Remind me never to be suspected of anything by the American government.
-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
CIA responsible for missile attack in Yemen (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter pete
- Start date
- Replies 15
- Views 2K
- Watchers 2
Remind me never to be suspected of anything by the American government.
silo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,890
think of the reaction from america if some iranian army plane (or iraqi, or north korean, or whoever isn't in favour at the time) destroyed a car in rural iowa (killing its occupants, whom they suspect of being "terrorists") and then went to the international media to boast about the whole thing.
P. Littbarski
Well-Known Member
US strikes back in robo-wars
from todays independant online...
New Predator drone delivers death by remote control
THE CIA is deciding where next o deploy its lethal robot technology after the spectacular success of its operation against a top al-Qa'ida terrorist ambushed in the Yemeni desert.
Military experts say that, when the CIA used a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft to fire Hellfire missiles at a vehicle carrying six suspects, America was pursuing a revolutionary new form of warfare in which no terrorist will be safe anywhere in the world.
The Predator can range over hundreds of miles. It strikes without warning. In America's no-holds-barred war against terrorism, distant operators, hunched over their computer screens, act as judge, jury and executioner.
As the al-Qa'ida gang bumped across the Yemeni desert in a black Toyato Landcruiser on Sunday afternoon it had no idea it was being watched by a team of CIA agents hundreds of miles away, manoeuvring a camera on the nose of the Predator drone 25,000ft overhead.
The vehicle carried Ali Qaed Sunian al-Harthi, who allegedly masterminded the attack on the USS Cole.
Minutes later he became the first victim, outside Afghanistan, to be killed by what the CIA are calling their "robo-assassin".
The identity of the man who launched the missile will never be revealed, nor where he was based.
He could have been at a military base in Yemen, across the Red Sea in Djibouti, or working from the control room at US Central Command in Tampa Florida.
The terrible beauty of this new warfare is that death is delivered by an unseen hand.
Clifford Beal, Editor of Jane's Defence Weekly said: "To use a remote controlled drone that engages and kills people, that is quite a threshold to cross. This is the beginning of robotic warfare.
"There is underlying tension in the military about using it, but the CIA does not have any qualms.
"This is really the first success story of this system ... It doesn't seem they were given the opportunity to surrender. They were taken out Israeli-style."
The CIA is reported to have used the same Predator drone in Afghanistan in March when it blew up a villa just outside Kabul being used a hideout by Mohammed Atef, said to be third in command of al-Qa'ida.
The CIA does not need to seek permission from Washington anymore before they fire. President Bush has agreed that to fight al-Qa'ida and the terrorist threat the US needs a new rapid response philosophy that boils down to "who sees it, shoots it."
This mission began on Sunday afternoon when Ali Qaed Sunian al-Harthi, a confidant of Osama bin Laden climbed into his Landcruiser with five colleagues at a farmhouse in the mountains of Marib.
He was being watched by a Yemeni undercover agent.
The Yemeni spy passed details of the car to the CIA who had a drone pick up the al-Qa'ida team as it wound its way down the mountain and joined the main highway heading towards the neighbouring province of Shabwa.
The pin-sharp live pictures sent back by the drone showed the car veer off the road at al-Naqaa just before it reached a military checkpoint.
As the Toyota turned onto a desert track and picked up speed in what is known as the Empty Quarter, it was decimated by the Hellfire missiles.
There was little left of the vehicle - just enough for Yemeni investigators to say it was carrying explosives, sophisticated communications equipment and weapons.Eyewitnesses say those inside were burnt beyond recognition - all except Harthi, better known as Abu Ali, who was identified in the wreckage.The Americans had been hunting Abu Ali for two years.
The last time a US-trained force of Yemeni troops tried to ambush him, at a hideout in the tribal village of al-Hosun in December, 18 soldiers were killed and he escaped.
from todays independant online...
New Predator drone delivers death by remote control
THE CIA is deciding where next o deploy its lethal robot technology after the spectacular success of its operation against a top al-Qa'ida terrorist ambushed in the Yemeni desert.
Military experts say that, when the CIA used a remote-controlled unmanned aircraft to fire Hellfire missiles at a vehicle carrying six suspects, America was pursuing a revolutionary new form of warfare in which no terrorist will be safe anywhere in the world.
The Predator can range over hundreds of miles. It strikes without warning. In America's no-holds-barred war against terrorism, distant operators, hunched over their computer screens, act as judge, jury and executioner.
As the al-Qa'ida gang bumped across the Yemeni desert in a black Toyato Landcruiser on Sunday afternoon it had no idea it was being watched by a team of CIA agents hundreds of miles away, manoeuvring a camera on the nose of the Predator drone 25,000ft overhead.
The vehicle carried Ali Qaed Sunian al-Harthi, who allegedly masterminded the attack on the USS Cole.
Minutes later he became the first victim, outside Afghanistan, to be killed by what the CIA are calling their "robo-assassin".
The identity of the man who launched the missile will never be revealed, nor where he was based.
He could have been at a military base in Yemen, across the Red Sea in Djibouti, or working from the control room at US Central Command in Tampa Florida.
The terrible beauty of this new warfare is that death is delivered by an unseen hand.
Clifford Beal, Editor of Jane's Defence Weekly said: "To use a remote controlled drone that engages and kills people, that is quite a threshold to cross. This is the beginning of robotic warfare.
"There is underlying tension in the military about using it, but the CIA does not have any qualms.
"This is really the first success story of this system ... It doesn't seem they were given the opportunity to surrender. They were taken out Israeli-style."
The CIA is reported to have used the same Predator drone in Afghanistan in March when it blew up a villa just outside Kabul being used a hideout by Mohammed Atef, said to be third in command of al-Qa'ida.
The CIA does not need to seek permission from Washington anymore before they fire. President Bush has agreed that to fight al-Qa'ida and the terrorist threat the US needs a new rapid response philosophy that boils down to "who sees it, shoots it."
This mission began on Sunday afternoon when Ali Qaed Sunian al-Harthi, a confidant of Osama bin Laden climbed into his Landcruiser with five colleagues at a farmhouse in the mountains of Marib.
He was being watched by a Yemeni undercover agent.
The Yemeni spy passed details of the car to the CIA who had a drone pick up the al-Qa'ida team as it wound its way down the mountain and joined the main highway heading towards the neighbouring province of Shabwa.
The pin-sharp live pictures sent back by the drone showed the car veer off the road at al-Naqaa just before it reached a military checkpoint.
As the Toyota turned onto a desert track and picked up speed in what is known as the Empty Quarter, it was decimated by the Hellfire missiles.
There was little left of the vehicle - just enough for Yemeni investigators to say it was carrying explosives, sophisticated communications equipment and weapons.Eyewitnesses say those inside were burnt beyond recognition - all except Harthi, better known as Abu Ali, who was identified in the wreckage.The Americans had been hunting Abu Ali for two years.
The last time a US-trained force of Yemeni troops tried to ambush him, at a hideout in the tribal village of al-Hosun in December, 18 soldiers were killed and he escaped.
why doesn't any of this surprise me?
i think im becoming immune to being shocked at america's evilness*
*i know evilness prolly isnt a word but it sounds right godammit!
i think im becoming immune to being shocked at america's evilness*
*i know evilness prolly isnt a word but it sounds right godammit!
Dan
New Member
I feel like someone must have felt watching Nazi germany slowly come together in the early thirties...
YankeeGobshite
New Member
In an ideal world, the Yemenis would arrest them and try them, but we don't live in an ideal world, do we?
For all we know, the Yemeni government asked the CIA to do this, so they wouldn't go through the embarassment of extradition, and being seen as being in bed with the Infidel by their people.
Remember, a few weeks ago the yemenis tried to arrest this bloke and ended up losing 18 men killed.
I doubt that if he had been arrested by more normal means that the result would be any different at the hands of the yemeni justice system. This guy had been wanted for years, and was a dead man whether the yemeni authorities or the american agents caught him. This bloke was no saint, i dont see why people are so quick to condemn his being killed.
For all we know, the Yemeni government asked the CIA to do this, so they wouldn't go through the embarassment of extradition, and being seen as being in bed with the Infidel by their people.
Remember, a few weeks ago the yemenis tried to arrest this bloke and ended up losing 18 men killed.
I doubt that if he had been arrested by more normal means that the result would be any different at the hands of the yemeni justice system. This guy had been wanted for years, and was a dead man whether the yemeni authorities or the american agents caught him. This bloke was no saint, i dont see why people are so quick to condemn his being killed.
- Thread starter
- #7
oh boy. I don't know where to start. So i'm not going to bother.
no actually i am.
briefly:
the precedent set
the double standards
the right to a trial
the principle of the death penalty
the arbitrary use of same
the casual murder of his companions
you can fill in the blanks yourself
steve albino
New Member
This bloke was no saint, i dont see why people are so quick to condemn his being killed. [/B][/QUOTE]
The officials said the missile strike demonstrated that the United States was prepared to employ deadly force against individual suspects in countries like Yemen, where Al Qaeda is believed to have regrouped in recent months, the Times reported in its online edition.
"suspects", not "connvicted" or even officially "accused"
"is believed to have", not "has" or even "estimated to have"
that's why people are so quick to condemn his being killed.
As for the "no saint" bit if we apply the same standards everywhere (and it's pretty difficult to justify realistically doing otherwise) then consider the PROVEN crimes(with all the little trivialities like real evidence, official documentation, judgements rendered by respected independent international bodies, governmental and otherwise including the only condemnation of a country by the World Court) of almost every US president going back a long ways and try to explain why they shouldn't recieve the same treatment.
The officials said the missile strike demonstrated that the United States was prepared to employ deadly force against individual suspects in countries like Yemen, where Al Qaeda is believed to have regrouped in recent months, the Times reported in its online edition.
"suspects", not "connvicted" or even officially "accused"
"is believed to have", not "has" or even "estimated to have"
that's why people are so quick to condemn his being killed.
As for the "no saint" bit if we apply the same standards everywhere (and it's pretty difficult to justify realistically doing otherwise) then consider the PROVEN crimes(with all the little trivialities like real evidence, official documentation, judgements rendered by respected independent international bodies, governmental and otherwise including the only condemnation of a country by the World Court) of almost every US president going back a long ways and try to explain why they shouldn't recieve the same treatment.
silo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,890
yankee gobshite...
if you do something like this, the precedent is set that you believe in it as a justifiable principle. so, can your comments be generalized into a principle? the israeli government has done just that: it has a policy of "targeted killing". but, to illustrate whether you really believe in a principle, that should mean that other people have the right to apply it to you. so... back to the point about rural iowa.
plus what pete said.
if you do something like this, the precedent is set that you believe in it as a justifiable principle. so, can your comments be generalized into a principle? the israeli government has done just that: it has a policy of "targeted killing". but, to illustrate whether you really believe in a principle, that should mean that other people have the right to apply it to you. so... back to the point about rural iowa.
plus what pete said.
InsidePoint
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 56
My head 100% agrees with the "the precedent set, the double standards, the right to a trial, etc, etc..." But my heart keeps thinking about the 200 murdered in Bali and the 3000 murdered in New York - so that side of me says: "Fúck Al Qaeda, let them rot." As for that Iowa comparison, I don't imagine there are many Iowa groups that have deliberately attacked and murdered 3200 innocent people. At the end of the day, if it's a "War on Terror", then you should expect terrorists to get what's coming to them. It would be preferable if they were arrested and charged, but when it boils down to it, I've no sympathy for them.
silo
Active Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,890
only one of the points that comes to mind is: would it not be far more just to the victims and the perpetrators to bring them infront of the world court/i.c.c. and have them mete out justice?
how many would like to?
http://www.hartungpress.com/MilitiaGroups.html
think of what was the single greatest terrorist outrage carried out in america prior to september 11th 2001: the oklahoma bombing, carried out by a man (or men) who saw himself as carrying out a patriotic duty to america.
fine, but the people giving them "what's coming" are far greater terrorists: is there no room for a sense of proportion? surely rights and justice should be universal, as described here: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/9708-UD-relativity.html
etc.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2000
- Messages
- 901
My head 100% agrees with the "the precedent set, the double standards, the right to a trial, etc, etc..." But my heart keeps thinking about the murdered in Birmingham and Guildford- so that side of me says: "Fúck Giuseppe Conlon and Gerry Conlon and the rest of those IRA bastards, let them rot. (and who cares if they turn out to be innocent later on?)"
Or as Christina Aquilera said,
"My mind is saying no,
But my body's saying let's go"
YankeeGobshite
New Member
Precedent set?
Precedent set?
I dont see this as unprecedented at all. Governments around the world have been assassinating people as long as there have been governments, from Caesar to Michael Collins. The only thing precedented about it was the weapon system employed. (not that that makes assassination right, mind you, but lets be real here) This is a human phenomenon, not an american one.
The Iowa analogy is incorrect in my opinion. The major difference is this was done with the complicity of the Yemeni govt; with their knowledge and consent. So, an american analogy would be if the American govt. couldn't assert control over outlaws in Texas and asked the Mexican government to apprehend/assassinate people in the texas desert since the US Border patrol couldn't catch them on their own.
A bit of a disclaimer, I'm not a conservative, I'm not for the war in Iraq, I wish americans would travel more and talk less and be more worldly and less. . .well. . .*ahem*. . American. I wish the US would agree with the EU in matters like Kyoto and the Israeli/palestinian conflict. For me it's really ironic; on the American message board I post to (www.fark.com) I'm constantly slammed as Pinko Commie Scum; its somewhat of a novelty to find myself arguing against the Left for once.
As to what pete said, well, i agree in principle with everything he said if we were dealing with civilian, peace time matters. But the United States, rightly or wrongly, doesnt see itself at peace at the moment, and this helps explain its actions in this case to some degree, i think, better than saying its evil and thuggish. The United States is not technically at war, since war is a condition which exists between two Nation States, but an act of war has undenialby been committed against the United States, and they are obliged to go after those responsible in whatever way they can.
Since those who committed the acts belong to an international organization and are not a government, there's no clear military objective like in ww2. So the intellegence agencies along with the military are required to work together to disassemble al qaeda, which, ironically, it basically built in the 80s. This is why I personally don't see it as oxymoronical that I can believe in the idealism of pete and silo, and at the same time not really have a problem with blowing these guys up (I'm personally much more frightened by Bushcroft's lack of respect for the UN and their pushing of the Iraqi Crisis); people are killed in war. And as far as the argument that they were not convicted, merely suspects. . .well, you're of course technically right. There's nothing I can say to refute that on purely rhetorical or legal grounds. I will say this though: If the CIA knew about this through guy for enough years through intellegence circles, enough to build a comprehensive file on him and to trace him back to Afghanistan in the 80s, link him with the Bombing of the USS Cole, the Tanker bombing of last month, and devoted the resources and time to track him all over yemen and back and set up a drone to get him. . . . that implies to me they had "beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was their man. The resources required to do this are not insignificant, so I highly doubt that it was a random act, or an act done under duress or public pressure like the Guilford Four.
I believe in the ideals set by men like Chomsky, and agree that type of thinking is the way forward (well, he could be a little less guilt ridden i suppose). I also don't think that his type of idealism can be applied to the world yet; there's still too much ignorance too much hatred and too many people who, for a variety of reasons, are bent beyond salvation. These people, i hate to say, don't bother me a bit when they blow themselves up trying to sneak into israel with c4 on their chests, or when they're hit with Hellfire missiles in Yemen.
As much as the West is obliged to not only use the wealth and influence at its disposal to do its best to stop the perpetuation of the conditions which produce these types of individuals through peaceful means, (a la correcting the wrongs pointed out in "why do they hate us" by Chomsky, an independent Palestinian State, settlement with the Chechens) I feel Nations have the right to hunt down and destroy those who are responsible for acts of terrorism (al qaeda, the martyrs brigade/militant hamas, the terrorists in the moscow theater).
The carrot is the best way, and the only way long term, but the stick has its role as well, I'm afraid.
on a side note, steve albino: you have a link to that condemnation of the world court? i would be interested to read that.
Precedent set?
I dont see this as unprecedented at all. Governments around the world have been assassinating people as long as there have been governments, from Caesar to Michael Collins. The only thing precedented about it was the weapon system employed. (not that that makes assassination right, mind you, but lets be real here) This is a human phenomenon, not an american one.
The Iowa analogy is incorrect in my opinion. The major difference is this was done with the complicity of the Yemeni govt; with their knowledge and consent. So, an american analogy would be if the American govt. couldn't assert control over outlaws in Texas and asked the Mexican government to apprehend/assassinate people in the texas desert since the US Border patrol couldn't catch them on their own.
A bit of a disclaimer, I'm not a conservative, I'm not for the war in Iraq, I wish americans would travel more and talk less and be more worldly and less. . .well. . .*ahem*. . American. I wish the US would agree with the EU in matters like Kyoto and the Israeli/palestinian conflict. For me it's really ironic; on the American message board I post to (www.fark.com) I'm constantly slammed as Pinko Commie Scum; its somewhat of a novelty to find myself arguing against the Left for once.
As to what pete said, well, i agree in principle with everything he said if we were dealing with civilian, peace time matters. But the United States, rightly or wrongly, doesnt see itself at peace at the moment, and this helps explain its actions in this case to some degree, i think, better than saying its evil and thuggish. The United States is not technically at war, since war is a condition which exists between two Nation States, but an act of war has undenialby been committed against the United States, and they are obliged to go after those responsible in whatever way they can.
Since those who committed the acts belong to an international organization and are not a government, there's no clear military objective like in ww2. So the intellegence agencies along with the military are required to work together to disassemble al qaeda, which, ironically, it basically built in the 80s. This is why I personally don't see it as oxymoronical that I can believe in the idealism of pete and silo, and at the same time not really have a problem with blowing these guys up (I'm personally much more frightened by Bushcroft's lack of respect for the UN and their pushing of the Iraqi Crisis); people are killed in war. And as far as the argument that they were not convicted, merely suspects. . .well, you're of course technically right. There's nothing I can say to refute that on purely rhetorical or legal grounds. I will say this though: If the CIA knew about this through guy for enough years through intellegence circles, enough to build a comprehensive file on him and to trace him back to Afghanistan in the 80s, link him with the Bombing of the USS Cole, the Tanker bombing of last month, and devoted the resources and time to track him all over yemen and back and set up a drone to get him. . . . that implies to me they had "beyond a reasonable doubt" that this was their man. The resources required to do this are not insignificant, so I highly doubt that it was a random act, or an act done under duress or public pressure like the Guilford Four.
I believe in the ideals set by men like Chomsky, and agree that type of thinking is the way forward (well, he could be a little less guilt ridden i suppose). I also don't think that his type of idealism can be applied to the world yet; there's still too much ignorance too much hatred and too many people who, for a variety of reasons, are bent beyond salvation. These people, i hate to say, don't bother me a bit when they blow themselves up trying to sneak into israel with c4 on their chests, or when they're hit with Hellfire missiles in Yemen.
As much as the West is obliged to not only use the wealth and influence at its disposal to do its best to stop the perpetuation of the conditions which produce these types of individuals through peaceful means, (a la correcting the wrongs pointed out in "why do they hate us" by Chomsky, an independent Palestinian State, settlement with the Chechens) I feel Nations have the right to hunt down and destroy those who are responsible for acts of terrorism (al qaeda, the martyrs brigade/militant hamas, the terrorists in the moscow theater).
The carrot is the best way, and the only way long term, but the stick has its role as well, I'm afraid.
on a side note, steve albino: you have a link to that condemnation of the world court? i would be interested to read that.
steve albino
New Member
In 1984 Nicaragua sued the United States in the World Court (the International Court of Justice at the Hague, in the Netherlands), for damages inflicted by the U.S.-sponsored para-military force known as the Contras. The Court ruled, in 1986, that the U.S. government had broken international law through its
support for the Contras, and ordered the United States to pay reparations. The amount was not specified, but estimates ran as high as $17 billion dollars at the time.
Although the U.S. is a signatory to the Court, and in fact had won a judgement there just a few years earlier against Iran for the taking of American hostages, our government refused to pay any damages or even recognize the Court's decision.
Any search on Yahoo for the ICJ in the Hague will get you there.
As for hunting down terrorists. Does that include Israel (in violation of a UN security council resolution), Turkey (gassed Kurds in the 80,s), the US (the Contra's in Salvador), Guatemala in 1954, the overtrow of Allendé in Chili, Vietnam which all fall under the US definition of Terrorism as "using force against a civillian population for a political end". Why are your examples all Islamic ones?
As for our friend in Yemen, has the CIA given evidence for it's suspicions, has it produced and credible (even verifiable) information or are you basing your information on uncorroborated CIA statements? Do you need evidence to undermine the truth of the CIA's statements?
If we go hunting then apply the idea of equity among peoples (or give a reasonable justification why not) and any number of counrties (Nicaragua, Chili, Cambodia, Grenada, Japan, Guatemala etc) would have verified, internationally documented legitimate reason to start bombing the US immediately...
support for the Contras, and ordered the United States to pay reparations. The amount was not specified, but estimates ran as high as $17 billion dollars at the time.
Although the U.S. is a signatory to the Court, and in fact had won a judgement there just a few years earlier against Iran for the taking of American hostages, our government refused to pay any damages or even recognize the Court's decision.
Any search on Yahoo for the ICJ in the Hague will get you there.
As for hunting down terrorists. Does that include Israel (in violation of a UN security council resolution), Turkey (gassed Kurds in the 80,s), the US (the Contra's in Salvador), Guatemala in 1954, the overtrow of Allendé in Chili, Vietnam which all fall under the US definition of Terrorism as "using force against a civillian population for a political end". Why are your examples all Islamic ones?
As for our friend in Yemen, has the CIA given evidence for it's suspicions, has it produced and credible (even verifiable) information or are you basing your information on uncorroborated CIA statements? Do you need evidence to undermine the truth of the CIA's statements?
If we go hunting then apply the idea of equity among peoples (or give a reasonable justification why not) and any number of counrties (Nicaragua, Chili, Cambodia, Grenada, Japan, Guatemala etc) would have verified, internationally documented legitimate reason to start bombing the US immediately...
- Thread starter
- #15
The precedent i referred to wasn't political assasination - i meant the fact that the CIA stood up and said "Hi! We decided to take this 'bad guy' out, along with anyone unfortunate enough to be travelling with him. Got a problem with that?". In the past, the CIA would at least have tried to hide what they did / how they did it. Under cover of the "war on terror", they can basically do whatever they damn well like. And i don't mean the US Government - I mean the CIA specifically, who have been given carte blanche by Bush to take out whoever they see fit in the "war on terror", without first seeking White House approval.
As to the united states not being at war... well the US has been at war for the last 50 years. The only things that changed were the scenery and the face of the "bad guy".
The way I feel about this whole thing pretty much boils down to one issue - I don't agree with the death penalty. Under any circumstances. So the idea of the US (or any) government saying "we've decided to kill person X because of reason Y" either as punishment for some (unproven) crime or as a precautionary measure is just plain wrong.
Like you, I don't lose any sleep when terrorists blow themselves up accidentally, or if some suicide bomber is taken out when they're about to blow up a bus load of civilians. But it does bother me when Mossad decide to assasinate alleged "terrorists", and manage to take out their entire families too. And it does bother me when the CIA has free reign to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Who's next?
As to the united states not being at war... well the US has been at war for the last 50 years. The only things that changed were the scenery and the face of the "bad guy".
The way I feel about this whole thing pretty much boils down to one issue - I don't agree with the death penalty. Under any circumstances. So the idea of the US (or any) government saying "we've decided to kill person X because of reason Y" either as punishment for some (unproven) crime or as a precautionary measure is just plain wrong.
Like you, I don't lose any sleep when terrorists blow themselves up accidentally, or if some suicide bomber is taken out when they're about to blow up a bus load of civilians. But it does bother me when Mossad decide to assasinate alleged "terrorists", and manage to take out their entire families too. And it does bother me when the CIA has free reign to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Who's next?
steve albino
New Member
Has anyone thought to ask "Why do these people decide to blow themselves up?". Obviously the brainwashed/religious fanatic description applys to some of them but there are others which are less easy to explain, for example the first female suicide bomber - a former ambulance volunteer in Palestine with no connection to any millitant group. This woman spent her days saving people's lives, and then what? She just becam an overnight religious nut and deided to blow up some jews and herself? Or maybe being confronted with a reality of an unjust, illegal and inequal conflict day in and day out she cracked and was manipulated to commit a terrible act. Would you or I be any different? Reducing these people to easily dismissed stereotypes doesn't help anyone's understanding of the situation. What's the alternative? Negotiate? With who? Go through legal channels? Take the States and Israel to court? What court? Nicaragua did that in the example I gave earlier, they were ignored. Does anyone here have a real, workable alternative course of action?
When any sane indvidual is reduced to such a horrific act that should make all of us lose sleep.
When any sane indvidual is reduced to such a horrific act that should make all of us lose sleep.
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
21 Day Calendar
Similar threads
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now
