A question for freepers...

As you encounter them in your daily life...

I would ask, as an example:

You live in a suburban town with a population of 30,000 people. A serial killer has attacked and killed 30 people in the township. All of the evidence points to the fact that this one particular person has committed these crimes. In fact he has admitted to it. The mayor and the police know where he lives. They’ve sworn that they will find this killer and bring him to justice. The police force has the house surrounded, but as they go in, the killer escapes into the back yard.

...Now, 4 ½ years later, the police are still occupying the house, but the killer is still living in the back yard. The mayor claims that they’ve brought him to justice by reducing his capacity to commit murder, by cornering him in the backyard. The killer has appeared numerous times on the local news saying that he is planning to kill again. Would this be an acceptable situation? Would you so blindly support this mayor?

Please explain your logic and show all of your work.

plain and simple, just so the freeps can understand.

they won't answer this because they don't understand it.

:shrug:

Just make it fair. Afghanistan/Pakistan is NOT some 'backyard' we have sovereignty over. We can't just go in there any time we want.

The one that apparently wiped out 3/4 of the Al Qaida leadership. Did we have sovereignty then?

No, we didn't have sovereignty, but there must've been some sort of access because the Pakistani military did not fire on us (though they ARE complaining loudly and want an accounting.)

It also depends on where in Pakistan it took place--much of Pakistan is governed by the state, but there is also a part--mostly in the north where they think Bin Laden is--that is under the nominal rule of the tribal leaders in the area.

Because they are not one large group, the tribes in the north are not able to launch an attack that is equal to the United States, or engage in conventional warfare. Thus, they may have not been able to repel the attack, but they certainly wouldn't have wanted it nor approved of it.

So, because of that, we may not have been sovereign, but we were able to launch that particular attack. It certainly doesn't mean we can go into the country whenever we like, wherever we like.

unless we do. :shrug:

I'm not so sure "it depends" is a good foreign policy.

how did this analogy degenerate into this conversation? :)

R.I.P. O8)

It was just getting interesting...

...some homeless guy who the cops dressed up to look like the killer and paid him off with a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20?

:)


Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

Through Rove, of course.

the US military blew up all the other houses in that subdivision, killing dozens of innocent families, and STILL let the killer go free

the fact that the police burst into a neighbor's house as part of their investigation into the murders. When it turned out the neighbor had nothing to do with the murders, they claimed that he was still a bad person, possibly even a tax cheat. Then they found out he wasn't a tax cheat, so they planted some pot in the house and now the guy is on trial as a drug dealer.

I left this out because I didn't want to complicate things for the freeper mind. :)

they don't even need to plant drugs, they can just arrest all the adult males in the entire neighbourhood, and keep them in solitary for the rest of their lives, and not even tell the families where they are, or why

lmao, now I can see why you tried to keep it simple ;)

If you mean Bin Laden to be the killer who went out in to the backyard, that's not an accurate depiction. Bin Laden is NOT in a 'backyard'--unless the front of the house is in America and the backyard is in some other country--Mexico? That's not some place we have sovereignty over.

I think you misunderstand the analogy.

The "backyard" is Pakistan. Loyal friend and ally of the Bush Regime.

:)

To clarify...

Bush* : Mayor
Killer : OBL

If WE are the country with the 'town' that you're speaking of, then Canada or Mexico are the only two countries that could realistically be 'our backyard'. If you wish to more accurately depict the backyard as Pakistan, then your hypothetical will have to likewise reflect that.

Thus, you would need to say that the serial killer escaped to another yard on the other side of town. It changes the situation--fair is fair.

Thank you for playing, aKinderGentlerDUer. You can go home now.

And, if you can't respond to what I said, that's fine. This IS still America and you have a right to think anything you please.

You are asking freepers to 1)Read, and 2) Think. We all know bushbots cannot think for themselves, only can mimic what oxycontinhead tells them.

I don't know if I can get around that. Maybe we could come up with a way to make it into a picture book. :)

I'm not sure this is true at all--we have not always known where he is--I'm not at all sure we do now.

The CIA has admitted within the last year that they know where he is.


Welcome to DU, BTW. :hi:

-much snippage-

Mr. bin Laden, with that speech, was laying his plans to stay a step ahead of the US campaign. He would travel to his favored fortified redoubt in Tora Bora, as the US expected him to, but he would also pave a way out. After his rousing speech, he bestowed cash gifts on key people who could later help him escape.

The US-led war in Afghanistan was going exceedingly well up to that point. The Taliban regime had been pushed from the northern half of the country; the capital of Kabul and much of the rest of Afghanistan would fall within the next few days.

It was a war like no other. In an evolutionary leap powered by Information Age technology, US ground soldiers were mainly employed as observers, liaisons, and spotters for air power - not as direct combatants sent to occupy a foreign land. The success of the US was dazzling, save for the fight for Tora Bora, which may have been this unconventional war's most crucial battle. For the US, Tora Bora wasn't about capturing caverns or destroying fortifications - it was about taking the world's most wanted terrorist "dead or alive."

In retrospect, it becomes clear that the battle's underlying story is of how scant intelligence, poorly chosen allies, and dubious military tactics fumbled a golden opportunity to capture bin Laden as well as many senior Al Qaeda commanders.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

Let me tell ya about Ted Kennedy.Better over than here.Did I mention 9/11?
(freeper response):shrug:

Oopse! :)