This person has been alive and dying for years since he was released on "humanitarian reasons" after being convicted of mass murder.

Just thought I would drop this in to show how laws work.

As frustrating as it is to think that either this guy managed to falsify an illness, or to have been lucky enough to be one of a tiny percentile who do go into remission for seemingly no reason at all; I would offer the following as a reason for celebration:

Our laws saw it fit to show mercy and human decency to someone who showed neither in his crime.

Any time that our society soars above the moral levels of terrorism and acts with compassion, we should feel very good about it.

The fact that we even debate it is something to feel good about.

It has been said there would have been possible economic consequences if he had not been sent home.

He was released on compassionate grounds,and allowed home to die based on the medical report. Now that he is in remission why don't they just send them back to prison.

Surely, this was a coordinated and well-executed plan that is only made possible with big time backing. And I feel for the loved ones of the 270 innocent people who died.

Cord, while that's all well and good and may put us above people like that, it does nothing to discourage further actions like that. Such people usually are thankful for the chance to act again. You'd be amazed how many insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been caught, given medical attention, fed, kept and qustioend a short time and then released (suually because the governments supposed to be helping us were cousins of them or somethign similar) only to have them continue making attacks and gettign caught repeatedly. Kill them and they stop. It's cold but true.

Remission, my clavicle!

And if you kill them, then they become martyrs, and their sons and friends are inspired to continue.

Al Magrhri was in jail at the time of 9/11 and the London Bombings. His incarceration prevented nothing.

We have now been in the middle east for longer than it took to free the entire globe of the Nazi's, and there is no sign of a 'victory' whatever that means.
Its a part of the world that doesnt want our culture, our beliefs, or our idea of what is 'right'. And quite frankly, why should they? Its not like we have all the answers is it?
I just think we need to take a different approach to the problem - and I was pro the invasion for many years.

And then there is this version:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/feb/08/lockerbie-report-senators-pressure-cameron

But that doesnt make any sense, because it was pretty obvious that should Maghri magically not die of terminal cancer, then the whole thing would blow up in public. That is a crap conspiracy

and I dont think the USA should shout too loudly about this sort of thing, since they kinda invented intel about Saddam having links to Al Quieda, and helped create imaginary wmd's so they could strong-arm the UN into a completely illegal invasion of Iraq.

Thats one hell of a glass house to be throwing conspiracy stones from

You would think that nobody was fighting terrorism until 9/11. UK has been fighting terrorists on our front doorstep for 40 years, but Americans called them 'rebel's' and donated millions to their 'cause'.

It certainly happens sometimee that they become martyrs, but we have found that paying the ones who aren't faithful extremeists (and just think their families are being screwed or something or that we're ruining their lives somehow to) to work for us, works well, worked great with the Sunni Insurgents, they became our allies the Sons of Iraq after we fought them viciously and then gave them jobs and told them we'd leave if they helped us. The oens that need to be wiped out are the ones completely brainwashed with Jihad in their hearts. I've never known them to change.
The nationals who just want their country for themselves or need jobs should be helped and we started doing that aroudn 2007 and it worked very well.

I agree they don't want our way, and nothing is wrong with that and we've been there too long (our origional goals have been completed and that is capturing and/or killing the perpetrators of 9/11 and improving security of our countries)that being said Afghans don't want what the Taliban offer either. Iraqis are so divided and confusing it just makes my head hurt I have no clue what they want (and I was there). Going to Iraq was entirely a mistake and poorly carried out till 06' or 07'.
Our methods are improving, we havethe control part of controlled violence down to a T now. Grunts like me are getting training that years ago only counter terrorist and police units got (precision room clearing skills where you actually avoid killing everyone in the room) and an understanding of culture and nation building (I am actually astonished that the government in Iraq hasn't collapsed entirely even though we no longer run ops there-it's still a very rough palce but it's holding on somehow so I guess we did some things right and some of them are doign their jobs).

You brits pretty much invented counter terrorism. We based our first real CT unit, Delta force on the SAS.
The Iraq thing, even though eventually we did soem good (whether or not that outweighs the damage I'm not sure) yeah it was a farce. I wanted to go to Afghanistan but nooooo they had to send us to do a crap mission. [censored].

Its important in any of these discussions to clarify that whilst I think history will show the actions in Iraq to have been deemed an illegal invasion, it is only the politicians, not the troops, whom I believe to be at fault. I have friends who have served in the Gulf and Afghanistan, and I know that they are brave good people, acting in the finest traditions of allied soldiering.

Your point about fiscal persuasion is a fine one. Its all very well burning the poppy fields to hurt the taliban, but in a harsh land, its a cornerstone of employment and financial stability.

There is a fantastic quote: "They say that Afghans cannot be bought. They can, however, be rented", and I think it true.

How about this for a mind blower? We agree to buy all our medical grade opium from afghanistan. We work with the poppy farmers, and from the wealth generated, build the new infrastructure organicaly as part of the culture.

'A society founded on drug money!!?? disgusting!!' I hear many cry, but just go look at the history of Hong Kong and tell me it didnt work.

You win more hearts and minds with fists of cash than fists clenched.

It's funny, my mma instructor was an embedded trainer in an Afghan anti-narcotics unit. Their work amounted to "ok please don't get high on patrol" and hunting the Taliban. That and trying to encourage the growing of corn as well which has become popular. Half the year they grow corn half the year they grow poppy or weed. We may not like that they base their livlihood on drug money (and honestly their troops do need to learn to not do drugs on missions it gets them killed) but over there drugs are not taboo and it's not our place to tell them otherwise. You're absolutely right with the fists of cash statement and that's a great source of cash. You go around destroying that source of money and you'll make enemies that could've been allies. Interesting idea about buying our medical grade opium from them, I'm all for it. We'd get far more for less money.
Fiscal pursuasion was a key element in General Petraeus's strategy, paying the right peopel and it worked tremendously well. A lot of "insrugents" in those areas just want jobs and we want security. It's a match made in heaven.

All in all, usually the military doesn't care what their culture does and doesn't allow, it's the politicians who want to change the world and make everyone look like us in my experience. We're just like "meh whatever, don't try to kill me and we're cool." We may not like their way of life but we don't particularly care about changing it all. Not our world.

Yeah, what we have in the corridors of power is the meeting of the 2 greatest destructive forces on earth - politics and organised religion. The sooner the decision makers get on board with the military's pragmatism the better we will all be.

On the point of financial influence being an antidote to the clash of cultures, its worth considering that countries in the Middle east that are muslim, yet also proseprous through trade links with the west (oil etc), do not spawn extremism or direct action like deprived/poor muslim societies like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Difficult to see us as 'the white devil' when you have just bought a 100K Range rover and a new rolex thanks to trading with us

Like you said. :-)

This was the mindset I was refrencing in that quote.

While reading this thread I was nodding in agreement with everything you wrote until the above.

I'd just like to point out that nearly all (if not all) of the WTC bombers were Saudis and that Osama himself is/was Saudi.

A few weren't Saudi and Osama was influenced mainly by the Afghans and a Jordanian. But he got a lot of his fiscal backing by Saudi bankers and recruited a lot of Saudis who went to Afghanistan with him. They weren't really accepted anywhere else. Osama and his guys were slighted badly by the Saudi government which turned him down when he offered protectio nagaisnt Iraq during the first gulf war, instead relying on us. This generated a lot of tension between Al qaeda and The Saudi Government and they are still not on good terms as far as I know.
The Saudi government faces terrorism and fights it like we do (though they don't put nearly as much effort into it). That said, they do have a very strict Islamic government and so recruiting people is easy as their people grow up with a somewhat extreme view of Islam to begin with. Not a real big jump to terrorism.