Perhaps you and I have differing opinions on what constitutes “insanity.” I believe that anyone who willfully chooses the life that he has chosen (i.e. becoming a “holy warrior” and plotting terrorist activities against a nation such as the US) is insane. Whether or not he is “adept” at what he does is beside the point. Hitler was “adept” at incinerating millions of Jews, and carried forth that plan with great “rationality” if you wish to use that term in that context – I do not. I reject any idea of bin Laden as in any way sane or rational. To do so would completely invalidate the entire concept of sanity, IMO.Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>All the evidence is to the contrary: that bin Ladan is most definitely rational, and extremely adept at what he does. Remember, just because you think a given individual is a "bad person," doesn't mean they're incompetent. Where has he demonstrated irrationality? </STRONG>
OK, you question that the tape is what it is claimed to be. Again, just out of curiosity, what DO you think about the tape? I don’t want to intimate that I disrespect your skepticism. I think its important to be critical. Again: the tape makes NO difference to me, personally. I was fully convinced of bin Laden’s guilt before the tape appeared. But I do wonder what other people think of it.<STRONG>I never wrote that [the tape was a fake by the US govt– L]. I strongly question that this tape is what it's claimed to be, but that doesn't mean that the US government is necessarily behind its fabrication--assuming that's what happened. </STRONG>
@HLD and FudD: both of you raise interesting points in this respect.
I see this a bit differently. I don’t think GWB had to make any real effort to get Americans behind him. I think the majority of Americans were quite willing (indeed, eager) to see the US military go kick some butt after 11 September. Foreign opinion, on the other hand, was a bit trickier. But I maintain that it was not so much Colin Powell running from middle eastern nation to middle eastern nation with secret documents and “proof” of bin Laden’s guilt that got so many other governments behind the coalition. Rather, a number of different factors induced cooperation: 1) nations like Russia and Israel said to themselves “hey – a justified war against terror. Cool! If we hook up with the US, then maybe we can get on with some of our own homegrown terrorists without the US making a fuss over it.” 2) nations like Pakistan were probably just bullied and/or bribed into our camp. 3) nations like Britain and Australia are long-standing allies, and it would take a ridiculously unjust action on our part to scare them off our side. 4) nations like Germany, France, Italy, etc never really did make any solid commitment to our actions in Afghanistan – they simply did not oppose them, and said that they would help in the aftermath.<STRONG>Inaccurate. Bush made repeated appeals for US public support within the first several weeks after the September attacks. And the US government sent an unprecedented number of diplomatic couriers to other nations that Dubbyah wanted to line up behind his vaunted "global anti-terrorist aliiance" at the time. Their job was to convince other nations of the facts that he had, to guarantee their support. </STRONG>
No, I don’t think that GWB, Mr. Unilateral (and I don’t mean that as an insult), had any desperate desire to convince people of his cause. He needed to make some effort in that direction, and did, but I don’t believe it was ever a primary. It certainly, as I said, seems dubious to me that he would NOW be looking to “prove” bin Laden’s guilt when his campaign is a fait accompli.
This last statement I question: I was only aware of one suspect who has been formally charged, and I was not aware that he was to be tried by a military court - ? I could be wrong.<STRONG>Because the case against bin Ladan remains a matter of "we say so" at this point. And we all know that if and when bin Ladan is captured, even if he's tried in US courts, there will be an audience comprised of world government who (Dubbyah's remarkable isolationism in all other respects notwithstanding) will be watching carefully to see how much justice he receives in a land that has already turned over all possible suspects to military courts instead of civilian ones.</STRONG>
EDIT: I just looked through the news, and the guy being charged is NOT in fact going to be tried by a military tribunal. He will face charges in federal court in Virginia.
[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: Lazarus ]
