This *is* a war, you mangificent boob. And we *are* defending ourselves. You got a problem with that?

Really?

The attackers were SAUDI ARABIAN!

Yet we're attacking AFGHANISTAN.

Why? Did the TALIBAN send them?

With the military, we had to take out the Taliban so we could let Osama escape. Now we're stuck with rebuilding a COUNTRY when all we went after was an INDIVIDUAL.

That's right. We ORIGINALLY wanted Osama to be turned over to us.

THAT is why you don't send the military in when it is a police matter.

When your only mental tool is Interpol...
everything looks like an international law enforcement problem.

As I have said MANY times in the past. I view terrorism as a CRIMINAL issue.

Not a MILITARY issue.

Internal criminals require an INTERnational POLice force to deal with them.

As I have been saying all along.

The Taliban would have just let Interpol walk right in and take bin Ladin into custody just like that.

I won't even mention money laundering operations that, had they been run by the Mafia, would have been shut down.

But you're probably right. The way we got Osama was probably the best way.

Oh, we didn't get him, did we?

We don't know where he is now, do we?

Yes, I see how your way was MUCH more effective.

We can't just wait for them to mass on our borders to declare war.

And I have never said that we should, have I?

They will, like they aready have, attack through further terrorism.

Hmmmm, and if they can't leave Afghanistan without being arrested, then they can only attack people there. Yes, I see your logic. We should move the Pentagon to Afghanistan.

Interpol can catch some of the terrorist as they move about, but the terrorists are many.

Really? Fewer than 100 seem to have been involved in the WTC attack in the US. I suppose that is "many". But is that beyond Interpol's capability?

We need to take out their leaders, and the only way we can get to them is through military action.

And our current military action has been HOW effective? I can provide links where our troops did not help block the escape of supposed operatives.

And we don't even know where Osama is now.

You make a claim that does not seem to be supported by the facts. Military action has NOT taken out their leaders.

Interpol can help, but they can't do it all.

And the basis for that statement is?

Do we send in the army to deal with the Mafia?

Yet the Mafia also engages in money laundering and killing of non-combatants (even by planting bombs in their cars).

The only differences are that the terrorists have more people willing to die for the cause and the terrorists have money tied mid-eastern countries.

Yes, it would have been nice if the military could have just struck a confined base and taken bin Ladin, but they weren't able to.

Why were they not able to?

Hmmmmm?

The point I was making, which I'm sure you'll just continue to ignore, was that the military is better prepared for this type of operation.

Hmmm, I guess you completely missed my points on why the military (and treating this as a military operation) is the WRONG way to go.

Again, the MILITARY did NOT get Osama.

The MILITARY has no idea where he is.

The MILITARY is the reason we're rebuilding a country right now.

The ORIGINAL request of Afghanistan was to turn over Osama.

So, we didn't get Osama, we have no idea where he is and we're stuck rebuilding a country.

And this is the kind of operation you recommend?

Ah, I understand.

Yes, the military is the BEST for not getting Osama and losing Osama and destroying a country in the process.

Sorry, I though getting Osama was the goal.

My bad.

Let me correct this statement for you "Had they been run by the Mafia completely inside the confines of the USA and had the police had hard evidence that it was being used for illegal purposes, would have been shut down."

Does the term "off shore bank" mean anything to you?

So, all the Mafia has to do is to pick up an account in the Islands and we can't touch their money?

The same thing with Osama.

You seem to have a mistaken understanding of the power that Interpol holds.

It only seems that way because you aren't reading my posts correctly.

They can only really operate in countries that give them authority, and even then are restricted by host nation treaties.

Like I said before, was the WTC in Afghanistan? Was the Pentagon in Afghanistan? Did those flights originate in Afghanistan?

It seem to me that the entire attack was carried out in the US.

Do you REALLY believe that Interpol could have prevented them from treking to pakistan or elseware?

Yes. Provided that Interpol was given the support of our intelligence agencies and those of our allies.

Which I had previously mentioned.

Do you believe Interpol would know who are terrorists and who are legitimate travelers when checking.

Okay, the rhetorical question shit is getting old.

Check some facts. The FBI KNEW the names of some of those and KNEW they were in the country.

Now, if the FBI knew it, and if we were sharing info with Interpol, then, theoretically, Interpol would know the names of them.

And before you say it, I know the military wasn't able to either, that just further shows the difficulty involved with closing borders.

Before I say it? I've ALREADY said it. And it does NOT show the problems with closing borders. It shows the problems with using the military in a law enforcement operation.

Again, check the facts. The US military refused to engage in a joint operation and some of our objectives left while they were being aggressed by our allies.

The military had Osama cornered in his mountain. The military decided to use locals for part of that operation. Osama got away.

This entire operation has been one gigantic cluster fuck from the beginning.

And it all comes down to trying to use the military in non-military roles.

The military kills people and breaks things. They don't keep the peace. They don't enforce the law.

Do you really believe that's all the terrorists we have to worry about?

You said that there were "many" terrorists. The implication being that there were more than Interpol could handle.

I pointed out that "many" is NOT the same as "too many to handle".

Do you believe that's all the terrorists that have already made it into the country?

Okay, rhetorical question time again?

Now, I know how many terrorists >I< think are left in this country.

Why don't you tell me how many terrorists >YOU< think are left in this country?

Rhetorical questions get really old, really fast.

And I've found that the people who use them the most are the people who hope that I'll have as few facts as they do.

Have you heard of sleeper cells?

Yes I have. Now, care to tell me why you asked that question? Is it to imply that we have sleepers here? If so, what is the basis of your assumption?

Do you really believe that Taliban terrorist are confined to Afghanistan until they are needed for an attack?

Whoa there! I don't think you understand what "Taliban" is. The terrorists were Al-Queda Saudi's.

Your claims are even less well supported.

My "claims" are not the same as your "claims".

I proposed a DIFFERENT means of handling the situation.

I pointed out the FLAWS in the current handling.

And you think I have "supported" my claims the same as the ongoing mission?

No, I've stated my position and what would have to happen PRIOR to them stopping terrorists (or capturing operatives).

Military action has weakened the Taliban and al-Quida network and currently has their leadership on the run.

If I were Osama, I'd be hiding out in South America by now. "On the run" is a nice phrase. Meaningless, but nice. We've bombed one country and we're pretty sure he isn't there. "On the run"? That sounds so much more comforting than "plotting the next attack from his secure base in (location undisclosed)".

This may not prevent other terrorist attacks by itself, but it makes coordination more difficult.

Hmmmm, and it would seem that the current regime is basing some of their "warnings" on increased communication traffic they're "monitoring".

*sigh*

The fact of the matter is that the amount of "coordination" required is miniscule. They could drive a truck bomb into a building. They could rent an apartment in a tall building and pack it full of explosives. They can toss pipe bombs into NY rush hour traffic.

The only coordination part is getting them into this country and paying them while they're here.

This is where Interpol can come into play. They would be very useful in watching for preparations for terrorist action and preventing them.

Such "preparations" would be buying a bunch of fertilizer and a truck. Sorry, I don't see how Interpol would be of much help in those circumstances. The same with them taking flying lessons and buying box cutters and tickets.

Once they're here, it is almost impossible to stop them.

If you don't believe me, check out Israel's terrorist problem.