Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The Taliban failed to do the one thing any nation would do in a similar case. They refused to take the accused into custody. If that had happened, I doubt we would have attacked.

Not true, they would not have, because every country had standards of due process that you must meet to get your extradition. This us that whole "provide evidence" thing they asked for, and if we had, they most likely would have handed him over, because that's how that whole thing works. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and therefore they aren't obligated to do something just because we tell them to. They have due process, and just because we lost our minds and revoked our due process at the earliest possible opportunity because we had morons in every position of power available doesn't mean they don't stillget to have due process. Just how that works. Sovereign nations have a right to do set their own due process. They actually don't even have an obligation to extradite anyone at all. They could have turned around arrested, tried, and convicted him on their own, or not. That's how that works.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Not true, they would not have, because every country had standards of due process that you must meet to get your extradition. This us that whole "provide evidence" thing they asked for, and if we had, they most likely would have handed him over, because that's how that whole thing works. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and therefore they aren't obligated to do something just because we tell them to. They have due process, and just because we lost our minds and revoked our due process at the earliest possible opportunity because we had morons in every position of power available doesn't mean they don't still get to have due process. Just how that works. Sovereign nations have a right to do set their own due process. They actually don't even have an obligation to extradite anyone at all. They could have turned around arrested, tried, and convicted him on their own, or not. That's how that works.

They could have put him and others in custody in case they were given the evidence they wanted later.

If our country is attacked, the nation from which the attack comes does not necessarily get to set the rules concerning the ones who attacked us. If their claims of sovereignty conflict with our need and right for self-defense, we might not recognize their claims.

Americans may have "lost their minds," but you think the Afghans had kept theirs?

Originally Posted by Kepi

Not true, they would not have, because every country had standards of due process that you must meet to get your extradition. This us that whole "provide evidence" thing they asked for, and if we had, they most likely would have handed him over, because that's how that whole thing works. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and therefore they aren't obligated to do something just because we tell them to. They have due process, and just because we lost our minds and revoked our due process at the earliest possible opportunity because we had morons in every position of power available doesn't mean they don't stillget to have due process. Just how that works. Sovereign nations have a right to do set their own due process. They actually don't even have an obligation to extradite anyone at all. They could have turned around arrested, tried, and convicted him on their own, or not. That's how that works.

I don't share your optimistic view of what Afghanistan would have done or could have done. When a sovereign nation harbors known terrorists, then they also must consider the consequences of a response ( justifiable in my opinion) to the terrorist attack.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They could have put him and others in custody in case they were given the evidence they wanted later.

If our country is attacked, the nation from which the attack comes does not necessarily get to set the rules concerning the ones who attacked us. If their claims of sovereignty conflict with our need and right for self-defense, we might not recognize their claims.

Americans may have "lost their minds," but you think the Afghans had kept theirs?

They might not have been able to. We don't detain people for 3 weeks with no charges. Well, we didn't before your generation decided to ruin the country with your total disregard for the procedures that protect us. It was all part of our due process. You couldn't hold someone that long without due process. With a lot of European countries, the standard for being arrested is even higher than probable cause. Islamic States have extremely stringent rules for how they deal with their criminal proceedings. In 3 weeks we stood there, not providing evidence that we had, for whatever reason, and then we declared war.

We lost our minds. For everyone else in the rest of the world it was business as usual. You need look no further than the PATRIOT act to see we went completely off the rails.

Marx and Lennon is frequently bringing this nuclear example up. Do you guys collectively not get that eventually everyone us going to be able to go nuclear? 100k years ago, the average person working with electricity was a ridiculous idea. Now? Common place. Lockheed Martin just developed a small scale nuclear reactor. How long before that technology becomes common. Before any and everyone can utilize this technology? It might not be 100k years from now, but it's an inevitability. And probably the only defense we will have is actually the only real one we have right now: treating others in such a way that they don't want to nuke us. Right now, you can add that to the mountain failures your generation has brought on itself while at the helm of the country.

Originally Posted by Kepi

They might not have been able to. We don't detain people for 3 weeks with no charges. Well, we didn't before your generation decided to ruin the country with your total disregard for the procedures that protect us. It was all part of our due process. You couldn't hold someone that long without due process. With a lot of European countries, the standard for being arrested is even higher than probable cause. Islamic States have extremely stringent rules for how they deal with their criminal proceedings. In 3 weeks we stood there, not providing evidence that we had, for whatever reason, and then we declared war.

We lost our minds. For everyone else in the rest of the world it was business as usual. You need look no further than the PATRIOT act to see we went completely off the rails.

Marx and Lennon is frequently bringing this nuclear example up. Do you guys collectively not get that eventually everyone us going to be able to go nuclear? 100k years ago, the average person working with electricity was a ridiculous idea. Now? Common place. Lockheed Martin just developed a small scale nuclear reactor. How long before that technology becomes common. Before any and everyone can utilize this technology? It might not be 100k years from now, but it's an inevitability. And probably the only defense we will have is actually the only real one we have right now: treating others in such a way that they don't want to nuke us. Right now, you can add that to the mountain failures your generation has brought on itself while at the helm of the country.

When the USSR and the USA were in a nuclear standoff, the MAD doctrine was effective with two rational countries. When Hitler led Germany, he preferred the destruction of Germany over surrender. There is always the possibility that an irrational person would choose to use nuclear weapons, despite our best intentions and treatment of others.
I do support the continued development of missile defense systems to ward off small scale attacks.

The develpment of nuclear fusion power by Lockheed is probably at least 10 years out( could be 30 or more). If Lockheed can pull this off, it would help reduce our dependence on oil and would be a good thing , in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Kepi

They might not have been able to. We don't detain people for 3 weeks with no charges. Well, we didn't before your generation decided to ruin the country with your total disregard for the procedures that protect us. It was all part of our due process. You couldn't hold someone that long without due process. With a lot of European countries, the standard for being arrested is even higher than probable cause. Islamic States have extremely stringent rules for how they deal with their criminal proceedings. In 3 weeks we stood there, not providing evidence that we had, for whatever reason, and then we declared war.

My Generation? What did "my generation" do to "ruin the country with your total disregard for the procedures that protect us"?

I think we provided enough evidence to hold these criminals for probable cause. The USA can't be responsible for a "legal system" that protects mass murderers. The country needed to be defended. At the time, I thought it was good that Bush waited 3 weeks and tried to negotiate. Arguably, he could have negotiated longer and provided more evidence. I personally don't think the results would have changed. I don't think the Taliban are rational folks. But, you have a point.

We lost our minds. For everyone else in the rest of the world it was business as usual. You need look no further than the PATRIOT act to see we went completely off the rails.

We did a lot of the wrong things in the 2000s, no doubt. So did the Afghans.

Marx and Lennon is frequently bringing this nuclear example up. Do you guys collectively not get that eventually everyone us going to be able to go nuclear? 100k years ago, the average person working with electricity was a ridiculous idea. Now? Common place. Lockheed Martin just developed a small scale nuclear reactor. How long before that technology becomes common. Before any and everyone can utilize this technology?

I can't speak to that; I've not heard of that.

It might not be 100k years from now, but it's an inevitability. And probably the only defense we will have is actually the only real one we have right now: treating others in such a way that they don't want to nuke us. Right now, you can add that to the mountain failures your generation has brought on itself while at the helm of the country.

Our generation never had much of a chance at the helm of the country. The people threw out Clinton's congress after 2 years of obstruction. Bush was selected instead of Gore. One generation does not vote; all living generations vote. All living generations are responsible for their votes on Nov.8, 1994 and Nov.2, 2010. Millennials are especially responsible for wimping out on Nov.2, 2010. Not boomers.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Not true, they would not have, because every country had standards of due process that you must meet to get your extradition. This us that whole "provide evidence" thing they asked for, and if we had, they most likely would have handed him over, because that's how that whole thing works. Afghanistan is a sovereign nation, and therefore they aren't obligated to do something just because we tell them to. They have due process, and just because we lost our minds and revoked our due process at the earliest possible opportunity because we had morons in every position of power available doesn't mean they don't still get to have due process. Just how that works. Sovereign nations have a right to do set their own due process. They actually don't even have an obligation to extradite anyone at all. They could have turned around arrested, tried, and convicted him on their own, or not. That's how that works.

This wasn't a case of an unsupported call by us for extradition being supported without question by the Taliban. It was a request that Osama and others be taken into custody while the case was made. This is common practice under Geneva rules. We don't extradite without an extradition hearing that requires that the requesting country prove that they have a strong case. I wouldn't expect the Taliban to do otherwise. That's not what they did. Their position was, Osama and his minions were guests, and would be treated in that manner until the US proved them guilty in Afghani courts. They didn't offer asylum either. They just refused to help in any way. Do you believe that we would have had a fair day in court? I don't.

So they gambled that they could obstruct and we would do nothing about it. Following a clear act of war, this was not going to be accepted by the US. Our initial response was the minimum military response possible. At that, it would have been adequate, but GWB decided that he needed to fight Saddam. Stupid all around.

Originally Posted by Kepi

... Marx and Lennon is frequently bringing this nuclear example up. Do you guys collectively not get that eventually everyone us going to be able to go nuclear? 100k years ago, the average person working with electricity was a ridiculous idea. Now? Common place. Lockheed Martin just developed a small scale nuclear reactor. How long before that technology becomes common. Before any and everyone can utilize this technology? It might not be 100k years from now, but it's an inevitability. And probably the only defense we will have is actually the only real one we have right now: treating others in such a way that they don't want to nuke us. Right now, you can add that to the mountain failures your generation has brought on itself while at the helm of the country.

I was making the simple case that the rules have changed, whether we decide they have or not. Incinerating a city is an act outside any legal boundaries. 9/11 approached that level, and arguably crossed the line. I certainly think it did. If all the targets had been hit, we would have lost also the Pentagon and either the White House or Congress. Would that have crossed the line for you? Wars have been launched on a lot less. WWI was fought over a single assassination. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This wasn't a case of an unsupported call by us for extradition being supported without question by the Taliban. It was a request that Osama and others be taken into custody while the case was made. This is common practice under Geneva rules. We don't extradite without an extradition hearing that requires that the requesting country prove that they have a strong case. I wouldn't expect the Taliban to do otherwise. That's not what they did. Their position was, Osama and his minions were guests, and would be treated in that manner until the US proved them guilty in Afghani courts. They didn't offer asylum either. They just refused to help in any way. Do you believe that we would have had a fair day in court? I don't.

So they gambled that they could obstruct and we would do nothing about it. Following a clear act of war, this was not going to be accepted by the US. Our initial response was the minimum military response possible. At that, it would have been adequate, but GWB decided that he needed to fight Saddam. Stupid all around.

I agree almost completely with your assessment. It seems to me that Bush was guilty of hubris and also ignored all history of the region by deciding to invade Iraq. It was a horrible decision.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I was making the simple case that the rules have changed, whether we decide they have or not. Incinerating a city is an act outside any legal boundaries. 9/11 approached that level, and arguably crossed the line. I certainly think it did. If all the targets had been hit, we would have lost also the Pentagon and either the White House or Congress. Would that have crossed the line for you? Wars have been launched on a lot less. WWI was fought over a single assassination. What's your point?

My point is look at how awful WWI turned out for pretty much every nation involved except us. When you consider that for us, the role was "sell everyone stuff until they're extremely weak and then sweep at the end", everyone who was fully vested in that war got sunk in the end. The European elites if the time got turned over, which sounds great, but it came at the cost of millions upon millions of lives. I like World War I as a point of history, and I think it was extremely historically significant (look no further than here for the start of more or less all our problems in the middle east), but it doesn't change the fact that this was a disastrously stupid war fought for disastrously stupid reasons.

And that was then, back when the very first aircraft were being used and the very first tanks were bright into the forefront. We weren't even nuclear capable, and the destruction was extreme and disastrous. We have to learn how to keep things on a smaller scale, much smaller. Like if your target is 1 guy, you don't send a force large enough to invade and occupy an entire nation. That's stupid, it's inefficient, it's wasteful, it's wrong. We killed countless more people than Al Queda ever killed to get one guy. That's stupid idealistic nonsense coupled with the bloodlust of a people who are so ignorant they believe they have the right to control everything.

Good review of the ‘lone wolf’ threat

Stratfor ‏Lone wolves do pose a threat, but that threat must be neither overstated nor ignored.
Cutting Through the Lone-Wolf Hype

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110..._campaign=link …
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110..._campaign=link
…"However, in the jihadist realm, as in the white-supremacist realm before it, the shift to leaderless resistance was an admission of weakness rather than a sign of strength. Jihadists recognized that they have been extremely limited in their ability to successfully attack the West, and while jihadist groups welcomed recruits in the past, they are now telling them it is too dangerous because of the steps taken by the United States and its allies to combat the transnational terrorist threat.”...

Turnabout is fair play, I suppose.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...4Ad8yI.twitter


1
NEWS
MIDDLE EAST
Fate of ‘critically wounded’ ISIS chief unclear
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi... has reportedly been critically injured.

By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News
Saturday, 8 November 2014

The leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was “critically wounded” when a U.S.-led air strike targeted the western Iraqi border town of al-Qaim, tribal sources told Al Arabiya News Channel on Saturday.

U.S. Central Command confirmed in a statement that U.S.-led air strikes targeted ISIS leaders near their northern Iraqi hub of Mosul late Friday, without confirming whether Baghdadi was killed, AFP reported.

“This strike demonstrates the pressure we continue to place on the ISIL [ISIS] terrorist network and the group's increasingly limited freedom to maneuver, communicate and command," U.S. Central Command said.

My comment:

May his death and his extended stay in the realm of the Great Satan (with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, etc.) come swiftly!

Don't mess with the United States. President Obama has learned a few things from living in Chicago -- like how to deal with gangsters: do unto others before they do unto you.

Do the people of the world not recognize by now just how batshit crazy the USA can get?

Can you imagine what would happen if some dumb shit Islamic terrorist managed to assassinate Obama? Within weeks at the most there would nothing much left of several venues in the Mideast but green glass. The American public would be frothing at the mouth. There would not be anything Muslim left in the U.S. that wasn't smoking ash. The Japanese concentration camps of WW-II would seem like Montessori kindergartens.

Originally Posted by TnT

Do the people of the world not recognize by now just how batshit crazy the USA can get?

Can you imagine what would happen if some dumb shit Islamic terrorist managed to assassinate Obama? Within weeks at the most there would nothing much left of several venues in the Mideast but green glass. The American public would be frothing at the mouth. There would not be anything Muslim left in the U.S. that wasn't smoking ash. The Japanese concentration camps of WW-II would seem like Montessori kindergartens.

Not sure if it would be that extreme. However, unlike November 1963, there would be no impulse to sweep it under the rug and absorb the hit. At that point we were mutually chicken of MAD. Now, after events of the past 13 years, we are not scared to react, the way we apparently were back in '63.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Not sure if it would be that extreme. However, unlike November 1963, there would be no impulse to sweep it under the rug and absorb the hit. At that point we were mutually chicken of MAD. Now, after events of the past 13 years, we are not scared to react, the way we apparently were back in '63.

No, '63 still had leaders who had seen real war. They were cautious. Today, not so much.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Not sure if it would be that extreme. However, unlike November 1963, there would be no impulse to sweep it under the rug and absorb the hit. At that point we were mutually chicken of MAD. Now, after events of the past 13 years, we are not scared to react, the way we apparently were back in '63.

To build on my last comment, if the Cheney/Bush reaction to 9/11 tells us anything, what in god's name would we do in the case of a Presidential assassination?

Originally Posted by TnT

To build on my last comment, if the Cheney/Bush reaction to 9/11 tells us anything, what in god's name would we do in the case of a Presidential assassination?

If Obama were assassinated today, over half the voters would cheer.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If Obama were assassinated today, over half the voters would cheer.

No, they would not. Those who might cheer such a thing would be a very small fraction. Although politics in this country have become a blood sport, most people dread a Presidential assassination.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

No, they would not. Those who might cheer such a thing would be a very small fraction. Although politics in this country have become a blood sport, most people dread a Presidential assassination.

If you say so. I'm not of that opinion; but fortunately, at least according to my cosmic sources, it ain't gonna happen. I will have to stand on that prediction! Jordan will scream if I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If Obama were assassinated today, over half the voters would cheer.

I have to say that your statement is totally unsubstantiated. I know many Republicans and not one of them would cheer the assassination of president Obama or any other American President.

Originally Posted by radind

I have to say that your statement is totally unsubstantiated. I know many Republicans and not one of them would cheer the assassination of president Obama or any other American President.

I know there's a lot of hate out there for him. But, since the assassination is fortunately not going to happen, I guess we'll never know! That's a good thing.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I know there's a lot of hate out there for him. But, since the assassination is fortunately not going to happen, I guess we'll never know! That's a good thing.

I keep hearing the hate theme from multiple sources, but I see primarily a disagreement with policies . This is then interpreted as 'hate'. In my opinion the number of haters is small.

Originally Posted by radind

I keep hearing the hate theme from multiple sources, but I see primarily a disagreement with policies . This is then interpreted as 'hate'. In my opinion the number of haters is small.

Not in mine. And many of those who disagree with his policies, hate him for those policies. It is a matter of religion and cultural identity. The right-wing in this country is almost as fanatic and hateful as the Al Qaeda and IS types in the Middle East. For the American right-wing, the opposition are "infidels."

You know what fanatics in the Middle East do to "infidels."

This may not describe all registered Republicans, but it does describe a substantial minority of them. And it's a graduated scale. Almost all registered Republicans are fanatical to some degree. They are certainly uncompromising; that is well known.

And remember, registered Republicans are not even half the voting public, but less than a third of it; maybe even down to a fourth of registered voters outside the South. That's about 1/7 of all adults. Yet they control both houses of congress, and could engineer a presidential win too through gerrymandering and vote rigging.

I know you disagree with me on this, and that's fine. I acknowledge your opinion, and it's a good approach to think well of people and look for the best from them. The best is there, deep in there, somewhere.......

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not in mine. And many of those who disagree with his policies, hate him for those policies. It is a matter of religion and cultural identity. The right-wing in this country is almost as fanatic and hateful as the Al Qaeda and IS types in the Middle East. For the American right-wing, the opposition are "infidels."

You know what fanatics in the Middle East do to "infidels."

This may not describe all registered Republicans, but it does describe a substantial minority of them. And it's a graduated scale. Almost all registered Republicans are fanatical to some degree. They are certainly uncompromising; that is well known.

And remember, registered Republicans are not even half the voting public, but less than a third of it; maybe even down to a fourth of registered voters outside the South. That's about 1/7 of all adults. Yet they control both houses of congress, and could engineer a presidential win too through gerrymandering and vote rigging.

I know you disagree with me on this, and that's fine. I acknowledge your opinion, and it's a good approach to think well of people and look for the best from them. The best is there, deep in there, somewhere.......

More claims of hate. I still don't see the evidence for large numbers of haters. False assumptions can be dangerous to reaching valid conclusions.

Originally Posted by radind

More claims of hate. I still don't see the evidence for large numbers of haters. False assumptions can be dangerous to reaching valid conclusions.

I see it. I couldn't find specific polls that ask if people hate Obama, but there's lots of articles out there that mention it, and ask why people hate Obama. I agree with your desire and hope that this hate is less than I think. That may be just a false assumption in its turn. We can look for the best from people, and hope and pray that it is there. I will, and I have. We can know that at bottom, people can if they choose look for and find the better angels of their nature, and will turn away from hate.

I note however that you also have false hopes that Republicans in congress can be reasonable and work with Democrats to pass constructive legislation. That is certainly a vain hope, and does not bode too well for your other hope. But I certainly hope that you are right after all about the people anyway.