View Poll Results: Which Linux should a newbie(me) learn for the first time.
- 10. You may not vote on this poll
November 19th, 2001 12:10 PM
Would you bomb the UK?
This is a topical question rather than anything IT related but I thought it would be interesting to get some feedback from you folks across the Atlantic.
If UK Police arrested Osama Bin Laden at Heathrow Airport for example, there is a good possibility that we would not extradite him to the US, as you boys have the death penalty.
As the UK does not approve of this, I believe our law would forbid us from doing so.
How would the US respond and would you try to force us to extradite?
I am no expert on this subject but it was discussed on Radio 4 the other day, I thought it might make an interesting debate.
November 19th, 2001 12:47 PM
bin laden or not, the us should attack the uk
November 19th, 2001 12:57 PM
Why should the US attack the UK? That's just plain silly.
It would make the US look no better than Bin Laden. For legitimacy purposes and such, a trial on the World Courts would be far better. At worst it would be life imprisonment but quite possibly the death penalty. (I believe based on my extremely limited understanding).
The US wasn't the only nation affected by Bin Laden. There were many others including Afghanastan (he brought war to the nation by not surrending -- heck, I'd consider that terrorism against the nation)
Now that aside, I would like to point out that the UK has been the biggest and staunchest of supporters of the US and their activities in Afghanastan. I doubt that they would keep Bin Laden away from the US and would probably hand him over.
Personally I'd love to see Bin Laden live so he can watch Afghanastan become successful under something other than the Taliban. It would be ironic justice.
November 19th, 2001 01:07 PM
Not very IT related, true...but a good question.
As there was no request for extradition from Afghanistan by the US, in legal terms that is, The capture of Mr Bin Looney would pose problems. if he were moved to the UK, we would have to release him under our current law (see the Ronnie Biggs Kidnap from Rio), But the US allows this sort of manouevre.
Fairly moot point really as he will be executed whilst trying to escape by blinking when he is seen. Shame really as an Islamic trial and summary execution would have much better effects.
An interesting extrapolation of this is:
Should Boston and Glasgow be Bombed by the US forces? Both are known areas for supporting, supplying and harbouring known Protestant and Catholic Terrorist organisations. Does this make them targets?
In a world gone Mad, the Insane are our leaders.
November 19th, 2001 01:26 PM
I think they will have his trial in Holland, just like Milosevic. At least they are planning to do so (if they catch him)
November 19th, 2001 01:41 PM
well in this case US will not attack UK as right from the begenning
UK is against osama and it is with US . this is because this war is
not a war were some individual entities are involved but this war is
against global terrorism. and each country is against terrorism.
so if at all UK arrests osama then also according to me it will hand
him over to US immediately...and that will be end of global terrorism...
November 19th, 2001 02:34 PM
this is because this war is not a war were some individual entities are involved but this war is
against global terrorism.
If this was a war against global terrorism then why isn't england and ireland combatting against terrorism on their home front, why aren't UN missions being sent to various war-lord run military states in africa? Or what about the FARC in Columbia? If the US were really set on eliminating global terrorism, then shouldn't they be bombing suspected locations of that psychotic abortion doctor killer in the US, is he not a terrorist?
and each country is against terrorism.
looks more like each country is against the taliban and bin laden, if even that. If each country was against terrorism then shouldn't the United Nations be the primary leaders of such a campaign? I don't recall Kenya showing any significant support, or somalia, or lebanon, or Argentina. Do we see China, a world super power doing much to contribute?
and that will be end of global terrorism...
The entire world's terrorist population consists of only Bin Laden? That is a little naive.
This is certainly not a campaign against terror, it is a campaign in favor of US policy and protectionism. The US are not the only victims of terror in this world, as a matter of fact terrorism is not even a concern to most americans.
As for this ridiculous question, Bin Laden right now is the most sought after and recognizable person on this earth right now, why the hell would he go to england?
November 19th, 2001 03:01 PM
The U.S. would bomb the U.K.? Where the hell did that idea come from? The U.K. is our closest ally over here and I don't think we'll care too much about not being able to personally kill bin Laden, just as long as he's properly locked away.
November 19th, 2001 03:09 PM
Sorry but my intensions are being misinterpreted.
Itís a hypothetical debate.
Iím trying to get a feel for how people in the US would react if we refused to hand over Bin Laden.
Please stop taking things so literally.
November 19th, 2001 03:11 PM
Oops. Misinterpretation. Well...a lot of people here would be pissed if we didn't get bin Laden. But its probably better if the UK handles it.