third world countries. That's no longer true. It seems King George and his Israeli buddies can kill anyone they want....proof and evidence of guilt be damned.

[NoPasaran]

41. This business of murdering people is wrong

Call me old fashioned, but I believe in putting people on trial, even if we regard them as vile scum.

[wasichu]

45. Bin Laden works for the CIA

thats the difference.

[Snoggera]

48. and his family has numerous connections with the current

Washington elite club of mafia goons.

Why else would he be able to elude capture?

Think about it. If the US satellites are advanced enough to be able to tell when someone is in a car half way around the world, send that info to the military, they send that info to the admin who approves a strike, and boom, no more people in a car, then why the fuck haven't they been able to determine where the hell Osama is? Where is the intelligence; both on the ground and in the sky?

One has to suspend disbelief to believe anything this administration tells you.

[Character Assassin]

79. Currently? Care to back that up?

[NJmaverick]

49. I could just as easily ask

How is killing Sharon any different then killing OBL?

[DrWeird]

54. Philosophically, how is the Fallujah massacre different than 9-11?

nt

[blondeatlast]

69. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell...

That's a very good question.

[markomalley]

82. Because

In Fallujah, a bunch of brown-skinned Muslim barbarians were killed as a result of some patriots opposing an illegal occupation of their country. They don't count.

In 9-11, a bunch of white skinned (along with a few of other races), money-worshipping capitalists that got rich on the backs of exploited brown-skins (regardless of geography or religion) got killed. They do count.

It's really rather simple.