TALIBAN: DEAD

[Elledan]

<< Elledan-

If you would pull your head out of your computer for ten minutes, you would have heard bin laden's confession. Please don't be so ignorant as to participate in a current event thread when you obviously aren't following the news. It simply confirms our suspicions. >>

I have seen this 'confession', but I would hardly call it evidence. I suspect that even if Bin Laden's organization is not responsible for the 9/11-attacks, this video would have been made public, simply because it's good for Bin Laden's image.

How dare you even remotely insinuate that the US did something to deserve what happened on 9/11? I pray to God that you aren't living on American soil. If you are an American, you should be beaten and deported.[/i] >>

I see. It's called Nationalism, correct?

And IF, just to consider all possibilties, the actions of the US in foreign countries were the cause of the 9/11 attacks, even then it does not justify the deaths of innocent civilians. In that case their deaths would be the responsibility of the US Government, which made fatal mistakes which lead directly or indirectly to the attacks.



<<

<< You're a prime example of paranoia >>


We can deal with paranoia; however, you are a prime example of sheer stupidity and should be made an example of. >>

You're certain you want to say this?



<< EDIT: Thank you, God. I just realized that you claim to be in the Netherlands. I sincerely hope you are. I certainly wouldn't be proud to call you a citizen of our great land. >>

Hmm... indeed, probably Nationalism.

 

[Lucky]

You wont find any that deal with how to protect foreign sources of intelligence in public trial.

These foreign sources simply will not provide the information.

Its too bad you just can't admit you are wrong and move on.


Well I was speaking of US intelligence, not foreign. As it is now, many nations wont extradite criminals to the US because would have the possibility of execution in the first place. With military tribunals, all you need is 2 out of 3 officers agreeing a person is guilty and they can sentence execution immediately without appeal. Worrying about getting bin laden here in the first place, then talk about foreign intelligence.

And as far as admitting im wrong, you havent even given me half an hour to find links to what Im talking about. If you would calm your hyperactive ass down for a few minutes, perhaps I could find some links.

 

[Elledan]

<<

<<
If the US Government says it has suficient evidence and is willing to share this evidence with every country's government who requests proof, who then agree that it is sufficient evidence, then at least some of my doubts will be removed.
Yet I can not put total faith in the words of politicians. Actually no one should.
>>



We already supplied proof to most nations -- and most agreed that bin Laden is guilty. Don't you even read what TexMaster wrote? You have this annoying habit of ignoring answers to your own questions.

Even Pakinstan admited that bin Laden is guilty. The only country we didn't do that with was Afghanistan -- and the Taliban was just trying to buy time (first they said they didn't know where he was then said that he is missing and then said he is under house arrest). >>


*sigh*

I already know that the evidence was offered to other countries, including my own, yet what I was wondering what this evidence was, since it has not been made public and I don't like it to be kept in the dark. Also, like I said before, I do not put my confidence in what politicians say.

 

[Mrburns2007]

Elledan:

read my post I tried to answer why bin laden wants to destroy America....

 

[Texmaster]

<< You wont find any that deal with how to protect foreign sources of intelligence in public trial.

These foreign sources simply will not provide the information.

Its too bad you just can't admit you are wrong and move on.


Well I was speaking of US intelligence, not foreign. >>



Ah I see now you make the distinction even though I adressed foreign intelligence all 3 times I replied to you. Only now do you address it and separate it.



<< As it is now, many nations wont extradite criminals to the US because would have the possibility of execution in the first place. With military tribunals, all you need is 2 out of 3 officers agreeing a person is guilty and they can sentence execution immediately without appeal. Worrying about getting bin laden here in the first place, then talk about foreign intelligence. >>



Bin Laden isn't the only one being held. There are many other members of his organization that are awaitnig trial that foreign intelligence will play a major role in their trials. So yes it is still an essential question which apparently you are refusing to address.



<< And as far as admitting im wrong, you havent even given me half an hour to find links to what Im talking about. If you would calm your hyperactive ass down for a few minutes, perhaps I could find some links. >>




I know how I torment you so! LOL

Hell I'll give you the end of the day! LOL You wont find a legitimate source that addresses either

#1 Military evidence remaining secret in public court with 100% security
#2 Or being able to show how foreign intelligence sources can be assured their names and informatio will not be exposed in open court.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I already know that the evidence was offered to other countries, including my own, yet what I was wondering what this evidence was, since it has not been made public and I don't like it to be kept in the dark. Also, like I said before, I do not put my confidence in what politicians say. >>



Why are you so distrusting of even your own governemnt? Or even of the man who Confessed? LOL

This level of paranoia you are displaying is really quite sad.

Some things you are just going to have to accept that you are not important enough to break intelligence barriers to see everything you want.

 

[Jzero]

<< Wow, what an intelligent statement. The US is pretty annoying, huh? I always felt it was pretty annoying when Middle Eastern terrorists where bombing our embassies, our ships, our property on US soil, and killing thousands of innocent people. That's pretty annoying. >>



I love quoting myself:


<< If you think that's a justification for terrorism, please speak now and publicly affirm your ignorance. >>



So you're saying that the attacks to which you refer were actually just random acts of violence? A bunch of brainwashed extremists all got together one day and said "Let's start some trouble. Who should we target? The US? Sure, that's as good as any other..."
LMAO. Then again, you answer my question below, albeit in a very "Jingoist" way. Heck, you even word it reminiscently of Theodore Roosevelt:


<< Why are we hated? The big picture is this -- the US is the most civil and peaceful superpower in existence, so it is our duty to "police" the world. Being the world's "police" makes a lot of enemies, but the fact is that you can't make everyone happy all the time. Who else should do it? China or Russia? LMFAO. >>



That's it in a nutshell. One sovereign nation cannot attempt to be the "enforcer" over other sovereign nations. To do so would require an impartial coalition of representatives of many nations. It is impossible to separate at least the PERCEPTION of an ulterior motive from a single nation who has taken it upon herself to arrange the world as she sees fit. Come on....imagine if the police for in your town was owned by a private corporation. Regardless of how true or false your suspicions might be, would you honestly be able to set aside the suspicion itself that the police force is now acting only the interests of the parent company, and not necessarily to work fair and impartial justice?
Likewise, there is no way anyone can ever lay to rest the idea that the US does what it does for her own benefit. And it makes sense. Why sick our fingers in all these pies if we have nothing to gain from it?
As for my coalition described above, sounds like the UN. Except the UN is resented because its very foundation in which certain major world powers at the end of WWII were given special benefits such as veto powers. So, while the UN is a step in the right direction, it still lacks true impartiality.

The US made it's own enemies. I'm not saying we made terrorists. We made enemies. If we take away this excuse, terrorists will make another; better foreign policy won't solve that problem.
Better foreign policy would create a better global environment.

But I'm just a liberal moron, so don't listen to me.

 

[SSP]

<<

<<

<<
If the US Government says it has suficient evidence and is willing to share this evidence with every country's government who requests proof, who then agree that it is sufficient evidence, then at least some of my doubts will be removed.
Yet I can not put total faith in the words of politicians. Actually no one should.
>>



We already supplied proof to most nations -- and most agreed that bin Laden is guilty. Don't you even read what TexMaster wrote? You have this annoying habit of ignoring answers to your own questions.

Even Pakinstan admited that bin Laden is guilty. The only country we didn't do that with was Afghanistan -- and the Taliban was just trying to buy time (first they said they didn't know where he was then said that he is missing and then said he is under house arrest). >>


*sigh*

I already know that the evidence was offered to other countries, including my own, yet what I was wondering what this evidence was, since it has not been made public and I don't like it to be kept in the dark. Also, like I said before, I do not put my confidence in what politicians say. >>



Are you special or something?

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< Next question: why is it that Bin Laden and his followers are so eager to see the US suffer? No action is done without reason. >>




Bin Laden and his followers want a pure Islamic state and democracy is in direct contrast to that. Also saudi arabia is consider holy land and has alot of symbols of the islamic faith. The problem being that Suadi Arabia is a more modern country and we have military bases there, this greatly offends the followers of the Islamic faith who believe that "infidels" or non-believers should not set foot on Holy Land.

History: Bin Laden left Suadi Arabia and went to afghanistan to fight the soviet invasion when he returned to Saudi Arabia he was hailed as a hero but he quickly angered Saudi Arabia officials when he began critizing the government and trying to inspire people to overthrow the government and replace it with a taliban style government. Saudi Arabia kicked him out of the country and he went to afhganistan were he and the taliban became allies. >>


Thanks a lot

I'm sorry that I missed your post, but apparently your post didn't attract my attention between those flames.

I know this has been asked before, but why doesn't the US and all other 'infidels' simply leave the Middle-East if it only leads to conflicts? I faintly seem to recall that this wasn't possible for some reasons, but I would like someone to refresh my memory

 

[yllus]

To be truthful I couldn't care less if OBL was really behind it all, Afghanistan needed to be set back on a proper political footing anyway - if just to stop building up hatred for the West. And no doubt he really is scum one way or another that needs to be brought to justice (in one way or another).

Has OBL explicitly confessed? No, don't think so. The videotape you're all referring to had bin Laden replying to a question about the whether someone should have struck the WTC with "they were legitimate targets". Also, Blair's list of points barely deals with the attacks of 9/11. In the end like everyone says, our leaders would never have launched this campaign without concrete proof, that is 100% political suicide...I hope! You can't really be 100% about anything, so why by 100% about this? Elledan have as much right as anyone to question *anything* he wants, geesh. Stuff like questions used to be common sense.

 

[Elledan]

<< Are you special or something? >>


In a way I am. Why do you ask?

 

[yllus]

<< I know this has been asked before, but why doesn't the US and all other 'infidels' simply leave the Middle-East if it only leads to conflicts? >>


1. Iraq, with its large standing army, could possibly invade and capture those slightly valuable oil fields from its neighbours, thus putting our oil supply at risk.
2. Oil.
3. Oil.
4. Oil.
5. If you want to protect something right, you best do it yourself - that's what they're there for!

 

[AGodspeed]

I see little Tex has been starting unwarranted flames again. Don't even consider taking this guy seriously, just like in our little technological bouts in pm, Tex can't admit when he's wrong.

Next question: why is it that Bin Laden and his followers are so eager to see the US suffer? No action is done without reason.

Bin Laden is what is known as an Islamic Fundamentalist. In general, fundamentalists desire the destruction of the modern world. The brightest symbol for the modern world is the United States. Therefore fundamentalists see us as a threat, hence the whole September 11th tragedy.

So, why do these fundamentalists really want us destroyed, is it just because we?re a beacon for the modern world? It's actually quite simple, and it lies in the fact that fundamentalists desire that all of society revert to nearly 700-year-old tradition and basically bring down the living standards to that comparable of the 13th/14th century. The fundamentalists want to revert to the "old" serfdom ways of life, as was present around the 13th/14th century. I don't really have a clue as to why fundamentalists want this to happen, I can only guess that their upbringing and/or living environment has harbored this kind of thinking.

 

[OS]

<< I already know that the evidence was offered to other countries, including my own, yet what I was wondering what this evidence was, since it has not been made public and I don't like it to be kept in the dark. Also, like I said before, I do not put my confidence in what politicians say. >>



So you want international foreign policy to revolve around your ignorance?

Riiight. . .

 

[clarkmo]

<<

<< Next question: why is it that Bin Laden and his followers are so eager to see the US suffer? No action is done without reason. >>

Why whatever do you mean Elledan? Are you saying that the US deserved this attack? >>

Please sit down and calm down a bit. You're a prime example of paranoia.

There was a question there, though , Elledan. I was grateful to hear Texmaster's responses. because you're questions seem to be meant to be annoying. You provide no credible content. I'll answer the question since you seem to want to avoid it. The Arabs do not like each other. This has gone on for centuries. [/b]We are Bin Laden's scapegoats[/b]. He has succeeded in some unification of Arabs and Islam but it fell far short of his delusions of grandeur. The idea that the U.S. is the world's enforcer is erroneous. Because of their abilities, they are called on to be the UN's enforcer at times. That is why they provide support to Israel. Israel is a country by international treaty. That is why the U.S, left Iraq w/o Saddam. They were required to by law. The UN would have their own security force do the work but they don't have the ability to do so. The U.S. does not proceed w/o the UN's say so. Iraq does. Bin Laden did. Jiminy cricket, I think you're just jealous. What was your theory anyway? Or were you just venting?

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< I know this has been asked before, but why doesn't the US and all other 'infidels' simply leave the Middle-East if it only leads to conflicts? >>


1. Iraq, with its large standing army, could possibly invade and capture those slightly valuable oil fields from its neighbours, thus putting our oil supply at risk.
2. Oil.
3. Oil.
4. Oil.
5. If you want to protect something right, you best do it yourself - that's what they're there for! >>


Now I remember =)

So... now that no 'infidels' are willing to leave the country, what's going to happen? Kill all terrorists? That might mean that at least half of the population of the Middle-East has to be killed.

You know what? Perhaps only soldiers and other people who are of the Islamic faith should be stationed in the Middle-East. At least then no one can complain that the infidels should leave the country

 

[Texmaster]

<< That's it in a nutshell. One sovereign nation cannot attempt to be the "enforcer" over other sovereign nations. To do so would require an impartial coalition of representatives of many nations. It is impossible to separate at least the PERCEPTION of an ulterior motive from a single nation who has taken it upon herself to arrange the world as she sees fit. Come on....imagine if the police for in your town was owned by a private corporation. Regardless of how true or false your suspicions might be, would you honestly be able to set aside the suspicion itself that the police force is now acting only the interests of the parent company, and not necessarily to work fair and impartial justice?
Likewise, there is no way anyone can ever lay to rest the idea that the US does what it does for her own benefit. And it makes sense. Why sick our fingers in all these pies if we have nothing to gain from it?
As for my coalition described above, sounds like the UN. Except the UN is resented because its very foundation in which certain major world powers at the end of WWII were given special benefits such as veto powers. So, while the UN is a step in the right direction, it still lacks true impartiality.

The US made it's own enemies. I'm not saying we made terrorists. We made enemies. If we take away this excuse, terrorists will make another; better foreign policy won't solve that problem.
Better foreign policy would create a better global environment.

But I'm just a liberal moron, so don't listen to me. >>



Fine. The US has enemies what a shocker.

Now please explain how that justifies the WTC attacks.

If it doesn't then what is your point besides the obvious one that the US has enemies?

 

[Elledan]

<< The idea that the U.S. is the world's enforcer is erroneous. >>


It is? Strange, I've seen evidence which tells me exactly the opposite. According to various sources, the US assisted in overthrowing various governments and was in other ways responsible for influencing political decisions and changes in other countries. All in secret.

You care to back up your claim?

 

[Texmaster]

<< I know this has been asked before, but why doesn't the US and all other 'infidels' simply leave the Middle-East if it only leads to conflicts? I faintly seem to recall that this wasn't possible for some reasons, but I would like someone to refresh my memory >>



Why do other countries in Europe do the same thing? Its called Capatilism. Heck I bet even the Netherlands have businesses in the middle east.

Do you have something against capatilism now too?

 

[Elledan]

<< I see little Tex has been starting unwarranted flames again. Don't even consider taking this guy seriously, just like in our little technological bouts in pm, Tex can't admit when he's wrong.

Next question: why is it that Bin Laden and his followers are so eager to see the US suffer? No action is done without reason.

Bin Laden is what is known as an Islamic Fundamentalist. In general, fundamentalists desire the destruction of the modern world. The brightest symbol for the modern world is the United States. Therefore fundamentalists see us as a threat, hence the whole September 11th tragedy.

So, why do these fundamentalists really want us destroyed, is it just because we?re a beacon for the modern world? It's actually quite simple, and it lies in the fact that fundamentalists desire that all of society revert to nearly 700-year-old tradition and basically bring down the living standards to that comparable of the 13th/14th century. The fundamentalists want to revert to the "old" serfdom ways of life, as was present around the 13th/14th century. I don't really have a clue as to why fundamentalists want this to happen, I can only guess that their upbringing and/or living environment has harbored this kind of thinking. >>

Hmm.. much like the Mormons in the US, thus. Correct?

I appreciate your insight

 

[Texmaster]

<< I see little Tex has been starting unwarranted flames again. Don't even consider taking this guy seriously, just like in our little technological bouts in pm, Tex can't admit when he's wrong. >>



LOL Really!

I quote from this very thread

<< 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. >>


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

LOL Proving you wrong Godspeed has become a national pastime.

Lets see if you are man enough to admit your mistake here

 

[Elledan]

<<

<< I know this has been asked before, but why doesn't the US and all other 'infidels' simply leave the Middle-East if it only leads to conflicts? I faintly seem to recall that this wasn't possible for some reasons, but I would like someone to refresh my memory >>



Why do other countries in Europe do the same thing? Its called Capatilism. Heck I bet even the Netherlands have businesses in the middle east.

Do you have something against capatilism now too? >>

Capatilism? You mean capitalism?

But yes, I do have quite a lot against Capilalism in its pure form.

And BTW, would you mind ceasing attacking me for no apparent reason? It's getting quite annoying.

 

[Leon]

Taliban Holy Warrior

 

[yllus]

<< You know what? Perhaps only soldiers and other people who are of the Islamic faith should be stationed in the Middle-East. At least then no one can complain that the infidels should leave the country. >>


Won't work either. They're still there on behalf of the United States. OBL and his clique view people who in their minds twist the Islamic faith as even worse than complete outsiders - that would be even worse. You can never make anyone happy, it's just that this nut has access to resources and the actual balls (or loss of sanity) to try and do something about it.

At the end of it all, there's some babysitting that's got to be done in the Middle East and elsewhere until the area is stable enough to stand on its own two feet. Unfortunately in order to keep with good faith in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere the U.S. has to deal with the same people that need to make an exit and transition in democratic reform. The world's imperfect that way sometimes.

I don't know where this sympathizing with terrorists stuff is coming from, yet again. I guess you should just know better than to ask valid (though slightly elementary) questions about American foreign policy. "Bad American! Terrorist sympathizer! Get out of here if you don't like what we're doing!" It's getting REALLY old.

Edit: Spelled sympathizing wrong.

 

[StormRider]

<<
China, Russia, India, and the Philipines are other nations that have felt bin Laden's wrath. These countries have Muslims separatists and extremists who have trained in bin Laden's terrorist camps. Why do you continue to ignore this? >>

Were there any large-scale attacks on these countries like on 9/11? I wouldn't call it Bin Laden's 'wrath', then.
>>



Well, from another thread, I think someone quoted a figure of about 30,000 to 40,000 causalties in India's long termed conflict with Muslim extremists. There wasn't a single large scale attack on India but the overall damage has been great.

There have been bombings in Russia, China, and the Philipines. These attacks started relatively "small" with us too. Who knows what the future will hold?