Al Jazeera bombing plot
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:52 pm
If this is true, it is definitely disconcerting:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 621S41.DTL
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 621S41.DTL
not really since that is the tv station that airs the decapitation of peopleBay Area Cat wrote:If this is true, it is definitely disconcerting:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 621S41.DTL
And who, pray tell, is "they?"BobCatFan wrote:It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
Like you're so fond of pointing out, BAC, it'll be interesting to see what the other side of the story is.Bay Area Cat wrote:If this is true, it is definitely disconcerting:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 621S41.DTL
I will be as well. I am hoping that the assertions made by the Brit aren't true. I don't want to think that thoughts like that even came up in discussions, and I particularly don't like the idea of the British having to talk us out of making a huge mistake of that magnitude. If we find that there is no merit to this story, I will be very happy.'93HonoluluCat wrote:Like you're so fond of pointing out, BAC, it'll be interesting to see what the other side of the story is.Bay Area Cat wrote:If this is true, it is definitely disconcerting:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 621S41.DTL
Hasn't Blair's political clout been getting thinner as of recently? I don't keep up with their political activity over there but wasn't something recently voted down or defeated that would have been huge for his party? Maybe this is a backlash from him as well as his supporters.Bay Area Cat wrote:Well, the guy is being charged by the UK government for leaking the information, so there must be something to it. Whether the leaked information was precisely what they are reporting is the question. They may well be manipulating the evidence to make the story they wish to make.
Oh man, so now our job is religious cleansing? Lets kill all the Jews while we're at it huh?BobCatFan wrote:It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
Radical Muslims.Grizlaw wrote:And who, pray tell, is "they?"BobCatFan wrote:It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
It's great that you think our involvement in the Middle East is purely as a gift of democracy to the Iraqi people (even though that wasn't the reason we were told we were going to war, but apparently you never believed that WMD line -- good for you). That little bit of poetry aside, what does any of this have to do with suggesting that it would have been okay to BOMB A TV STATION that is located within the borders of one of our allies?BobCatFan wrote:Radical Muslims.Grizlaw wrote:And who, pray tell, is "they?"BobCatFan wrote:It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
This is why we are in a religious war and not at war with a country. If you think we are in Iraq for oil, you need to study history and politics. We are only in Iraq to spread the benefits of democracy. We are planting the seed and hopefully it will grow like a weed in the Middle East.
War is never pretty, but as a nation cannot lose this war. Religious wars never have an easy outcome. They last decades if not centuries. The Radical Muslims have about 60-year head start on us. They have preached against the west ever since the state of Israel was created. Let us hope with modern communications, our view of the world is received and is adopted.
I agree that we are not at war with a particular country (and I have never argued that we are in Iraq because of oil; why would you assume I meant that?)BobCatFan wrote:Radical Muslims.
This is why we are in a religious war and not at war with a country. If you think we are in Iraq for oil, you need to study history and politics. We are only in Iraq to spread the benefits of democracy. We are planting the seed and hopefully it will grow like a weed in the Middle East.
War is never pretty, but as a nation cannot lose this war. Religious wars never have an easy outcome. They last decades if not centuries. The Radical Muslims have about 60-year head start on us. They have preached against the west ever since the state of Israel was created. Let us hope with modern communications, our view of the world is received and is adopted.
The Geneva Convention, and appropriately, our own military's Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) give certain provisions when striking such a target would be lawful and appropriate.BAC wrote:[W]hat does any of this have to do with suggesting that it would have been okay to BOMB A TV STATION that is located within the borders of one of our allies?
So yes, if they were housing a terrorist cell in the basement of the building or operating a chemical weapons plant in the studio, the fact that they were a civilian operation wouldn't prevent us from bombing them.'93HonoluluCat wrote:The Geneva Convention, and appropriately, our own military's Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) give certain provisions that striking such a target would be lawful and appropriate.BAC wrote:[W]hat does any of this have to do with suggesting that it would have been okay to BOMB A TV STATION that is located within the borders of one of our allies?
However, those same provisions still mandate a weighing of benefits and costs. Case in point, during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the Fedayeen Sadaam were using mosques and hospitals as supply depots for weapons and ammunition, and even sometime using them as firing positions, apparently in the hopes that the Coalition forces would not fire on them due to there location. However, the Geneva Convention, and again, the LOAC, state that the protected status of religious sites and hospitals are surrendered when used for military advantage.
I'm not making the case for bombing the al-Jazeera HQ, but just because something has civilian use doesn't mean it can't be a legitimate military target, given the right set of circumstances.
EDIT: Additionally, there no guarantee that the "official" that was arrested for leaking classified information was arrested for this specific information. It very well could be that he leaked other information in addition to this bombing allegation.
BAC wrote: think HC and I are on the same page in that we are skeptical that this idea was ever hatched and both sincerely hope that it was not. What scares me is that some people would actually advocate such an idea.