Judge rules Sudan responsible

[Show Me the Wire]

Question if Iraq can not be held responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks how can a federal judge rule Sudan, because it was a safe haven for terrorists, is responsible for the terror attack on the USS Cole?

This is the same line of reasoning which is rejected by the dems and the left as faulty thinking in regards to Iraq's culpability for 9/11. The judge must be confused, according to the dems, allowing training camps and safe havens for terrorists does not amount to culpability for the host country.

Or does it show the dem leadership, headed by Pelosi, is so very wrong in their world view?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258734,00.html

[46zilzal]

The Grand Duchy of Fenwicke hasn't been implicated yet have they??

[chickenhead]

thats actually why most everyone, including the majority of Dems, supported the Invasion of Afghanistan.

The issue is not one of world view, its one of evidence.

Many/most do not beleive that Iraq was a significant benefactor to Al Qaeda. I certainly remain unconvinced.

[OTM Al]

The one reason I can't believe that Al Qaeda was active in Iraq would be the nature of Saddam. If he was such a despot and so strongly in power as we have been led to believe, then there is no way he'd want an organization like that in his own country. Despots do not share political power with anyone out of fear that they will be deposed by them. I don't have any problem with us being in Afghanistan. I would support increases in troops there to get rid of the reminants of Al Qaeda as well as the drug lords that are now running much of the country. I don't think we have any business in Iraq however. I thought it was wrong when we did it and still do and it makes me sick what we could have done to improve life in this country using the billions we have spent over there.

[Tom]

So how do we view Saudia Arabai in light of this?
I think thier ties to and support for terrorists is significant.
Do we go after them?

[46zilzal]

I don't think we have any business in Iraq however. I thought it was wrong when we did it and still do and it makes me sick what we could have done to improve life in this country using the billions we have spent over there.
Bravo, succinctly stated

[46zilzal]

"Naturally the common people don't want war. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Believe these pearls were mention by Herr "Meyer" aka Goering a few years back....Nothing seems to have changed.

[Tom]

You mean just like the neo-libs are doing with the global warming lies?
Gotta have that imaginary threat out there to justify new taxes and loss of freedoms?
Yup.

[46zilzal]

B.S. like this?

[Show Me the Wire]

OTM AL:

Your post is wrong on so many levels. Sharing of power? The Sudanese govt. did not share power, they sponsored terrorism. Saddam sponsored terrorism with govt. money, assets and other support to terrorist groups. The war is against terrorism, not only Al Qaeda. Yes, Al Queda is part and parcel of the total war on terrorism, but Al Qaeda, itself is not the litmus test to determine if a govt. supports terror.

Also, the money spent argument is part of the wrong. It is a very selfish attitude to say the money should be spent on us, instead of bettering the life of needy peoples. Bettering peoples' lives is the whole basis for the argument to allow unfettered illegal immigration from Mexico. Well if we can allow Mexican nationals a better life by allowing them access to expensive social programs, we can expend money for a truly oppressed people.

[Show Me the Wire]

Zilzal:

Will any foreigner do?

[OTM Al]

I think there is a difference between Iraq and the Sudan. Iraq had a strong centarlized government and until Saddam had decided to go after Iran, was one of the most advanced states in the middle east. As for the Sudanese government....what Sudanese government? An organization like Al Qaeda could base out of there because there was no real government. The Sudan is a mess.

And honestly, if the goal of the war in Iraq was to help a supressed people I would be all for it. But its not. Frankly I have no idea what it was for anymore. First it was WMDs and then it was to help the people and then it was to stop terrorism. Now big oil is carving up their national production. Why didn't we help those in the Sudan instead of Iraq by invading there then? They were in far worse shape than the Iraqis were in 2002. I'll say it again. The amout of money being spent on this is revolting. It would do more for fighting terrorism if we would have spent a 10th of that on law enforcement in the US.

[Show Me the Wire]

I think there is a difference between Iraq and the Sudan. Iraq had a strong centarlized government and until Saddam had decided to go after Iran, was one of the most advanced states in the middle east. As for the Sudanese government....what Sudanese government? An organization like Al Qaeda could base out of there because there was no real government. The Sudan is a mess..........

.

Based on your analysis, which I accept as valid, then the judge's line of reasoning is terribly wrong. How can a non-entity sponsor terrorism? It would be more of a case of duress, would it not?

[OTM Al]

Duress maybe or complete inability to do anything about it more likely. They are an easy target anyway. No money will ever be collected unless we just take it from some asset or something we managed to seize. Of course that would be just another kick in the ass for the people of Sudan...if there are any left anymore. Maybe judge just wanted to see his name in print, who knows. Did the families sue the Navy for not taking adequate steps to insure that the ship wouldn't be attacked? That would be pretty easy to "prove" as well. This is sarcasm by the way for anyone who thinks I'm suggesting such a stupid course of action.

I really don't mean to sound crass here but these were military personel on a ship of war, correct? This is what one would call a legitimate military target if one were involved in a war, which the other side sure thinks they are, correct? I don't want our soldiers or sailors getting killed, but seems to me that's a risk involved in taking that job. Maybe its a valid political statement to find them guilty, but it just seems like hollow grandstanding to me and I don't think it solves much of anything.