Date: 22 Sep 2001 16:50:16 +0200 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: Stephen Hurd <deuce@lordlegacy.org>, Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Helping victims of terror Message-ID: <xzp66abb7pz.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com> References: <NFBBJPHLGLNJEEECOCHAGEDNCEAA.deuce@lordlegacy.org> <3BAC3644.1CB0C626@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > You'll have to pick a different example; the U.S. and the U.K. > have extradition treaties which would preclude this happening; > it was, in fact, these treaties which allowed the U.S. to take > custody of the Osama bin Laden sponsored terrorist responsible > for the bombing of the Pan Am jetliner over Lacherby Scotland, Please, it's spelled "Lockerbie". > > including this stuff that we don't have any hard evidence that > > he actually did." > This is idiotic. We have proof, which we have shared with our > allies. No. You have circumstantial evidence, consisting of clues which are so outrageously, stupidly obvious that a significant portion of us non-americans are speculating that it may, quite frankly, have been fabricated in a hurry on the evening of September 11th. Meanwhile, you seem to be ignoring equally strong circumstantial evidence pointing towards Iraq, which would exonerate Usama bin Laden - but that would force W to admit to a mistake, maybe even apologize to the Taliban, which would not look good on CNN at all. I'd suggest you take a trip to your local Blockbuster and rent "Wag the Dog", and, if you can get hold of it, "The Second Civil War" (it was made-for-TV, so I'm not sure you can get it on video). > I'd be perfectly happy with a grand jury and sealed testimony, > which would not compromise U.S. Intelligence assets. If Osama > bin Laden would be so kind as to turn himself in to the world > court, I'm sure that the information would be presented in the > case against him, under sealed testimony. In other words, an unchallengeable witch trial. I'm not saying the guy's a saint, but in this particular instance you may be barking up the wrong tree. > They "publically expressed outrage"? Was this before or after > they stated that a religious court should judge him, and we > should accept the outcome, if the activist zealots of the same > stripe as Osama bin Laden found in his favor? Before - and also before the US responded to their public expression of outrage and sympathy with what can be summed up as "we're going to turn your country into the world's largest parking lot". > > This sounds a lot like the traditional hostage situation... only > > now, the United States is holding an ENTIRE COUNTRY hostage. > This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. The U.S. > is in no way acting as terrorists: terrorists bomb first, and > claim credit afterwards -- assuming that they don't say to > themselves "Oh shit... I've stepped in it this time...". Oh? You need to read up on modern history (particularly European history from the 1960s and on, with emphasis on France, Germany and Italy). DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp66abb7pz.fsf>