Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
You're still young, Cheese, so I won't jump all over that comment. Think about this, however, the Japanese at the time never went to bat for us the way we did for the Muslims being "cleansed" by the Serbians at close to the same time as 9/11.

We went to bat for the Muslims? I thought we went to bat in the interests of increasing our influence within the former Soviet sphere, while simultaneously working to secure territory for a potential petroleum pipeline.

Anyway, I'm sure the Muslim population of Kosovo was the prime concern of a terrorist group lead by Egyptian ex patriot veterans of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Clearly the latter were biting the hand that feeds.

A lot of people supported taking action to stop the genicide that was going over there. I remember it well because my father was dying at the time and I remember thinking how lucky we were that he could die in honor with his family gathered around instead of being dragged to a ditch and shot like a dog.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I've read some other comments about the upcoming trial and wonder what evidence will be allowed and whether Obama's ill chosen comment will be played upon.

It may be, but what jury (In Manhattan no less) will not deliver a conviction? If the prosecutor is even remotely competent I can't imagine this being anything short of a formality.

But that makes the trial no better than what we rail against happening in other countries.

Unless the President is the judge, or one of the jury, nothing he says will have any more water than every other person in the USA that has said the same thing.

By formality, dogma means and open and shut case, if you will.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Before you jump out with the 'it was necessary' argument, don't you think the 11/9 bombers felt the same way?

I've come up with four possible interpretations of this statement:

A. Hitler wasn't evil, because he thought he was doing the right thing, and that's enough.

B. Doing the right thing is evil, because Hitler thought he was doing the right thing, and it was still evil.

C. Evil doesn't exist, even though I just said America has done horrendous things, which should be an impossibility.

D. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but grr, atomic bombs bad (even though a lot more civilians died from conventional bombing by the allies), and since I can't make a good case for the dropping of them not having been necessary I'll try and get everyone else to ignore this vital flaw in my analogy.

Cheese Elemental wrote:Making him suffer won't bring back the 11/9 victims.

America has done pretty horrendous things too.

Yeah, let's not point fingers there mate, noone's hands are clean; just ask the aborigines.

I'm not saying Australia hasn't done awful things too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
D. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but grr, atomic bombs bad (even though a lot more civilians died from conventional bombing by the allies), and since I can't make a good case for the dropping of them not having been necessary I'll try and get everyone else to ignore this vital flaw in my analogy.

Well, yes, dropping big bombs bad, simply put. I'm going to back out of this now because it's only a matter of time before Frazzled comes in and yells at me for not loving America, and I'd rather not start anymore shitstorms.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'm sure you didn't know the feeling that the Japanese felt when you killed over 200,000 civilians with the atomic bombs.

Before you jump out with the 'it was necessary' argument, don't you think the 11/9 bombers felt the same way?

I think I've figured out that you're just being argumentative here but a little research into history may be in order.
1. the fire bombing of tokyo killed more people per square kilometer than both atomic bombs so if you want to make a point, at least make a valid one.
2. The Japanese were equally brutal..bataan death march (more than 20,000), rape of nanjing (300,000 people killed), "black christmas" in hong kong (rape of 30,000 women), colonization of Korea. Ever heard of comfort women? And the top of all tops, Operation Sanko which resulted in the murder of an estimated 2.7 million noncombatants in China.

Yeah, you're right; America's evil.

OverbossGhurzubMoga wrote:

What do you remember? What do you remember feeling when that morning happened?

I remember
Fear. That they may hit near me.
Oh and dontget mad at me for expressing my opinion either.

But that makes the trial no better than what we rail against happening in other countries.

No, it just means that we've had 8 years of evidence gathering and multiple tribunals and special inquiries already. We aren't cutting his hands off for stealing, he's a foreign enemy national who, if convicted, is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. Exactly what is your deal here? Do you take issue with the fact that the public isn't totally absent any sort of emotion over the issue until after the verdict is given? The trial hasn't even started yet.

What do you remember? What do you remember feeling when that morning happened?

I was mostly unaffected. Classes were canceled afterwords which I was happy about, and I distinctly remember thinking the kids that laughed at the big buildings going down were being a bit insensitive and stupid. Otherwise I felt then as I do now. It happened, I wasn't in the buildings, get the feth over it. Maybe I'm cold but more people die from car accidents every year and there's no national memorial to the ford dead.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'm not saying Australia hasn't done awful things too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
D. I have no idea what I'm talking about, but grr, atomic bombs bad (even though a lot more civilians died from conventional bombing by the allies), and since I can't make a good case for the dropping of them not having been necessary I'll try and get everyone else to ignore this vital flaw in my analogy.

Well, yes, dropping big bombs bad, simply put. I'm going to back out of this now because it's only a matter of time before Frazzled comes in and yells at me for not loving America, and I'd rather not start anymore shitstorms.

America has done some bad things, but simply put the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not one of them. I mean, you could use the Japanese internment in the same war, or one of the many autocratic dictators we supported, or the treatment of blacks and natives by the government earlier on, or the bombing of Dresden, or our dubious reasons for going to war with Spain, or a dozen other things as examples of America having done wrong. None of these examples would put us close to Al Qaeda, so I'm not sure how relevant those things really are, but they would underscore the concept at least.

The atomic bombings are not on that list. It was either that or continue with a war that would have resulted in massive starvation, mounting casualties in China and the other parts of Asia where Japan still had forces, brutal treatment of the Japanese wherever they fought the USSR, or a brutal mainland attack (Operation Downfall) that would have had ten times as many casualties. As I said, the atomic bombings really weren’t a new chapter in casualties inflicted, or in pain caused by the war. We killed more with conventional carpet bombing. There was massive starvation coming to surface in Japan that matched anything radiation can do. Most of the Japanese army was killed by disease and hunger, not by Allied fighting, and a lot more would have died as then war continued.

Read my post below I have no idea what happened.

Cane wrote:Don't see how its going to be "jacked up" but Obama definitely is speaking on a level that most Americans are at when it comes to the 9/11 mastermind. Plus Obama isn't exactly a judge so he can't determine this case; which is relatively shut and close anyway.

Give him death. More than deserves it.

Political interference should be neither present nor seen to be present. It's a dangerous path to move down, when the President starts giving opinions on the verdicts of future trials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The civilian trial is little more than PR gesture. The conditions will not especially differ from those in a military court room in terms of the hostility of process.

Yeah, this. Especially considering Obama's words on the subject.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sexiest_hero wrote:Unless the President is the judge, or one of the jury, nothing he says will have any more water than every other person in the USA that has said the same thing.

Powerful political figures have a long history of influencing trials through soft power. Not saying that's happening here, but Obama has taken a step down a dangerous path.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:I remember
Fear. That they may hit near me.

I remember when the Bali bombing occurred, my first thought was for my uncle, on the coaching staff of a football team holidaying in Bali at the time. While he had withdrawn from the trip at the last minute, it later turned out a significant portion of the team was in the bar that night. Seven of their players died that night.

I later found out the brother of a good friend of mine had left the bar minutes before the explosion, and entered the burning building to drag wounded out. I believe he still struggles with PTSD to this day.

Despite that, terrorism remains a civilian crime, and needs to be dealt with through the criminal justice system. No matter how afraid you personally are.

Sorry bout the weird post i have no idea what happened

America has done some bad things, but simply put the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not one of them. I mean, you could use the Japanese internment in the same war, or one of the many autocratic dictators we supported, or the treatment of blacks and natives by the government earlier on, or the bombing of Dresden, or our dubious reasons for going to war with Spain, or a dozen other things as examples of America having done wrong. None of these examples would put us close to Al Qaeda, so I'm not sure how relevant those things really are, but they would underscore the concept at least

Hmm I guess hase done some cruddy things. maybe i should reconsider my view points


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:I remember
Fear. That they may hit near me.

I remember when the Bali bombing occurred, my first thought was for my uncle, on the coaching staff of a football team holidaying in Bali at the time. While he had withdrawn from the trip at the last minute, it later turned out a significant portion of the team was in the bar that night. Seven of their players died that night.

I later found out the brother of a good friend of mine had left the bar minutes before the explosion, and entered the burning building to drag wounded out. I believe he still struggles with PTSD to this day.

Despite that, terrorism remains a civilian crime, and needs to be dealt with through the criminal justice system. No matter how afraid you personally are.

Hmm i guess my complaint does pale in comparision towards that. I have no idead what came over me. 9/11 just fires me up for some reason.

Im sorry dakka.

Aun O' Bama stole the show by vocally closing Gitmo in his first week of office (IIRC its still open for business) now with his problems mounting he has a nice distraction for his electorate. A show trial mounted within a symbolic distance of the 9/11 outrages.

I say show trial because the rhetoric behind the event pre-ordains a guilty verdict. 'We are going to give a fair trial and then hang'? Really. Just stop and think for a moment what that means, the quote I got was that 'we have no intention to incarcerate'. Already worldwide this smacks of a Sovietesque show trial, with the sentencing pre-established, long before there is jury selection or even a conviction which is required as no more than a parade to give dramatic timing to the inevitable bloodletting.

Then the case can run into three further problems. First it is unlikely at best for anyone accused of the 9/11 massacres to get an unbiased jury in New York, and the fact that the trial will go ahead despite the blatant reality of the fact will not go unnoticed.

Second it can be not unreasonably suggested that much of the evidence against the accused was likely obtained though questionable methods normally not admissible in court, including torture. Also intelligence witnesses might bot be available for cross-examination. Such evidence would normally pose problems in the US legal system and the usual opportunities for the defence council to call for a mistrial will be notably absent.

Third and most poiniently the sentencing, as predescribed, is no deterent. To locals it might feel like a measure of 'justice', but experience teaches us that terrorists fear incarceration more than death. The death penalty turns a terrorist into a martyr, and in the case of an islamic fundamentalist the verdict is even welcomed. Inlamic terrorists have in the past requested the death penalty so that they can go to Allah as martyrs. This court will either have to record this mans expected martyrdom speech - which will inspire many others, or 'gag' his response to prevent him such opportunity - which will also be noticed and thus also inspire.

Previous trials of 9/11 suspects were conducted quietly away from pubicity and ended in incarceration without parole or outside contact, thus preventing a martyrs death and entombing the convicted party within a stern justic system as a labelled common murderer as opposed to a political opponent. This sends the correct message.

We know this to be true from experiences with terrorists from Northern Ireland and elsewhere, imprisonment was a far better deterent than death and trials were not to be held in the region that the offences took place in order not to seed a jury unfairly.

All this means not a jot to Obama, who needs this circus to dazzle the populace and distract the masses from their daily problems. After all they have already been promised a juicy execution in the spoiler, they can't wait for the 'trial'.

I disagree.

By executing them publicly, you make them martyrs. That's exactly what they, and their terrorist organization, wants.

Better to do the trial, sentence them to life imprisonment, then lock em up in the most foul prison they can throw em. No more public media news covering them, no more inquiries, just straight throw em away and let the public and the world forget about them.

They'll be targets in prison anyway and that's where the punishment will begin.....hopefully for years and years.


These guys want death and they want the world to see them. Better to deny them the things they want.

Exactly.

I say we set 'em free, let them report back to Osama.

And then we detonate the nuclear device cleverly hidden in their stomachs.

Kaboom! A few thousand birds with one massive, radioactive, mushroom clouded stone!

Doombot001 wrote:I disagree.

By executing them publicly, you make them martyrs. That's exactly what they, and their terrorist organization, wants.

How is this disagreeing?

Orlanth wrote:

Doombot001 wrote:I disagree.

By executing them publicly, you make them martyrs. That's exactly what they, and their terrorist organization, wants.

How is this disagreeing?

Most people are advocating for their deaths publicly. I disagree on that point. Sentence to life imprisonment, let the public forget about them. The other inmates in the prison will love to have them as cellies.

Did you read the post directly above to which you replied 'I disagree'?

Orlanth wrote:Did you read the post directly above to which you replied 'I disagree'?

Honestly, no. I was disagreeing with what appears to be the general consensus of the thread. After posting, I read your article and it is very insightful.

I agree with your post, not with the general consensus.

But maybe when he dies he will get his 72 virgins but they will all be a bunch of male nerds playing video gamel.

Relapse wrote:
A lot of people supported taking action to stop the genicide that was going over there. I remember it well because my father was dying at the time and I remember thinking how lucky we were that he could die in honor with his family gathered around instead of being dragged to a ditch and shot like a dog.

True enough, but that's not usually a motivating factor for a politician looking to open hostilities with another nation. It can be a means of justifying a strategic choice, but that's usually as far as it goes.

Relapse wrote:
But that makes the trial no better than what we rail against happening in other countries.

True, but its still considerably better than having the same case made in a military tribunal (from the standpoint of professed ideals). At some point it isn't about justice as an ideal, but justice as a realistic process. I'm sure, given the profile of the case, that special attention will be paid to at least the appearance of a fair hearing.

In general, I support the notion that accusations of terrorism should be made in civilian courts. However, I don't think the judgment should be left to a jury, as the 'of peers' clause is most certainly impossible to fulfill. But that's a matter of legislative discussion not necessarily relevant to this specific case.

Also, I agree with Orlanth in concluding that this case should have been handled more quietly, though its still possible (but highly unlikely) that the judge will limit the sentence to life without parole. Ideally, I would have liked to see the case postponed until a proper system of prosecution could have been developed, but the healthcare fiasco pretty well prevented that from happening.

garret wrote:Y'know cheese you really dont have the right to say anthing about this. You dont know the feeling we felt when the towers fell. so be quiet OK.

"Freedom of speech, that's some mother fething bs."

garret wrote:If i was the judge i wouldnt give him any sentence he would be set free on the streets of new york.

I'd be down with that actually.
Inform the populace he will be dropped off in Time Square.
Place a barrel of hot tar on one corner, a bag of feathers in another, and a rope on a third.
New Yorkers will know what to do.

Its all a distraction anyway so that the citizenry are distracted from 10.2% unemployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Making him suffer won't bring back the 11/9 victims.

America has done pretty horrendous things too.

(Self edited by Frazzled to avoid banning himself)
1. You just compared the US military to a terrorist killing thousands of people. Your ability to judge reality from unreality is now seriously in question.
2. You're a foreigner. This happened here. You really should be quiet now. See someone die before you open the hole in your face. See the uncensored video of people jumping because they'd rather die that way then burn to death. Have you no shame?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Political interference should be neither present nor seen to be present. It's a dangerous path to move down, when the President starts giving opinions on the verdicts of future trials.

Agreed. If you're going to do a trial it has to be fair and open.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I wish I could slap people over the internet.

no you don't.

and, no, you wouldn't.

Frazzled wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Making him suffer won't bring back the 11/9 victims.

America has done pretty horrendous things too.

(Self edited by Frazzled to avoid banning himself)
1. You just compared the US military to a terrorist killing thousands of people. Your ability to judge reality from unreality is now seriously in question...

He said all that?

What he said was invalid only from the position that impassioned individuals and groups cannot justifiably do horrific things, whereas the 'US military' can. I don't think that either can justify the examples given, nor do I think that you can, other than by way of viewing alternative opinions as 'unreality'.

The fate of this guy is pretty obvious. I've no personal opinion on the death penalty, but if it's a card to be played, it's certainly going to be put down this time.

Thats nuts.
US military in a war. Running planes into buildings to kill civilians for no reason is a crime against humanity. Your inability to separate the two is breathtaking.

At the very least, it would be appropriate to cite an example that can actually be compared... and being that there really isn't one... yeah... pretty epic shamelessness.

Not meaning to make this any worse, but I'm pretty sure they had a reason.

I agree with Osbad though- better to incarcerate yer man for life.

Da Boss wrote:Not meaning to make this any worse, but I'm pretty sure they had a reason.

I agree with Osbad though- better to incarcerate yer man for life.

Thats nonsensical. Serial killers have reasons.

I'm not saying I agree with their reason, anything even close- they're scum! But anyone who decides to crash a plane into a building killing himself and lots more, must be mad about something, right?
Again, I realise this is a touchy subject and am not trying to cause offense.