what bush said to musharraf

i find this a little disturbing if it is actually what was said. i was reading this story and refer to the opening paragraph ...

Pakistan needs to step up the hunt for al-Qaeda leaders believed holed up in its rugged and remote frontier areas close to Afghanistan and be ready to capture and kill them, U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday

surely it should be 'capture them and try them for their crimes'? why is someone so openly 'christian' (6th commandment = thou shall not kill) calling to kill people regardless of what they had or hadn't done?

also, does he not understand that by killing them he makes martyrs of them.

yea something is definately wrong with his views. i agree with your statement as well, he sure seems to like killing.
besides how could he act so sure of himself, knowing a most americans don't agree.

agent violet, I guess that's easy to do when you're a person who admittedly doesn't pay attention to polls. Alternate reality much?


As for the original article, this type of language is really starting to wear on me. It's not lawful or moral to call for the death of a person or people based on their political affiliation (in this case, al-Qaeda). If they're really terrorists/killers, fine. Find them, and bring them to justice. Killing them accomplishes nothing. It raises them to martyrdom status, as the OP said, creates more terrorists, further tarnishes the U.S.'s moral reputation, etc.

Problem is, I can catch other notable 'category mistakes' just by watching any of the MSM news tickers for a minute or two. Or, if you prefer:

www.mnf-iraq.com...

The above article mentions two "terrorists" who were killed after attacking Coalition Forces, the latter whom 'reacted in self-defense.' Any attacker of Coalition Forces is, by default, a "terrorist?" Or if there was some previous crime that defined these two men as terrorists, why were they not already dead (via suicide bomb or direct combat) or captured? Seems to be an unnecessarily general use of the term, to me.

Martyrs have one thing in common, they are all dead. Its better when they are dead than alive. We may have Neo Nazis after Hitler's martyrdom, but it ain't effective in accomplishing anything.

Renewed crusades anyone? I keep trying to tell you people what is happening, but it continues to fall upon deaf ears.

Osama called us Americans the Crusaders, even though America wasn't born centuries long after the last Crusade. They have to have something to use in the past.

Are there any"innocent"people in a group of terrorists?If they havent killed yet they will in future or assist in some way.Do these people give their random bombing victims trails before they blow them to pieces or leave them maimed for life so their families can mourn them for the rest of theirs.Please spare me the justice for the terrorists crap.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Renewed crusades anyone?

I keep trying to tell you people what is happening, but it continues to fall upon deaf ears.

I hear you real good SpeakerofTruth.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Martyrs have one thing in common, they are all dead. Its better when they are dead than alive. We may have Neo Nazis after Hitler's martyrdom, but it ain't effective in accomplishing anything.

martyrs have another thing in common - whilst it may be quick and convenient and better for you if they are dead, they become something to aspire to in the fundamentalist muslim world. marytrs are viewed as a success to them so how does it help to kill them? it creates more resentment and thus more aspiring martyrs. still i guess that means that more arms and more wars can happen so thats gotta be good for somebody eh?

can i also remind you of operation paperclip? where would america be now if it hadn't taken in all those nazis? didn't they deserve to die after what they did? the us welcomed them in secret with open arms and still to this day has not been held accountable for that but its easy to turn a blind eye or make excuses when it suits them