"Linked to" and "Under orders from" are two entirely different worlds. By the logic that if someone is 'linked to' Bin Laden they are guilty or vice versa, George Bush is guilty - he's a one time member of the CIA, the organization that set Bin Laden up as a power to begin with.

Bin Laden runs terrorist training camps - trying to find terrorists without some link to him is like trying to find South American dictators without links to the SOA (another fine US export).

But he has admitted to that. Again - and again, and again and again... why blame something on him before it's proven when he's involved when there are so many other acts that he's admitted to? Once more - he may be behind the NY attack, but until it's proven, using that as a rationale to launch open warfare against him (and/or Afghanistan) is putrid reasoning. It's like insisting without evidence that a mass murderer is also a virgin sacrificing satanist - what, you weren't ready to accept him as being guilty unless he's blown up into a mythical demon?

And another time around the mulberry bush on this one too. Last time, as at this point you're not going to listen to what I have to say and I can't conceivably see your viewpoint as anything but barbaric: He can be punished without warfare, without killing, and without giving him and his ilk more reason than ever to step up attacks. In the face of the fact that pretty much every government (with the exception of Iraq and Jerry Falwell, apparently) agrees that this was a heinous crime and that the perpetrators need to be punished, it needs to be understood that a large portion of the world governments that we consider allies do NOT support capital punishment and would likely not support any attempts to kill the perpetrators. Insisting on his death is not only barbaric, it's counterproductive to actually punishing him.

Unless you really DO think that we need to be seen as vigilantes.

M

No more on this thread. It's rhetoric from two diametrically opposed positions.