Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
No, he (and you) have made assumptions which are not backed up by any facts, see my reply to him for more details.
|
No, Punky and I understood what was meant, you didn't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Rubbish!
You think that there's *no* way of saving lives *other* than by breaking our own legal codes? Ok, prove it.
|
That's not the specific issue we are talking about.
Lets say the security forces have inteligence about an iminent attack.
And for this example, the only way they can get more details before the attack takes place, like exactly where and when, is through illegal means.
If they do not use those illegal means then there would be no way to stop the attack, and possibly hundreds of civilians will be killed or injured.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Not simple, just ludiculously simplistic.
|
Really? So quarenteening someone with a deadly infectious disease is ludicrously simplistic is it?
If you have a mass epidemic of a deadly disease on your hands, the logical thing to do is round up those infected, quarenteen them and let them die to prevent further spread of the infection.
But we don't do that with many deadly infectious diseases because it is considered morally wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Of course, because countries like Micronesia wouldn't *have* troops to send.
But what they *wanted* was those countries to say "Yes, we support this war against Saddam" with, amongst others, the very unsubtle implications that those who *didn't* might not get handouts or trade concessions next time Uncle Sam looks their way.
|
Sorry, I could have sworn you were talking about supporting the fight against terrorism. I'm sure that's what Bush was saying in those quotes after 9/11 and way before any thought of going after saddam.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I think that second "UN" should read "USA"...
|
Nope, UN.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
|
One mentions that waterworks were hit.
The other is of some Prof who thinks that because the coalition had a document covering the vulnerabilities of the waterworks, it must make it a target!
Even though there are probably documents on the vulnerabilities of schools and mosques with Iraqi aircraft parked next to them, so that the coalition can deside how little force is required to take out the aircraft without hitting the school/mosque.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Irrelevant.
|
Why? Because it goes against your argument that there is no difference between terrorist organisations recruiting people to their cause and the anti-terrorist gov's (namely America) recruiting people to their cause?
Terrorists deliberately attack civilians as they are unprotected and an easy target to cause maximum death.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
When you redefine civilian targets as "military targets", that's not surprising.
|
As opposed to terrorists doing their damndest to attack civilians. Not civilian targets, not military targets, but civilians, like you, like your family, like everyone walking past my office window.
People. Men, women, children, old and young, fathers, mothers, daughters and sons.
Deliberately targetted Graham, not accidently hit because they were in a building that was targetted.
With terrorism it's the building that was accidently hit when the people in it were targetted.
You watch the two towers fall and you tell me that recruiting people to do that is no different to the US or the UK recruiting people to fight against terrorism!
How dare you!