TALIBAN: DEAD

[d1abolic]

Kandakar has fallen. YES!

Omar: missing.

 

[PliotronX]

Is this *CONFIRMED* ?

Right on the front page (doy )

*****CONFIRMED*****

 

[d1abolic]

According to CNN.

 

[bacillus]

unfortunately very few people actually know what Omar looks like so he could be anywhere now! :|

 

[Elledan]

You know what? First Osama Bin Laden was the target, together with his terrorist network, then the Taliban was added to the list and right now the US and allies are in charge of providing Afghanistan with a future.

Yet still I've not seen a single piece of evicence which proves that Bin Laden's network was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I must be missing something.

 

[Jzero]

Actually, it doesn't matter b/c he was already implicated in a number of other plots including the first WTC bombing, attacks on US embassies in Africa, and a few others.
However, his broadcasts in the past few months have all but outright said it was his people.

 

[RossGr]

Generally evidence is made public at the trail, the jury then determines guilt or innocence. I would like to see BL stand trial just to learn the details of the evidence that they do have.

 

[pdo]

And I thought Taliban are hardcore fighters. Why is this war so easy to win?

 

[StageLeft]

I think that we have not seen evidence because it is somewhat secret, perhaps to avoid giving up intelligence sources. Given what has happened in afghanistan and given reactions of the terrorists, plus given what all of the coalition leaders have said (they have seen the evidence) I have little doubt or none at all that those involved in 9/11 are also the direct targets now. And, as mentioned, they are scum anyway and if they did not do this (but they did) they sure would have wanted to and are trying to do similar things.

 

[Texmaster]

<< You know what? First Osama Bin Laden was the target, together with his terrorist network, then the Taliban was added to the list and right now the US and allies are in charge of providing Afghanistan with a future.

Yet still I've not seen a single piece of evicence which proves that Bin Laden's network was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I must be missing something. >>



I guess all the world leaders who claim to have seen the evidence of Bin Ladin's hand in this and the confession Bin LAden made himself in his last interview isn't enough for you huh. Its all part of the vast right winged conspiracy right Moron?


The only thing worse than a terrorist is a terrorist sympathizer.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< You know what? First Osama Bin Laden was the target, together with his terrorist network, then the Taliban was added to the list and right now the US and allies are in charge of providing Afghanistan with a future.

Yet still I've not seen a single piece of evicence which proves that Bin Laden's network was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I must be missing something. >>



I guess all the world leaders who claim to have seen the evidence of Bin Ladin's hand in this and the confession Bin LAden made himself in his last interview isn't enough for you huh. Its all part of the vast right winged conspiracy right Moron?


The only thing worse than a terrorist is a terrorist sympathizer. >>

And your point is?

Oh yes, I love those terrorists. No really, what could be more wonderful than people who blow up buildings and kill countless innocent people?

BTW, in case you didn't notice it yet, your post was an unprovoked personal attack.

 

[burnedout]

Evidence Presented to the British Parliament, 4th October 2001

No worries Ellendan. I'm quite sure much more evidence shall surface in the coming months ahead.

 

[StormRider]

<< Yet still I've not seen a single piece of evicence which proves that Bin Laden's network was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I must be missing something.
>>



Common sense?

Seriously, I think it should be obvious by now that bin Laden's network was involved. Most of the hijackers had connections to the network. The money trail lends back to the network. And the most damning evidence is videotape where bin Laden basically admits to it.

I get the impression you think this is some sort of huge US conspiracy to frame an "innocent" bin Laden. Why would we want to do that? A lot of us lost loved ones in the WTC attack -- we want to get the ones responsible for it. Do you really think that we would make up some excuse to frame bin Laden and let the real murderers get away with it? Don't you think we would want to catch the ones responsible for this crime?

If we were really trying to frame bin Laden -- wouldn't we have tried to link the anthrax attack to bin Laden too? But we didn't -- because we have no evidence of it. Right now we think it was a domestic terrorist that was responsible for this incidence.

 

[StageLeft]

I don't think it's unreasonable for elladan to question things. Lets not forget that in this century america was scared sh*tless of communism calling everyone and their brother a commie-bastard. Questioning policy is healthy. I still think Bin is involved but wanting evidence would be nice; I think we'll see it in time.

 

[Texmaster]

<< And your point is? >>



My point is no one is dumb enough, not even you to think the US would go through all this if they were not 100% sure he was behind this. To ask for evidence once again after

#1 World leaders have climed to have seen it and found it credible
#2 Bin Laden's own personal admission of his role in it in his last interview

One can only conclude you have a personal problem or agenda against the US. There is no other explanation for your clearly partisan statements of proof.




<< Oh yes, I love those terrorists. No really, what could be more wonderful than people who blow up buildings and kill countless innocent people? >>



Making a bigger fool of yourself doesn't change your arguement.



<< BTW, in case you didn't notice it yet, your post was an unprovoked personal attack. >>




Unprovoked? You insult the intelligence of everyone here asking that pathetic question, it was hardly unprovoked.

The only answer is that you have some sort of personal problem or negative agenda with the US.

 

[Kjazlaw]

It's like pulling over a drunk driver and finding out that he's already wanted on other counts, plus finding stashes of drugs and weapons in his car. I don't have any sympathy for bin Laden or the Taliban.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I don't think it's unreasonable for elladan to question things. Lets not forget that in this century america was scared sh*tless of communism calling everyone and their brother a commie-bastard. Questioning policy is healthy. I still think Bin is involved but wanting evidence would be nice; I think we'll see it in time. >>



Century Scorb? Come on, at the most it was 1945-70 MAX.

Elladan insults everyone here by posing that question. I'm simply calling him on it.

 

[Thump553]

Texmaster, I think you overreacted greatly and should calm down. Elledan simply said I want to see the proof. Well so do I. That doesn't make me a terrorist sympathiser or commie or liberal or whatever else is the scum de jour.

I understand the need for secrecy at this time to protect sources, etc. But at the time of trial, if there is one, I want a full and fair hearing.

Its funny how the right is saying we should trust big government's position implicitly now, when they were saying quite a different thing about Ruby Ridge, etc.

Please do not misinterpret these comments into some claim that I am against our actions in Afganistan or some such nonense.

 

[Elledan]

I don't think that that I've anything to add to what the others said. It appears that there are still a few wise people on this forum.

Kids, stay away from patriotism. Long exposure is really bad for you.

 

[StormRider]

<<
Texmaster, I think you overreacted greatly and should calm down. Elledan simply said I want to see the proof. Well so do I. That doesn't make me a terrorist sympathiser or commie or liberal or whatever else is the scum de jour.
>>



How come no one considers the video tape where bin Laden basically admits to doing it as legitimate evidence? I seem to recall that someone posted a link to an article describing this video tape. What kind of proof do you want?

We have established links between the hijackers and members of al-Qaida. We have traced money trails back to al-Qaida. I just don't understand what kind of proof are you guys looking for.

And we probably have secret taped conversations between members of al-Qaida (and the Taliban) implicating themselves (but showing these to the world now will jepordize our security -- i.e. they will know we are listening in on certain channels and therefore use other means of communicating -- or we have informants who would be discovered and killed)

Are you waiting for a formal presentation of the evidence? That usually occurs in a trial. But we need to catch him first before we can have a trial.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Texmaster, I think you overreacted greatly and should calm down. Elledan simply said I want to see the proof. Well so do I. That doesn't make me a terrorist sympathiser or commie or liberal or whatever else is the scum de jour. >>



What kind of proof do you want? Are you niave to believe that all of these world leaders and simply lying and that Bind Laden himself is lying about his own confession?

Dont insult my intelligence by asking for proof when the guy admits he did it.



<< I understand the need for secrecy at this time to protect sources, etc. But at the time of trial, if there is one, I want a full and fair hearing. >>



Then count on zero help from foreign intelligence.

They have already said they will not hand over evidence they collected for public record because it exposes their intelligence gathering.

The only way is through military Tribunal.



<< Its funny how the right is saying we should trust big government's position implicitly now, when they were saying quite a different thing about Ruby Ridge, etc. >>



LOL Oh spare us your political twist. I think if the UN council finds sufficient evidence that Bins Laden was behind it, the heads of countless nations are satisfied with Bin Laden's involvement.

And (now read this carefully because you have abviosuly missed it the last THREE times I posted it) Bin Laden's own connfession of his involvement.

Not even the terrorists are asking for proof anymore.

Let me ask you a very simple question. Do you believe Bin Laden is behind these attacks or not?

If you don't then you are going against the man himself who already confessed.

If you do then why are you so hung up on asking for proof? I've got news for you, I don't want my intelligence operatives of my country taking unecessary risks just to satify your curiosity.

At some point you have to get off this bandwagon of conspiracy theorists that the goverment is hiding the real person behind this and accept that overwhelming evidence of trust from the nations around the world will just have to be enough proof.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I don't think that that I've anything to add to what the others said. It appears that there are still a few wise people on this forum.

Kids, stay away from patriotism. Long exposure is really bad for you. >>



You are asking for proof about a person's invovlement to a crime he already confessed to.

Who is the stupid one here?

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< I don't think it's unreasonable for elladan to question things. Lets not forget that in this century america was scared sh*tless of communism calling everyone and their brother a commie-bastard. Questioning policy is healthy. I still think Bin is involved but wanting evidence would be nice; I think we'll see it in time. >>



Century Scorb? Come on, at the most it was 1945-70 MAX.

Elladan insults everyone here by posing that question. I'm simply calling him on it. >>





Are you unable to read? He said "in this century". That doesnt mean "for a whole century", only that within the last century, we were afraid of communism.

Of course, Im sure it was a harmless comprehension error and not you trying to twist his post.


edit:

The only way is through military Tribunal.


Not exactly true. We have ways of keeping national/military secrets secret without tribunals through already existing channels.

 

[Texmaster]

<< He said "in this century". That doesnt mean "for a whole century", only that within the last century, we were afraid of communism.

Of course, Im sure it was a harmless comprehension error and not you trying to twist his post. >>



It was a harmless comprehension error and I do apologize for it.

I have said many times I had no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Its too bad you haven't learned that rule yet Luckster.



<< The only way is through military Tribunal.


Not exactly true. We have ways of keeping national/military secrets secret without tribunals through already existing channels. >>



Name them. and please name the ways foreign intelligence will br protected in public court.

 

[Lucky]

cool.

thought I'd post this again since you might not see my edit:


The only way is through military Tribunal.


Not exactly true. We have ways of keeping national/military secrets secret without tribunals through already existing channels.