Missile attack in yemen

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,06:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...think that it is very interesting how a large group of Americans (mostly Republicans)...<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Racism is when you target an ethnic group or a collection of ethnic groups.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Calling you a "moron" for instance would be flaming, but I'm not doing that, am I? <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fortunately I know that all Americans don't have such simplistic views on the world as you have.<span id='postcolor'>

You insinuated.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is the same 'ole "Shoot first, ask questions later".<span id='postcolor'>

Basically.

Like I said, I don't agree with what they did. But they're my government and I stand by them. Even in their mistakes. If I didn't, I'd move to Canada.

The U.S. is at war. No, not with the whole world, like some critics are blowing it up to be, and not with Islam either. The U.S. is trying to defend itself. This isn't about oil, it isn't about racism. This is about the U.S. defending itself and it's interests overseas.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 05 2002,20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Calling you a "moron" for instance would be flaming, but I'm not doing that, am I? <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fortunately I know that all Americans don't have such simplistic views on the world as you have.<span id='postcolor'>

You insinuated.

<span id='postcolor'>

Lol, tough.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But they're my government and I stand by them. Even in their mistakes. If I didn't, I'd move to Canada.

<span id='postcolor'> Hmmm... what makes you think we take US refugees? Unless you state political reasons. lol

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This isn't about oil, it isn't about racism. This is about the U.S. defending itself and it's interests overseas.<span id='postcolor'> Oookay, how do you know... but when you say interests overseas you must be talking oil.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Nov. 06 2002,07:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oookay, how do you know... but when you say interests overseas you must be talking oil.<span id='postcolor'>

Bah, that's not what I meant.

Take Vietnam for example.

Our interest was to stop communism from spreading in asia. So we wanted to stop communist north vietnam from taking over south vietnam. We didn't do it, but it's a good example of defending our interests.

Yes, oil can be an interest to a nation. But we're not going to war over oil.

Say someone invades a country and captures a large oil supply. We would want to take him out of power because he could hurt the U.S. (and other countries) by how he sells that oil.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 06 2002,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,06:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...think that it is very interesting how a large group of Americans (mostly Republicans)...<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Racism is when you target an ethnic group or a collection of ethnic groups.<span id='postcolor'>

<span id='postcolor'>

Republicans just happen to be Americans mostly. I also disagree with any Swedish Republicans, if there is such a thing

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The U.S. is at war.  No, not with the whole world, like some critics are blowing it up to be, and not with Islam either.  The U.S. is trying to defend itself.  This isn't about oil, it isn't about racism.  This is about the U.S. defending itself and it's interests overseas.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. That is the problem - USA is only caring about its own problems and have a "fuck all" - attitude towards others. US national interests are not the only in the world. That is what got you into this situation in the first place. Such behaviour only lays ground for future september 11:ths. Don't you think that a number of Yemeni citizens will hold a grudge against the US for this latest maneuver?

But, I am digressing, I was not meaning to discuss US foregin policy - the point I was trying to make is that it is very dangerous to let an intelligence organization write its own rules.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Nov. 05 2002,17:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This isn't about oil, it isn't about racism.  This is about the U.S. defending itself and it's interests overseas.<span id='postcolor'>  Oookay, how do you know... but when you say interests overseas you must be talking oil.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a pretty inflammatory remark and unless you can can tie every American foreign policy to oil I think that counts as flaming.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 06 2002,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, oil can be an interest to a nation.  But we're not going to war over oil.<span id='postcolor'>

The only thing that matters is oil. If US goes to war with Iraq US will finally manouvre into a position they've been longing for - restraining OPEC from controlling the price of oil. Who do you all think would benefit from that?

US oil companies also have a great interest in Yemen.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Nov. 05 2002,20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Nov. 05 2002,17:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This isn't about oil, it isn't about racism. This is about the U.S. defending itself and it's interests overseas.<span id='postcolor'> Oookay, how do you know... but when you say interests overseas you must be talking oil.<span id='postcolor'>

That is a pretty inflammatory remark and unless you can can tie every American foreign policy to oil I think that counts as flaming.<span id='postcolor'>

What? No way, you've gotta be joking. Or you really do not know what flaming means.

When you have a good point based on logic or facts or both, and not for Americans, it's not automatically flaming.

EDIT: and BTW, I can't do it personally, but I think we just might be able to tie every US Mid-East policy to oil.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 06 2002,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 06 2002,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, oil can be an interest to a nation.  But we're not going to war over oil.<span id='postcolor'>

The only thing that matters is oil. If US goes to war with Iraq US will finally manouvre into a position they've been longing for - restraining OPEC from controlling the price of oil. Who do you all think would benefit from that?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, I don't think it is that way. As a matter of fact a war on Iraq and this current "war on terror" only creates uncertainty in the markets and increases oil prices. There is also very little guarantee of any long term success.

No, I believe that indeed the US is defending its national security interests. I just think it does it in a very questionable way.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,03:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 06 2002,02:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 06 2002,02:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, oil can be an interest to a nation.  But we're not going to war over oil.<span id='postcolor'>

The only thing that matters is oil. If US goes to war with Iraq US will finally manouvre into a position they've been longing for - restraining OPEC from controlling the price of oil. Who do you all think would benefit from that?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, I don't think it is that way. As a matter of fact a war on Iraq and this current "war on terror" only creates uncertainty in the markets and increases oil prices. There is also very little guarantee of any long term success.<span id='postcolor'>

The point is that Iraq has the worlds second largest oil reserve. Only Saudi Arabia has a larger reserve. If US could restore a government in Iraq wich would hand out oilproduction to US companies US would brake OPECs hegemony on deciding the oilprice. US imports most of it's oil and the importers would benefit GREATLY from this.

The "war on terror" may cause turmoil on the oilmarket - but only on a short term basis. The long term profit would be enormous. War on terror is possibly most important at this very moment, but tomorow the oil will be all important. I suspect US will use the "war on terror" as an excuse to future wars to control the middle east oil fields.

For you Denoir:

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter....=428547

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Nov. 06 2002,03:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is that Iraq has the worlds second largest oil reserve. Only Saudi Arabia has a larger reserve. If US could restore a government in Iraq wich would hand out oilproduction to US companies US would brake OPECs hegemony on deciding the oilprice. US imports most of it's oil and the importers would benefit GREATLY from this.<span id='postcolor'>

Right now we are getting oil for nothing from Iraq ("food for oil"). If a democratic government is placed in Iraq, oil prices will go up significantly. Why do you think most EU countries are against a war on Iraq?

Also, the region is so unstable that it is very hard to predict how things will evolve and that makes any long term strategic planning null and void.

I agree that if successful that it will give the US great benifits.

I think however that you overestimate Bush's intelligence. Also Bush represents American oil producers (hey, they financed his career ) - breaking the OPEC monopoly would lower the prices which would result in loss of income for his benefactors.

Edit: brgnorway - about the link: of course that the oil business will try to profit from this, no doubt.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,03:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think however that you overestimate Bush's intelligence. Also Bush represents American oil producers (hey, they financed his career ) - breaking the OPEC monopoly would lower the prices which would result in loss of income for his benefactors.<span id='postcolor'>

The same oilproducing companies that helped Bush (all the way from nothing) are not only producing oil in US, but are also the very same companies that imports oil to US. They don't really care where the oil comes from as long as oil is a profitable business. The same could be said about the Norways biggest oilcompany Statoil. Why do you think they are involved in producing oil all over the world. It is because it gives you a more sollid base of profit. If you have a loss on the norwegian produced oil - you still earn from your involvements in some african country.

[bn880 5]

I think the truth is probably in the middle, especially because everyone here is arguing about a different premise... the 'war on terror' is not war for oil, it is probably a result of one.

Current actions ignore international law and human rights.

No?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Nov. 06 2002,03:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No?  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the truth is probably in the middle, especially because everyone here is arguing about a different premise... the 'war on terror' is not war for oil, it is probably a result of one.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, whatever comes first......

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Current actions ignore international law and human rights.

No?  <span id='postcolor'>

Certainly right. Anyone criticizing US for not respecting human rights will soon be categorized as terrorists or at least commie bastards.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,0008)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yemen says otherwise according to reuters article.<span id='postcolor'>

Y'know, I hate to nitpick...

but exactly where in this article does a Yemeni official say that the strike wasn't authorized, or that they weren't informed? This one sentence is the closest I could find:

"In September Yemen dismissed reports that U.S. forces could launch covert operations in the country against al Qaeda militants believed to have fled Afghanistan."

This passage is immediately followed by:

"But U.S. drones are known to have been used to search for fugitive al Qaeda members believed to be protected by armed clans in the country's remote tribal regions.

(Substantiated by the Times: "Yemeni officials have made clear in recent weeks, however, that they were aware that American drones were active in their area." NY Times Okay bn880, so I'm partial to the NY Times. Sue me. Heh.)  

The search for al Qaeda suspects has presented vast problems for Yemen's overstretched military. In December, Yemeni special forces lost 18 men in a clash with tribesmen during an attempt to arrest al-Harthi."

And preceded by:

"Members of the cabinet refused to comment on what had caused the blast, but in a statement urged Yemenis to cooperate with security forces against those responsible for "terrorist activities targeting our country, its people and its national economy," the official Saba news agency reported.

The cabinet said al-Harthi was also wanted for attacks on oil installations in Yemen, a small independent crude producer."

From the Archfiend himself: "Rumsfeld said the U.S.-Yemen relationship "has been a good one and it's ongoing." He noted that Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh visited the Pentagon and agreed to cooperate in the war on terrorism." CNN

Hmmm...  

1) The Yemeni government has already lost 18 men trying to arrest the guy.

2) The Yemeni government has agreed to cooperate against terrorists.

3) U.S. drones are known to be active in the area.

4) No protests from the Yemeni government that I've heard about (hardly conclusive I know, but it's the best I can do so far).

It's safe to say we agree that an uncontrolled intelligence agency running around whacking people out left and right is bad news. Based on available facts, I submit that did not happen in this case.

Semper Fi

[PitViper 0]

How many international Al Queda terrorists has Sweden brought to justice?

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 06 2002,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Nov. 06 2002,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm a little confused here. Are you talking about the Cole or the Predator?<span id='postcolor'>

I was talking about the Cole. But you are probably right, both cases are proably similar in nature.<span id='postcolor'>

<Mork> Humor! Ar Ar! <Mork off>

Sorry for being dense, I wasn't sure whether you knew I was referring to the Predator attack. I'll have to disagree with you on the similarities, though.

Semper Fi

[ralphwiggum 6]

i was wondering how long it would take until someone post thread about this.

I really don'y approve of the tactic, but than again, sometimes you can't abide by all procedures.

here's a funny situation.

Yemen gov't lost their men in accordance with operation before. thus they are reluctant to help US.

they are incapable of catching him. he was moving around in the country, and despite US's request for arrest, they were not able to do it.

so what to do now? my choice would be send in some marines and drag him out of the car and put handcuffs on him. but that ain't gonna happen unless Yemen gov't approves US's military to make moves. and that hasn't happened.

so we have Yemen gov't that is reluctant to move and get him, and US with their hands tied. so there is no way that we can see whether the suspect is guilty or not through court system because he can't be brought to one.

if US sends troops in it gets criticized. so what's the other alternative?

but is NOT bringing a suspect to court of justice also a negligence on EU's part? EU tends to say nay to a good number of US's actions, yet they seldom show WHAT HAS TO BE DONE. in other words, they can whine about certain action, but they are impotent to show what is CORRECT.

did EU say they are willing to help Yemen gov't so that the suspect can be brought to justice? i don't think so.

so basically this is another mud slinging or poking from our friendly EU allies.

[Longinius 1]

"Well, its good that al-qaeda people were killed, so what if it breaks some law made by gerald ford 40 yrs ago."

So, what you are saying is that it is OK to break the law if you are doing it for, what you believe, is a just cause? I am sad to hear then that you think the sniper who recently terrorised the US should be set free. After all, he was convinced he was doing it for a just cause and therefor he could break the law. Right?

"hello, light is on, anybody home?

*knocks on denoir's forehead*

we're at war."

OK, so the next time we are at war with a terrorist organisation, you are OK with the fact that we send in armed men to the US to blow up their cars with Carl Gustav's? Or maybe we can launch arial attacks into US territory to bomb the terrorists without mentioning it to your government? That is OK with you I take it?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Nov. 06 2002,09:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK, so the next time we are at war with a terrorist organisation, you are OK with the fact that we send in armed men to the US to blow up their cars with Carl Gustav's? Or maybe we can launch arial attacks into US territory to bomb the terrorists without mentioning it to your government? That is OK with you I take it?<span id='postcolor'>

only if US is capable of sending 18 men to arrest them, only to have them killed.

and i think yemen gov't knew what US was doing.

[Longinius 1]

"Why are all these people hating the U.S. now? We were attacked and you'd better be sure we're going to fight back. What's so hard to get about that?"

It wasnt an attack, it was a retaliation. Or do you think all these terrorists just woke up one day and thought "Gosh I hate the US. I think I will fly a plan into the WTC."

"We are at war with terrorists, doesn't matter where they are. We're also at war with countrys that harbor terrorists."

Um, so if a terrorist is hiding in lets say, Norway, and the government can't catch him. That gives you the right to bomb Norway? Then, in fact, the US is at war with the world. Gee, great move.

"Like I said, I don't agree with what they did. But they're my government and I stand by them. Even in their mistakes."

FYI, that is how Hitlers get created.

"How many international Al Queda terrorists has Sweden brought to justice?"

4, actually. To my knowledge any way. And they were found innocent, after months of US imposed sanctions against them. And no, they didnt get compensation.

"only if US is capable of sending 18 men to arrest them, only to have them killed.

and i think yemen gov't knew what US was doing."

Sorry Ralph, but I wasn't asking you ;P

And at any rate, the person I quoted said it was OK to attack suspected criminals in foreign territory, even with bombs. I just wanted to know if Americans would be OK with us doing the same on their turf.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Nov. 06 2002,09:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It wasnt an attack, it was a retaliation. Or do you think all these terrorists just woke up one day and thought "Gosh I hate the US. I think I will fly a plan into the WTC."<span id='postcolor'>

It was an attack. They did it because they are evil and ar jealous of the way of life that the US citizens are enjoying. They hate the US for its freedom, love and understanding.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Um, so if a terrorist is hiding in lets say, Norway, and the government can't catch him. That gives you the right to bomb Norway? Then, in fact, the US is at war with the world. Gee, great move.<span id='postcolor'>

Don't you understand? The US was attacked. They are at war with terrorists. If Norway is harboring terrorists then it should be bombed. Your either with us or with the terrorists!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FYI, that is how Hitlers get created.<span id='postcolor'>

That's bullshit. Hitler was a stupid evil man while Bush is a nice clever fellow. He wouldn't be the president of the United States otherwise.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Why are all these people hating the U.S. now?  We were attacked and you'd better be sure we're going to fight back.  What's so hard to get about that?"

It wasnt an attack, it was a retaliation. Or do you think all these terrorists just woke up one day and thought "Gosh I hate the US. I think I will fly a plan into the WTC."<span id='postcolor'>

how about the fact that european domination over middle east caused hostility towards western world? did europe do remedy work after their colonization was aborted? no wonder they hate western wrold. and who is now the biggest element in western world? of course US's stance on Israel issue agitates a lot of Arabs, but europe pretty much did nothing when it comes to root of problem either.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"We are at war with terrorists, doesn't matter where they are.  We're also at war with countrys that harbor terrorists."

Um, so if a terrorist is hiding in lets say, Norway, and the government can't catch him. That gives you the right to bomb Norway? Then, in fact, the US is at war with the world. Gee, great move.<span id='postcolor'>

well, at least Norway tries to catch them and has ability to do so. and read the Reuters article denoir provided. there is no indication that Yemen gov't was not informed of predator.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Like I said, I don't agree with what they did.  But they're my government and I stand by them.  Even in their mistakes."

FYI, that is how Hitlers get created.

<span id='postcolor'>

and how EU managed to screw up and prevent Balkan crisis long time ago.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And at any rate, the person I quoted said it was OK to attack suspected criminals in foreign territory, even with bombs. I just wanted to know if Americans would be OK with us doing the same on their turf.<span id='postcolor'>

i'm  not the person who said it, but i think my answer pretty much says it.

*edit: denoir is drunk.

[Longinius 1]

"how about the fact that european domination over middle east caused hostility towards western world? did europe do remedy work after their colonization was aborted? no wonder they hate western wrold. and who is now the biggest element in western world? of course US's stance on Israel issue agitates a lot of Arabs, but europe pretty much did nothing when it comes to root of problem either."

Are you saying that Europe is partially to blame for the attack on the US? I honestly doubt that. If Europe had caused nearly as much grief as the US we would have seen numerous terrorist attacks in European countries recently. But we havent.

"well, at least Norway tries to catch them and has ability to do so."

Yeah, but if they fail, you can bomb them. Right? Or if they refuse to hand the fellow over because lack of evidence. Then you can SURELY bomb them, right?

"and how EU managed to screw up and prevent Balkan crisis long time ago."

How do you suppose it could have been prevented? By premptive bombings BEFORE the violence started?

[Major Fubar 0]

Does the phrase "suspected Al Qaeda terrorists" bother anyone else?