[leif]

Originally posted by Joe
I think the civilian casualties are pretty light on their side compared to what they have been on our side.

This war is older than a lot of people would like to think. For instance, we've (indirectly) killed a half million kids in Iraq though U.N. sanctions. (yes, I know a lot of you don't think that's relavent, but if the terrorists do, and Osama bin Laden has said he does, I think it's very relevant)
By their count, the U.S. is directly and indirectly responsible for millions of Islamic deaths over the past few decades. The terrorists aren't the only ones holding the U.S. responsible; human rights groups have been on our back for years about it. To people on that side of the world, the U.S. is not a "beacon of freedom" at all.

Originally posted by Joe
Unfortunately, our hand has been forced. You can't waltz into our biggest city, blow down the biggest buildings with everyone inside, and walk away thinking nothing will happen. We HAVE to fight now.[/b]

Yes, we must do something. Yes, someone must pay. But we aren't exactly killing Osama with these bombings! I'm all for the covert operations. I wish they'd tell us about it, but if they want to go in silent-ninja style and take out the bad guys I'm all for it. But dropping cluster bombs over a populated city? C'mon! Cluster bombs are thought to miss their targets up to 60% of the time, and frequently don't explode on impact (since they are more powerful than landmines, a reigion full of these (like Kosovo after our peacekeeping effort there) is quite dangerous). Each bomb contains 150 smaller bombs, and statistically between 5% and 12% of them don't explode on impact. So, even if these bombs are only targeted at military convoys as claimed, each will leave behind several landmines (unexploded pieces from cluster bombs) on publicly traveled roads! Civilian deaths, both immediate and delayed, are inevitable when this kind of weapon is used.

OK, I'm taking Maggie's bait and actually looking up terrorism:

• Terrorism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

The U.S. Military, an organized group, is using both force and violence against people and property with the intention of coercing a government to extradite someone. Our reasons are certainly political; and I would say our ideological differences certainly have come into play as well. All that leaves is the unlawfull part. What laws apply? I'm sure that by local laws they would consider our bombings unlawfull; by our laws killing people is unlawfull. But, as is always pointed out, people die in war. Thats just how it is.

If we can say our murder of innocent's is not a criminal act, because our leaders have declared a war (on 'evil' in general), how can we deem the WTC bombings a criminal act? They told us we were at war, after all! If war makes murder legal, then anyone the president deems evil is fair game!
(no, I just can't get over GWB's War-on-Evil speech. Especially coming from a president who is so judemental he doesn't consider Athiests citizens; THIS is the man who determines who is evil enough to be murdered by the most powerfull military in the world?)

Naturally, I think that the WTC attack was criminal. I just can't condem it without simultaneously condeming other murder of innocents. I didn't personally know anyone who died in WTC; to me the lives lost in New York are no more or less a tragedy than the people who are dying right now accross the world under U.S. bombs.

Originally posted by MaggieL
Grow up. The Taliban sponsors bombing *our* country. Repeatedly.
These scum are already under indictment for the last couple of times they did it.

I was unaware the Taliban had bombed our country. Could you elaborate? Also, I'd love to see some background on joe's claim that they are, as Iraq did in the Gulf War, using civilians as a shield. I don't know if thats true; I certainly hadn't heard that.

Also, joe: I wouldn't call someone a coward for sleeping in their chruch because they're worried about getting blown up. How's self-preservation cowardly?

Again, I realize that we have to do SOMETHING. I just don't think what were doing is effective OR morally acceptable. Can you imagine the Taliban saying "Stop! We've had enough! You can have Osama!"? Sure, it's possible, I just don't think it's very likely. So if not that, what is our goal? When will the airstrikes be done and over with?

Whit, you say you choose your daughter's saftey over the innocent neighbors of terrorists. I'm glad to hear it. But what if these attacks only fuel the terrorists' fire? We can't possibly kill all the terrorists; thats about as likely as the drug war resulting in zero domestic drug use. And the remaining terrorists (I think most will remain after this) will now have one more reason to hate America.

I try to tell myself that their hatred of the American people is misplaced, that it isn't the american people who behind the injustice in their home; but when we show national support for this war (a war that really ammounts to our own terrorist acts) it makes sense that they view the average american citizen as the enemy.

CNN has made up a list of 6 questions for Osama, and I'm very eager to hear what comes of it. They said that if they don't find his response newsworthy they don't air it; I really hope we get to hear what he says. I think more likely than not, he's guilty; but I still want to hear what the guy has to say.