Posted on 10/22/2006 3:19:49 AM PDT by aculeus
What kind of an inhuman soul are you not to see the difference?
Murder is a civilian, criminal act. You send police to arrest accused murderers. You give them a trial. You give them legal representation.
You send the military to KILL the enemy. They have no rights. If they're hidden by a civilian population, you might give the civilians a chance to clear out, or hand over those who attacked you, but if they don't, you kill them all. I'm talking about the sort of things that we did in WWII. Firebomb cities. Wipe cities off the face of the earth.
No, what the terrorists did does not follow the "rules" of warfare. Since they didn't follow those rules, there should be no expectation that we would do the same. The leftists crying about the treatment our "guests" at Gitmo are getting should have never had the chance. If these are "unlawful combattants," the only reason they should still be alive is if they're still giving useful intelligence.
When Israel was attacked by rockets, they should never have responded by doing nothing, or surgical raids. They should have unleashed hell on those firing those rockets. And the fact that they didn't completely anihilate everyone in Lebanon in those areas from which the rockets were being fired was a huge mistake.
No, I don't consider a combined, planned attack like the one staged on September 11, 2001 a murder. It was an act of war. Remember, there are such things as "war crimes." Surviving NAZIs and Japanese leaders were tried, but only after their countries were for all intents and purposes destroyed and completely unable to wage war. We need to do the same thing. Kill the terrorists. Kill their supporters. Kill those who fund them. If there's a terrorist funeral with hundreds or thousands of supporters there, drop a few cluster bombs on them. Faluja should have been razed to the ground. And if Bin Laden is still alive after killing everyone in his organization, and his supporters, and destroying or taking all their property, then we can try him for war crimes too.
Mark
Oh, and I don't agree with the whole concept of "just theory of war." Wars are fought for specific reasons. If one is attacked one fights back. But war is a horrible thing. Which is why is needs to be fought in a brutal, ugly way. You make the enemy pay in ways that they'll never forget. And if they start to forget, you hit them again, only harder. The idea is to make the enemy realize that fighing you was a really bad idea that should have never been considered in the first place. The reason those bastards even considered doing something like this is because we haven't fought a war "correctly" since WWII.
Mark
I have a glamorous sis in her forties who is an attorney also. AND will marry for the first time in February. She's just been obsessed with a successful career but trust me, she loves men! It doesn't always mean what you are hinting. However, it can mean that she is set in her ways and will soon learn more about personal compromises. heh-heh.
Sounds a bit like my lawyer brother. In his case, he picked a very pushy lady to marry. I once asked him how he stayed married to her. His reply, paraphrased, was: "In general, she's always right, I'm always wrong. If she asks what I think, I try to come up with the answer I know she wants. If she takes me to task for something, I immediately cop a guilty plea. Since I work a 70-80 hour week, there isn't that much opportunity to argue anyway. That goes both ways, since she spends about the same amount of time spending the money I don't have time or inclination to spend."
I think he's on to something.
That's right. They were MURDERED!!!!
I wish the couple all the happiness in the world.
I beleive he loved Barbara very much.
God Bless Ted Olson and his new bride.
If it is an act of war, under the rules of war - which are the law of this country - all they have to do is surrender, sign a peace treaty and they are free to go on their way.
No, what they committed was murder and they should hang for it, not be accorded the rights of an enemy combattant captured in the course of war.
You may not like the rules of war - but most military - and I am a retired officer - live and die by those rules. Your vote doesn't count.
May they have much happiness together.
I'm happy for him; God bless them both.
I often wondered how Ted was doing in his personal life. Congratulations to him. I miss Barbara so much, as everyone does. I tried to retieve her posts but they no longer exist. Too bad. I would love to read her thoughts.
"It is far worse to let her win and then later she finds out you where right!!"
Ah...but we women have let guys "win" or think they've won...for decades. They just take longer to realize that WE were right!
LOL! Hehehe...
I hate to say it but her dye job is horrible...She is also too young for him... Must be the money.
It's a bad photo. The shadows are too dark.
There is at most a 20 year difference in their ages. (He's now 66, she's "40-something"). That's not much at their ages and stages in life. They are both professional people. It's not like she's 19 years old.
Everyone has been kind on this thread, I guess there has to be one snark. Too bad.
"Life goes on."
That it does. Best wishes.
Possibly the reason Ann Coulter never married
He was 15 years older than Barbara
May God bless you, M'am.
St Helena is a nice town, the resort is beautiful, albeit pricey - http://www.meadowood.com/
She is gorgeous and he has something that attracts young beautiful women and it isn't money. He is brilliant, powerful, decent and tall. You cannot beat that.
I am happy for both of them. And I like southern girls who are named "Lady",,you don't see that elsewhere. Very classy down here.
I suspect Barbara would be glad for him. When you love someone, you don't want them alone after you go.
It seems to me that the problem with that analogy is this: Soldiers (including kamikaze bombers, as in WWII) should be targeting other soldiers and military equipment. The civilians on the hijacked airliners were never a part of the hostilities, prior to the barbarous acts of 9/11.
Even so, I agree with you that Al Qaeda intended this as an act of war; Osama bin Laden had declared war on the US as far back as the mid-1990s, and this was not the first manifestation of it. But at least the attack on the USS Cole was an attack on a military target. And the Khobar Towers bombing was an attack on military personnel. As dreadful as they were, at least they did not strike at the heart of civilized society the way the 9/11 assault did.
What we seem to have here is a gruesome hybrid: an assault that Al Qaeda clearly regarded as military in nature, but only because it has so expanded the definition of combatants as to include every "infidel" in the world. And that is an unacceptable definition of "combatants."
Since Al Qaeda has chosen to treat this as war, however, I agree that we must respond accordingly. Those on the far left--who wish to treat this as a mere law-enforcement issue--are either willfully blind or hopelessly dogmatic, or both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.