BF2S Forums Forgein 9/12

JaggedPanther wrote:

warlord

That's my favorite map too!

liquix wrote:

"Now lets say you and your rowdy group of friends decided to ram some planes into some high rises in Australia.

Should your country pay for you actions? What if Australia got pissed off an got allies as well."

To relate this to the USA war, the Australians would then retaliate by attacking Mexico

This is the way I remember the War.



9/11
Osama claims responsibility
We go to war in Afghanistan

We went after Afghanistan and not the Saudi's because the Taliban was supporting the terrorist, understand? You don't attack a nation because someone did something bad to you and they were born in your country. You attack the government's that openly support them, which the majority of the entire world agreed with.

I guess this point just eludes you.

TigerXtrm wrote:

They should have done another Covert Op like they did after the '93 attack instead of busting in guns a blazin. Did they even for one second think they would find him if they announced on the news they were sending the Navy to the gulf? That's a very bad case of underestimating your enemy.

But what these guys are saying is right. There was never a matter of 'the country paying for 1 man's crimes' because the country was pretty much under the control of that single man. The tali ban was all over Afghanistan and they still are in a way.

Tiger

They in fact do that. We had the ability to take him out a few times but we never pulled the trigger. Thats why Clinton had so much controversy recently when they were airing a special on tv. I think it was called the path to 9/11.

You guys aren't getting it. Lets leave 9/11 out of this ( it is titled 9/12 to get your attention and that's it).


What I'm saying is, if some country/city was attacked (today) and it was due to some suicidal individual (or a small cult say you) .

Should there be someone that pays after the individual perishes?? Should their children pay? Should their country pay. 

Go start a new thread on 9/11 and Osama if you want to talk about them directly. This is a 'what if scenario' on a similiar type scenario.

Or just let this thread go unresponded but the world does not revolve around 9/11 especially since more ppl die in a typhoons\floods\econmic sanctions\communist dictators\facist  dictators\presidents\hurricanes\tsunami's



Now get Osama to F*&*(# off from my thread!!!

Last edited by JaggedPanther (2006-12-03 16:07:51)

JaggedPanther wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

We went after Afghanistan and not the Saudi's because the Taliban was supporting the terrorist, understand? You don't attack a nation because someone did something bad to you and they were born in your country.

The US went to Iraq

Canada\UN are in Afganistan


but that's a different topic together, you get a D but since you're off topic the grade doesn't register.

Do you really think the Afghan invasion wasn't led by the US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta … fghanistan
Canadians later relieved the US troops.

It was a reply to this statement by you "Did we take any action over Saudi Arabia?". I was giving an explanation on why we did one thing and not another.

I'm starting to see you have a tough time putting two and two together, but I should have known this when you started the opening post with and incoherent blathering of shit spewing from your keyboard.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-03 17:34:03)

If you spoke in complete sentences it would be much easier to understand you.

JaggedPanther wrote:

The US went to Iraq

Canada\UN are in Afganistan


but that's a different topic together, you get a D but since you're off topic the grade doesn't register.

Try using punctuation.


An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government.
Doesn't say jack shit about being welcomed by civilians there now does it? I'm pretty sure thats what the US did in Afghanistan.

JaggedPanther wrote:

And the Afgan mission was not an invasion, most of those civilians welcomed us compared to Iraq. That's what's different 

On October 7, 2001 the United States, aided by the United Kingdom and supported by a coalition of other countries including the NATO alliance, began the military invasion of Afghanistan, including bombing Taliban and al-Qaeda related camps.

Pakistani aircraft arrived to evacuate a few hundred intelligence and military personnel who had been in Afghanistan previous to the U.S. invasion for the purpose of aiding the Taliban's ongoing fight against the Northern Alliance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_c … fghanistan
Civilian casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-03 22:52:37)

To answer the original post question states pay for the damages done by its citizens.

If for some reason a citizen from country X decides to go kill people in country y. Citizen X cross the border into country Y and proceeds with his plans to kill country y citizens, perhaps he dies in the process.

Now, who pays for the actions of citizens X actions?

Firstly if the citizen were to live and go back to country X, country Y has the option to extradite the individual and bring him to trial, granted that a bilateral extradition treaty exist between the two countries.  Country X would then proceed to honor the extradition request and send off the perpetrators for trial in country Y thus achieving justice/retribution through the sentencing of citizen X in country Y.

Second scenario where citizen X goes into country Y, but in the process of killing, ends up getting killed himself in country Y. Now the problem lies you can't exactly bring anyone to trial since the perpetrator of the crime that was committed in country Y is now dead. So who pays for the actions of that individual? Well in this case country Y has the option to file suit on behalf of the citizens of country Y and sue country X for damages incurred by its citizen(s).

Well that's difficult to say if it would be considered justice in the eyes of those that were harmed. Monetary compensation doesn't exactly bring back loved ones, but that's pretty much the only thing that can be done.

All i can say is the scenario changes if the citizen from country X was actually sent by country X to do some damage in the other country.

Then you can go into the field of countermeasures via sanctions or as a last resort military action, but this would then fall into the political arena in terms of choice and that can always get muddled.

kr@cker wrote:

another factor is that country's willingness to cooperate with the uprooting and hunting down of the organization. the whole US+coalition/Osama beef started when the king of SA decided to go with the US for protection from Hussein's aggressions over Osama's taliban. Basically he was insulted that he didn't get the "contract" and wanted to show he could take on the coalition nations. SA has been a lil slow on the uptake trying to play both sides of the fence, but with being targets of bombings themselves as of recent times they've finally started to stand up to the extremists. at least they're not holding terrorist fundraiser telethons anymore.

I'm not sure if you know this but Osama doesn't run the Taliban. Not trying to be rude or anything just putting that out there.