If Osama bin Laden were on Saudi soil and in the control of the Saudi government, if Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia were to announce that he would not hand him over to the United States because it was his duty to give 'panah' [shelter] to a Brother Muslim, if such an announcement were not accompanied by strong diplomatic representations that every member of Al Qaeda within reach of the Saudi government would shortly lose his head...
...then the United States would be bombing Saudi Arabia now.
Brad DeLong
> > You folks really, really are not prepared to face up to the mayhem
>> logically implied by your own assorted revolutionary positions.
>> The use of force by somebody cannot be escaped as long as
>> there are retrograde elements (such as al-qaida or OBL) prone
>> to use force themselves.
>>
>> mbs
>
>=========
>
>To consistently maintain your position why aren't you suggesting we
>should bomb SA? They're marginally different from the Taliban;
>directly and indirectly funded the Taliban and by the Bushies own
>investigations, Al Qaeda*; the strategists - perpetrators mostly come
>from there. We're all familiar with the canard that the choices suck,
>but if the administration's claims to legitimize it's action is/was
>'to bring the perpetrators to justice,' doesn't that minimally require
>getting the target right? You've yet to answer that part of my past
>queries. If SA is innocent from your perspective, then why aren't the
>Taliban and, surely, the Afghan people?
>
>Ian