X. Benedict Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Problem is...if we "get him", we've either captured him and put him on trial - and he becomes a martyr and an even bigger symbol. Or we kill him - and he becomes a martyr and an even bigger symbol. Frankly, at this moment, having him hiding in a cave somewhere releasing the occasional video threatening action that never materializes is probably the best thing for us. It marginalizes him. Which is not to say it was the best thing in earlier moments, or will be in later ones, of course. Right now...think of anything better in the global scheme of things. 592610[/snapback] I think we should put him in the Bronx Zoo. That way everyone in New York can come up to him and say hi, share their thoughts, that kind of thing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I think we should put him in the Bronx Zoo. That way everyone in New York can come up to him and say hi, share their thoughts, that kind of thing..... 592640[/snapback] Right. We can't even put him in Gitmo without the leftists loonies wetting their pants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Right. We can't even put him in Gitmo without the leftists loonies wetting their pants... 592644[/snapback] Shucks. I thought that a a permanent display might have some potential. I do realize the problem of "martyring him" or capturing him. I tend to think the ideal solution is to kill him, leave it uncertain for a few years, and then have a forensic team 10 years from now make the announcement that they are 93% sure that those bones are his. What could be done is slowly release forensic evidence and let the scientific evidence mount over time. This would deprive the militant Islamic world of an heroic narrative by its very uncertainty, some would in fact think him alive and marginalized, and others with some smarts may realize that he is indeed dead. What is not needed is a grand pronouncement with a theatrical "hooray" moment, for the nightly news, or for political gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Problem is...if we "get him", we've either captured him and put him on trial - and he becomes a martyr and an even bigger symbol. Or we kill him - and he becomes a martyr and an even bigger symbol. Frankly, at this moment, having him hiding in a cave somewhere releasing the occasional video threatening action that never materializes is probably the best thing for us. It marginalizes him. Which is not to say it was the best thing in earlier moments, or will be in later ones, of course. Right now...think of anything better in the global scheme of things. 592610[/snapback] I disagree, I don't see Saddam becoming either at the moment. A nice humiliating trial followed by a humane execution would do quite nicely. Just as sound an argument could be made that he in fact continues on as an inspirational figure the longer the most powerful nation in the world is unable to apprehend him. Rather than try and figure out something we can never really figure out, ie, whether we are better off with him alive and at large or in custody, I say we just do what is right which is to bring him to justice for his crimes against humanity. Maybe that would not be the best move in a Macciavellian sense, maybe it would be, I don't know. I could pull a Bush here. I think he often said, "Some people think we are not better off with Saddam having been removed, I think we are" or words to that effect. I could just as easily posit that "some people think we are better off with Osama Bin Ladin, the man who butchered thousands of Americans on 9/11, still a free man, I disagree..." I could but since my name isn't "Rove", I will refrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Right. We can't even put him in Gitmo without the leftists loonies wetting their pants... 592644[/snapback] Apparently the food at the Bronx Zoo is better and the accomodations more luxurious so perhaps us lefties would be satisfied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Right. We can't even put him in Gitmo without the leftists loonies wetting their pants... 592644[/snapback] A couple months ago I went out with a girl who worked at a NYC law firm full of Jewish lawyers who were doing hundreds of hours of pro bono work on behalf of Gitmo terrorists. I really wanted to ask her what the fug these idiots were thinking about. I settled for just not calling her again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Apparently the food at the Bronx Zoo is better and the accomodations more luxurious so perhaps us lefties would be satisfied. 593263[/snapback] Why don't you read up some more so that you aren't as uninformed about Gitmo. The chain link cells that you libs like to point to were used for maybe 3 months until more secure cells could be built. The outdoor cells haven't been used for about 4 years and are overgrown with weeds. The articles I am linking to used to have pictures, but they were stripped out when the articles were put in the archives. I have seen them and they are what he describes. Debunking Three Years of Media Lies: Part I Debunking Three Years of Media Lies: Part II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 A couple months ago I went out with a girl who worked at a NYC law firm full of Jewish lawyers who were doing hundreds of hours of pro bono work on behalf of Gitmo terrorists. I really wanted to ask her what the fug these idiots were thinking about. I settled for just not calling her again. 593286[/snapback] If it sounds too stupid to possibly be true, maybe it isn't. The premise is that everyone in gitmo is a terrorist. If so, let them rot. But, is it so? I don't know. Are they POW's, soldiers of the Afghan government at the time of the Afghan war, invasion, police action, whatever we should be calling it? I don't know. Have they all been caught red handed defending AQ in Afghanistan? I don't know. Who are they? What are they? I don't know. I haven't posted anything taking the administration to task over the gitmo detainees or whatever they are being called these days. I have been pretty much trusting that the administration is holding them because they are too dangerous to let go but I am running out of trust where these people are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 If it sounds too stupid to possibly be true, maybe it isn't. The premise is that everyone in gitmo is a terrorist. If so, let them rot. But, is it so? I don't know. Are they POW's, soldiers of the Afghan government at the time of the Afghan war, invasion, police action, whatever we should be calling it? I don't know. Have they all been caught red handed defending AQ in Afghanistan? I don't know. Who are they? What are they? I don't know. I haven't posted anything taking the administration to task over the gitmo detainees or whatever they are being called these days. I have been pretty much trusting that the administration is holding them because they are too dangerous to let go but I am running out of trust where these people are concerned. 593486[/snapback] Mickey, couldn't agree with you more, the problem with the press is they won't post new news, but keep rerunning old crap that is outdated info, CNN and Fox are the worst, but others are too. Now with the secret prisons in eastern europe, who knows? Darn it is hard to tell all these arabs apart, they all look the same including the Iranians (sarcasm), Iranians are persian, not arab! What I don't trust is not so much this administration's miliciousness, but its laziness with information. Nothing like a an angry lazy redneck to screw everything up. Maybe the real reason 911 happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Your exactly right. 9/11 happened in a big part due to the laziness of a redneck that occupied the White house from 1993-2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Problem is...if we "get him", we've either captured him and put him on trial - and he becomes a martyr and an even bigger symbol. Or we kill him - and he becomes a martyr and an even bigger symbol. Frankly, at this moment, having him hiding in a cave somewhere releasing the occasional video threatening action that never materializes is probably the best thing for us. It marginalizes him. Which is not to say it was the best thing in earlier moments, or will be in later ones, of course. Right now...think of anything better in the global scheme of things. 592610[/snapback] I don't buy into this logic. Killing him shows that we can do what we set out to do and sends a message not to f*ck with us. I don't see him attaining martyr status and quite frankly believe he is more inspirational to those who would attack us by constantly thumbing his nose at us. He is hardly marginalized. Terrorism has increased every year since 2001. We are bogged down in open ended commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is his turf. If anything, we've made it easier for his ilk to kill Americans simply by availability. BTW, do you realize that you are agreeing with Pasta Joe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Pan Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 A couple months ago I went out with a girl 593286[/snapback] How could you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts