Replies

Well, if your analogy is correct, then, when after a criminal robs a bank, then take refuge in his friend’s house, that if the owner of the house refuses entry to the police that the police are behaving like a gang when they go in there to get the robber.

No, we did not shoot McVeigh's family or friends. We did not burn down his home town. But they cooperated with authorities. If they had not, they would have been arrested, and rightfully so. If they had resisted, they would have been killed or captured, and righfully so.

A crime was committed. An extraordinary crime requiring extraordinary response. The perpetrators are guilty. The planners are equally guilty. But so are those that hosted the perpetrators and planners if they knew that their guests were planning such an activity and especially afterwards, if they refuse to turn over the criminals. Refusing to do so makes them accessories to the crime -- accessories after the fact. In the eyes of the law, accessories are just as guilty as those who flew the planes into the buildings.

If the Taliban do the right thing, turn over bin Laden and his merry men -- there is no need to declare war on Afghanistan. If the Taliban are incapable of arresting bin Laden and his organization, then they need to get out of the way and let us do it. If they are unwilling to do that, well, then they are accessories after the fact, and my sympathies stop right there.

Yeah, innocent Afghans will suffer. But that is the choice of their government. And I have news for you -- 99 and 44/100th of the Japanese citizens in WWII had nothing to do with bombing Pearl Harbor. They were innocent citizens. But they were put in harm’s way by their government, and suffered accordingly. So, too, with the Afghans, the Pakistanis, the Iraqis -- or anyone else whose government participated in this attack, and refuses to cooperate with the United States.

But they cooperated with authorities. If they had not, they would have been arrested, and rightfully so. If they had resisted, they would have been killed or captured, and righfully so.

Except I hear no plans to introduce ground troops, and no attempts to get intelligence of where the criminals are. So if there's a town that doesn't cooperate, then it gets fried. Oh, I do see a precedent. Waco, Texas.

Yeah, innocent Afghans will suffer. But that is the choice of their government

"Government?" What government? According to the US the "government" is somewhere up north. The country was in a state of anarchy, the US did nothing to help pro-Western people set up a moderate government, even though they were yelling at us to help them. But we didn't want to upset our new friends the Russians. Now it's the Afghans' fault for not having a government.

And once again, although there is an arrest warant out for Bin Ladin, the people who had the means to do the WTC attack actually are thousands of miles away.