The scale of harm and potential gains achieved through extraordinary rendition

'POTENTIAL' , the opposition is reminded once again to slip out of their hypotheses dreamland and refer to the ACTUAL FACTS. WE repeat that 'extra-ordinary rendition' has NEVER reportedly stopped a potential terrorist act/plot/plan: There is no tangible/real proof behind this still 'repeated' argument If Osama Bin Laden was caught before 9/11 extra-territorially or otherwise, the attack would still have occurred. Since the people who conducted the act were not suspected-terrorists at the time. WE also reiterate Potential verses ACTUAL lives. According to this website[[http://www.bebo.com/BlogView.jsp?MemberId=5831413611&BlogId=5831681811]] four thousand people have died(soldiers fighting the 'War On Terror',innocent civilians(collateral damage))in the Waziristan war. This war was conducted to arrest/kill 'suspects'. The same website also gives the death toll in the Iraq war, however NOT all of the deaths in the Iraq War can be attributed to extra-ordinary rendition. The Taliban or Al-Queda did not have any reported violent murderous enmity with PAKISTAN before 9/11. There would be no deaths(or Waziristan war) whatsoever IF our government hadn't allowed the U.S(under extreme pressure/coercion. Who can say 'no' to the biggest military power on the planet) to bombard our terrain to catch terror-suspects. People who did not initially support the Taliban began to do so, as a result of (the civilian deaths directly caused by) this war. The Taliban's cause EXPANDED(from virtually non-existent in Pakistan,(they were big in Afghanistan but not here) to spangled all over the Country) because of the attacks. The opposition claims rendition is an 'alternative' to WAR yet almost all, reported cases of extra-ordinary rendition have occurred under the heading of 'The WAR on terror'. According to Wiki In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the (9/11) attacks.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks]] Approximately 3000 people died on 9/11, a very small proportion of the American population, consider Pakistan, a Country with a significantly smaller population. 4000 Pakistanis died in the Waziristan war. A much larger proportion of our population. If the American people can be angry enough,about the deaths on 9/11 to O.K killing thousands of mostly uninvolved people all over the world in an attempt to illegally catch terror-suspects. Then how angry should Pakistanis be, for a much larger death toll, that counts for a much much greater proportion of our population? Obviously the 'total' civilian death toll(in Afghanistan,Pakistan & Iraq among other Countries) as a consequence of avenging 9/11 has been much greater than in the event itself. The opposition's argument is as an attempt to justify this, how? by saying that the war fought TO catch,kill and/or detain terror-suspects has nothing to do with extra-ordinary rendition?? I think they need a definition check. No one from the proposition has questioned the capacity of an individual or small group of people to kill masses. An American terrorist could have easily piloted a plane into a building, killing just as many people, that wouldn't warrant a mad attack on his family, people of his race,people of his religion and his friends/acquaintances. And America would most certainly not WAGE a civil war on the basis of such an attack. Two contemporary examples of psychos, who could have 'potentially' been piloting the planes or were/are crazy enough to hatch the plot- [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre]] The objective of ALL terrorists is to get as many people as possible killed(either BY them or by people trying to catch them).The more, civilian deaths the more attention and thus the more power they get. The fact remains that it is completely illogical to sacrifice the 'many' for the horrific acts of the 'few'. To claim that 'one' terrorist is more dangerous than another, merely because the former is not an American is logically void. The opposition needs to start using the word 'opposition' in reference to themselves and not us, since THEY are 'opposing' the motion not us, of course they can not now. They got us confused. for a while we were deluded into believing that they are the proposition. Strange occurrences.