like I said....the average ago of people on this board in 1989 is about 5. and I'm probably being generous, many were probably not even born yet. but sure, lets all have a very important discussion as to what the America media was doing at the time :roll: no one cares.
Feel free to f**k off at anytime. No one here is asking you to show an interest in this or any other thread. You're a troll. I'm surprised the mods are being so lax lately.
I agree. I didnt know telling people to fuck off was allowed
Hey jlew, why do you even wast your energy on this gutter rat ? He obviously does this to get attention.
Let's see if you can stretch your imagination far enough to consider this concept: You say that the Taliban had everything to do with 9/11 because they harbored the very people who planned and executed the attacks on America?
yes. yet, you can't seem to stretch your imagination around the fact that its true.
Therefore is it fair to say that the U.S government had everything to do with the bombing of the Cuban airliner and the bombings in Havana because they harbored and continue to harbour the very people who planned and executed these attacks?
if Venezuela wants to declare war on the US for "harboring" this guy, they can sure as hell try. personally, I'd like to see him extradited.
if Venezuela wants to declare war on the US for "harboring" this guy, they can sure as hell try. personally, I'd like to see him extradited.
But you didn't want to see Bin Laden extradited? You preferred to see a whole country bombed and thousands killed.
Why do you apply these different standards?
if Venezuela wants to declare war on the US for "harboring" this guy, they can sure as hell try. personally, I'd like to see him extradited.
But you didn't want to see Bin Laden extradited? You preferred to see a whole country bombed and thousands killed.
Why do you apply these different standards?
no, I wouldnt prefer that. Bin Laden wasn't going to be extradited. we were attacked and a war was started. negotiating was not an option
Bin Laden was going to be extradited. He would have been extradited under the same terms that anybody is extradited; you provide a modicum of proof supporting the extradition request.
You were attacked by some Saudi Arabians so you started a war against Afghanistan - a war which had been on planned for years before 9/11 as was proven above.
no, I wouldnt prefer that. Bin Laden wasn't going to be extradited. we were attacked and a war was started. negotiating was not an option
the US "won't negotiate with terrorists". regarding Saddam and Desert Storm "Won't negotiate". regarding Afghanistan it was something similar.
they never negotiate. its SOP.
according to this guy
"Kabir Mohabbat is a 48-year businessman in Houston, Texas. Born in Paktia province in southern Afghanistan, he's from the Jaji clan (from which also came Afghanistan's last king). Educated at St Louis University, he spent much of the 1980s supervising foreign relations for the Afghan mujahiddeen, where he developed extensive contacts with the US foreign policy establishment, also with senior members of the Taliban."
Osama bin Laden was offered up "unconditionally" by the Taliban before the invasion.
What's been reported on in mainstream is that Osama was offered up to an international arab court to try him for 9/11. The US could have had him then, instead destroyed a country.....familiar plot.
point is Osama was offered up to be tried for 9/11, the US preferred to invade.
Bin Laden was going to be extradited. He would have been extradited under the same terms that anybody is extradited; you provide a modicum of proof supporting the extradition request.
no he wasn't. you can trust your friends the Taliban all you want but they were not going to extradite anyone. but that is besides the point. one that you have a really hard time understanding. War was already started, time for negotiating ended.
[
You were attacked by some Saudi Arabians so you started a war against Afghanistan - a war which had been on planned for years before 9/11 as was proven above.
you've proved nothing. and the hijackers decent is as irrelevant as my grandmother being from Italy. Saudi Arabia did not harbor them or support their actions. El queda was responsible. their base of operations was in Afghanistan and those in power, the Taliban, allowed them to train and plan attacks against America.
Not an option for a rogue state that has no regard for international law.
again, we were attacked by el queda. war had started. the rules of your beloved international law grants us full rights to protect ourselves as a nation when attacked.
again, we were attacked by el queda. war had started. the rules of your beloved international law grants us full rights to protect ourselves as a nation when attacked.
which then makes 9/11 a legitimate course of action by your logic ... america has been "attacking" foreign sovereign countries for years ...
again, we were attacked by el queda. war had started. the rules of your beloved international law grants us full rights to protect ourselves as a nation when attacked.
which then makes 9/11 a legitimate course of action by your logic ... america has been "attacking" foreign sovereign countries for years ...
no he wasn't. you can trust your friends the Taliban all you want but they were not going to extradite anyone. but that is besides the point. one that you have a really hard time understanding. War was already started, time for negotiating ended.
Did you give the Taliban a chance to prove whether they were going to extradite him? No. Therefore your statement "no he wasn't" doesn't hold any water.
you've proved nothing. and the hijackers decent is as irrelevant as my grandmother being from Italy. Saudi Arabia did not harbor them or support their actions. El queda was responsible. their base of operations was in Afghanistan and those in power, the Taliban, allowed them to train and plan attacks against America.
I proved that a war in Afghanistan had been planned for years before 9/11. The documentary record is clear about this. It's not disputed. The articles I posted prove this. It helps if you read them as opposed to just throwing out empty statements.
we were attacked by el queda. war had started. the rules of your beloved international law grants us full rights to protect ourselves as a nation when attacked.
So according to your logic America is now a valid target for attack because you harbour Cuban terrorists? Or do different standards apply to Americans?
no he wasn't. you can trust your friends the Taliban all you want but they were not going to extradite anyone. but that is besides the point. one that you have a really hard time understanding. War was already started, time for negotiating ended.
Did you give the Taliban a chance to prove whether they were going to extradite him? No. Therefore your statement "no he wasn't" doesn't hold any water.
yes. we told the Taliban to give him to us. they wanted to negotiate.
you've proved nothing. and the hijackers decent is as irrelevant as my grandmother being from Italy. Saudi Arabia did not harbor them or support their actions. El queda was responsible. their base of operations was in Afghanistan and those in power, the Taliban, allowed them to train and plan attacks against America.
I proved that a war in Afghanistan had been planned for years before 9/11. The documentary record is clear about this. It's not disputed. The articles I posted prove this. It helps if you read them as opposed to just throwing out empty statements.
again, you've proved nothing. the war was not planned prior to 9/11. we were attacked from elements within Afghanistan first.
we were attacked by el queda. war had started. the rules of your beloved international law grants us full rights to protect ourselves as a nation when attacked.
So according to your logic America is now a valid target for attack because you harbour Cuban terrorists? Or do different standards apply to Americans?
valid target for who, Venezuela? sure, based on this guy, they can make this case. but they are smarter then that.
again, we were attacked by el queda. war had started. the rules of your beloved international law grants us full rights to protect ourselves as a nation when attacked.
which then makes 9/11 a legitimate course of action by your logic ... america has been "attacking" foreign sovereign countries for years ...
no we haven't
well ... this would explain your position on so many topics
yes. we told the Taliban to give him to us. they wanted to negotiate.
They didn't want to negotiate. They wanted some evidence. Just as if a foriegn government wanted to extradite an American citizen you would ask for evidence. But then I suppose different standards apply to Americans, right?
yes. we told the Taliban to give him to us. they wanted to negotiate.
They didn't want to negotiate. They wanted some evidence. Just as if a foriegn government wanted to extradite an American citizen you would ask for evidence. But then I suppose different standards apply to Americans, right?
I'll say it again, WE WERE ATTACKED. it was no secret who was responsible. we didnt have time to present them with everything they required, have them analyze it, and have us wait for them to accept it or not. war had already started.
america has been "attacking" foreign sovereign countries for years ...
as well as calling America an "extremist" nation explains your position on so many topics. what the fuck is your point?
two things:
1. If you don't understand the root causes of terrorism - there will never be a solution ... if all you see are suicide bombers and beheadings then you are only seeing a part of the story ... all you keep saying is we were attacked therefore the people of afghanistan must suffer ... not only are you not seeing that the people of afghanistand DID NOT wage war on america you are also not looking at what would possess someone to even want to attack america to begin with.
2. I never said america was an extremist nation - i said america is BECOMING an extremist nation - and i said in that post - you can't have this discussion with people because they automatically get defensive - you got your back up so fast you didn't even read what i actually wrote.
america has been "attacking" foreign sovereign countries for years ...
as well as calling America an "extremist" nation explains your position on so many topics. what the fuck is your point?
two things:
1. If you don't understand the root causes of terrorism - there will never be a solution ... if all you see are suicide bombers and beheadings then you are only seeing a part of the story ... all you keep saying is we were attacked therefore the people of afghanistan must suffer ... not only are you not seeing that the people of afghanistand DID NOT wage war on america you are also not looking at what would possess someone to even want to attack america to begin with.
America has enemies. I understand that just fine. so what? would you like me to embrace them and pat them on the head? Afghanistan DID wage war on America. is sad and unfortunate that afgan civilians are caught in the middle. just as sad as the American civilians in WTC being caught in the middle.
2. I never said america was an extremist nation - i said america is BECOMING an extremist nation - and i said in that post - you can't have this discussion with people because they automatically get defensive - you got your back up so fast you didn't even read what i actually wrote.
I read what you said....and becoming, or is, or wants to be..whatever....its all the same because its completely baseless.
America has enemies. I understand that just fine. so what? would you like me to embrace them and pat them on the head? Afghanistan DID wage war on America. is sad and unfortunate that afgan civilians are caught in the middle. just as sad as the American civilians in WTC being caught in the middle.
so what?? ... afghanistan DID NOT wage war against america - america put the taliban in power ... you want to take 14 saudi hijackers and blame it on afghanistan - that's your prerogative but you have no legal nor moral ground to stand on ...
America has enemies. I understand that just fine. so what? would you like me to embrace them and pat them on the head? Afghanistan DID wage war on America. is sad and unfortunate that afgan civilians are caught in the middle. just as sad as the American civilians in WTC being caught in the middle.
so what?? ... afghanistan DID NOT wage war against america - america put the taliban in power ... you want to take 14 saudi hijackers and blame it on afghanistan - that's your prerogative but you have no legal nor moral ground to stand on ...
are you another one that has no clue to whats going on? the hijackers nationality is IRRELEVANT. you love to mention Saudi....why? should we have attacked Saudi? I cant imagine why you think its relevant to mention them. the hijackers were part of the el queda network. el queda had safe haven inside Afghanistan. there was NO option, expect to go into Afghanistan and destroy those who wanted to destroy us.
are you another one that has no clue to whats going on? the hijackers nationality is IRRELEVANT. you love to mention Saudi....why? should we have attacked Saudi? I cant imagine why you think its relevant to mention them. the hijackers were part of the el queda network. el queda had safe haven inside Afghanistan. there was NO option, expect to go into Afghanistan and destroy those who wanted to destroy us.
1. al qaeda has bases everywhere - not just afghanistan - justice is about making people pay for their crimes
2. all you have destroyed is the lives of many civilians - al qaeda is just as strong, so strong that they were able to show up in iraq when america decided to invade iraq.
3. the taliban are still alive and strong ... even the puppet regime put in there has now got to negotiate with taliban and warlords.
are you another one that has no clue to whats going on? the hijackers nationality is IRRELEVANT. you love to mention Saudi....why? should we have attacked Saudi? I cant imagine why you think its relevant to mention them. the hijackers were part of the el queda network. el queda had safe haven inside Afghanistan. there was NO option, expect to go into Afghanistan and destroy those who wanted to destroy us.
1. al qaeda has bases everywhere - not just afghanistan - justice is about making people pay for their crimes
o yea? like where? where was Osama bin Laden and all of his leadership on 9/11? where were the vast majority of training camps? I cant wait for this one.
2. all you have destroyed is the lives of many civilians - al qaeda is just as strong, so strong that they were able to show up in iraq when america decided to invade iraq.
3. the taliban are still alive and strong ... even the puppet regime put in there has now got to negotiate with taliban and warlords.
those fuckers sure are resilient arent they? el queda is not "just as strong". they are all but nonexistent in a centrally organized sense. even in Iraq. and the taliban, yea, those assholes sure do a great job of blending in with civilians and hiding. hopefully Pakistan finishes them off.
o yea? like where? where was Osama bin Laden and all of his leadership on 9/11? where were the vast majority of training camps? I cant wait for this one.
sure there were camps in afghanistan but also pakistan - why didn't you guys attack pakistan?
those fuckers sure are resilient arent they? el queda is not "just as strong". they are all but nonexistent in a centrally organized sense. even in Iraq. and the taliban, yea, those assholes sure do a great job of blending in with civilians and hiding. hopefully Pakistan finishes them off.
then why the heck are ya still in iraq and afghanistan?
o yea? like where? where was Osama bin Laden and all of his leadership on 9/11? where were the vast majority of training camps? I cant wait for this one.
sure there were camps in afghanistan but also pakistan - why didn't you guys attack pakistan?
because the vast majority of training camps, as well as OBL and his leadership, were in Afghanistan. and the area of Pakistan you are referring to is only loosely consider Pakistan. its a lawless area that the Pakistani government cant get to. for America to "invade" that area is almost logistically impossible. which is why we attack the area with unmaned drones.
those fuckers sure are resilient arent they? el queda is not "just as strong". they are all but nonexistent in a centrally organized sense. even in Iraq. and the taliban, yea, those assholes sure do a great job of blending in with civilians and hiding. hopefully Pakistan finishes them off.
then why the heck are ya still in iraq and afghanistan?
to maintain security and nation build. thankfully a withdrawal date is set for Iraq. Afghanistan is different. we are fighting a ghost. an enemy to hides in civilian clothes. the outcome of the current civil war in Pakistan will have large impact on what happens in Afganistan, IMO.
because the vast majority of training camps, as well as OBL and his leadership, were in Afghanistan. and the area of Pakistan you are referring to is only loosely consider Pakistan. its a lawless area that the Pakistani government cant get to. for America to "invade" that area is almost logistically impossible. which is why we attack the area with unmaned drones.
so where else is on your hit list?
but you didn't attack just the training camps ... you attacked almost all of afghanistan to take out the taliban ... like you say - these "terrorists" operate in cells all over the world ... in any case - it's taking away from my primary point which is if you don't understand why anyone would want to attack america - you'll never have peace ...
to maintain security and nation build. thankfully a withdrawal date is set for Iraq. Afghanistan is different. we are fighting a ghost. an enemy to hides in civilian clothes. the outcome of the current civil war in Pakistan will have large impact on what happens in Afganistan, IMO.
there "successes" in afghanistan are far outweighed by the "failures" ... bin laden released another tape today - things are going hunky dory for that organization - meanwhile millions of innocent people are dead and america continues to spend a gazillion dollars on war while people lose their jobs and homes ...
because the vast majority of training camps, as well as OBL and his leadership, were in Afghanistan. and the area of Pakistan you are referring to is only loosely consider Pakistan. its a lawless area that the Pakistani government cant get to. for America to "invade" that area is almost logistically impossible. which is why we attack the area with unmaned drones.
so where else is on your hit list?
but you didn't attack just the training camps ... you attacked almost all of afghanistan to take out the taliban ... like you say - these "terrorists" operate in cells all over the world ... in any case - it's taking away from my primary point which is if you don't understand why anyone would want to attack america - you'll never have peace ...
thats right. the Taliban needed to be removed from power as well. why? so they can not continue to allow groups like el queda to thrive.
and I already said that I understand America has enemies. and achieving so called peace isn't as cut and dry as you think. I do however we are much more on that path now, then we were under Bush.
to maintain security and nation build. thankfully a withdrawal date is set for Iraq. Afghanistan is different. we are fighting a ghost. an enemy to hides in civilian clothes. the outcome of the current civil war in Pakistan will have large impact on what happens in Afganistan, IMO.
there "successes" in afghanistan are far outweighed by the "failures" ... bin laden released another tape today - things are going hunky dory for that organization - meanwhile millions of innocent people are dead and america continues to spend a gazillion dollars on war while people lose their jobs and homes ...
I agree it hasnt been easy and ideally, I'd love for both wars to be over.. but things are definitely not going hunky dory for them. especially compared to summer 2001 for example.
Comments
Hey jlew, why do you even wast your energy on this gutter rat ? He obviously does this to get attention.
Looks like you've made a friend Jlew. How cute.
Sure, whatever you say. In the meantime feel free to contribute something intelligent to this thread topic anytime.
yes. yet, you can't seem to stretch your imagination around the fact that its true.
if Venezuela wants to declare war on the US for "harboring" this guy, they can sure as hell try. personally, I'd like to see him extradited.
Maybe you should do the same
Touche!
But you didn't want to see Bin Laden extradited? You preferred to see a whole country bombed and thousands killed.
Why do you apply these different standards?
no, I wouldnt prefer that. Bin Laden wasn't going to be extradited. we were attacked and a war was started. negotiating was not an option
Bin Laden was going to be extradited. He would have been extradited under the same terms that anybody is extradited; you provide a modicum of proof supporting the extradition request.
You were attacked by some Saudi Arabians so you started a war against Afghanistan - a war which had been on planned for years before 9/11 as was proven above.
Not an option for a rogue state that has no regard for international law.
they never negotiate. its SOP.
according to this guy
"Kabir Mohabbat is a 48-year businessman in Houston, Texas. Born in Paktia province in southern Afghanistan, he's from the Jaji clan (from which also came Afghanistan's last king). Educated at St Louis University, he spent much of the 1980s supervising foreign relations for the Afghan mujahiddeen, where he developed extensive contacts with the US foreign policy establishment, also with senior members of the Taliban."
Osama bin Laden was offered up "unconditionally" by the Taliban before the invasion.
What's been reported on in mainstream is that Osama was offered up to an international arab court to try him for 9/11. The US could have had him then, instead destroyed a country.....familiar plot.
point is Osama was offered up to be tried for 9/11, the US preferred to invade.
no he wasn't. you can trust your friends the Taliban all you want but they were not going to extradite anyone. but that is besides the point. one that you have a really hard time understanding. War was already started, time for negotiating ended.
you've proved nothing. and the hijackers decent is as irrelevant as my grandmother being from Italy. Saudi Arabia did not harbor them or support their actions. El queda was responsible. their base of operations was in Afghanistan and those in power, the Taliban, allowed them to train and plan attacks against America.
again, we were attacked by el queda. war had started. the rules of your beloved international law grants us full rights to protect ourselves as a nation when attacked.
which then makes 9/11 a legitimate course of action by your logic ... america has been "attacking" foreign sovereign countries for years ...
no we haven't
Did you give the Taliban a chance to prove whether they were going to extradite him? No. Therefore your statement "no he wasn't" doesn't hold any water.
I proved that a war in Afghanistan had been planned for years before 9/11. The documentary record is clear about this. It's not disputed. The articles I posted prove this. It helps if you read them as opposed to just throwing out empty statements.
So according to your logic America is now a valid target for attack because you harbour Cuban terrorists? Or do different standards apply to Americans?
yes. we told the Taliban to give him to us. they wanted to negotiate.
again, you've proved nothing. the war was not planned prior to 9/11. we were attacked from elements within Afghanistan first.
valid target for who, Venezuela? sure, based on this guy, they can make this case. but they are smarter then that.
well ... this would explain your position on so many topics
They didn't want to negotiate. They wanted some evidence. Just as if a foriegn government wanted to extradite an American citizen you would ask for evidence. But then I suppose different standards apply to Americans, right?
Yes it was. The evidence is there for everyone to see. The fact that you choose to ignore it makes no difference. It''s still there.
I'll say it again, WE WERE ATTACKED. it was no secret who was responsible. we didnt have time to present them with everything they required, have them analyze it, and have us wait for them to accept it or not. war had already started.
your so called evidence doesn't prove anything
and this..
as well as calling America an "extremist" nation explains your position on so many topics. what the fuck is your point?
two things:
1. If you don't understand the root causes of terrorism - there will never be a solution ... if all you see are suicide bombers and beheadings then you are only seeing a part of the story ... all you keep saying is we were attacked therefore the people of afghanistan must suffer ... not only are you not seeing that the people of afghanistand DID NOT wage war on america you are also not looking at what would possess someone to even want to attack america to begin with.
2. I never said america was an extremist nation - i said america is BECOMING an extremist nation - and i said in that post - you can't have this discussion with people because they automatically get defensive - you got your back up so fast you didn't even read what i actually wrote.
America has enemies. I understand that just fine. so what? would you like me to embrace them and pat them on the head? Afghanistan DID wage war on America. is sad and unfortunate that afgan civilians are caught in the middle. just as sad as the American civilians in WTC being caught in the middle.
I read what you said....and becoming, or is, or wants to be..whatever....its all the same because its completely baseless.
so what?? ... afghanistan DID NOT wage war against america - america put the taliban in power ... you want to take 14 saudi hijackers and blame it on afghanistan - that's your prerogative but you have no legal nor moral ground to stand on ...
if you say so
are you another one that has no clue to whats going on? the hijackers nationality is IRRELEVANT. you love to mention Saudi....why? should we have attacked Saudi? I cant imagine why you think its relevant to mention them. the hijackers were part of the el queda network. el queda had safe haven inside Afghanistan. there was NO option, expect to go into Afghanistan and destroy those who wanted to destroy us.
no no, you're right. we are becoming an extremist nation, why? because you say so.
1. al qaeda has bases everywhere - not just afghanistan - justice is about making people pay for their crimes
2. all you have destroyed is the lives of many civilians - al qaeda is just as strong, so strong that they were able to show up in iraq when america decided to invade iraq.
3. the taliban are still alive and strong ... even the puppet regime put in there has now got to negotiate with taliban and warlords.
o yea? like where? where was Osama bin Laden and all of his leadership on 9/11? where were the vast majority of training camps? I cant wait for this one.
those fuckers sure are resilient arent they? el queda is not "just as strong". they are all but nonexistent in a centrally organized sense. even in Iraq. and the taliban, yea, those assholes sure do a great job of blending in with civilians and hiding. hopefully Pakistan finishes them off.
sure there were camps in afghanistan but also pakistan - why didn't you guys attack pakistan?
then why the heck are ya still in iraq and afghanistan?
because the vast majority of training camps, as well as OBL and his leadership, were in Afghanistan. and the area of Pakistan you are referring to is only loosely consider Pakistan. its a lawless area that the Pakistani government cant get to. for America to "invade" that area is almost logistically impossible. which is why we attack the area with unmaned drones.
so where else is on your hit list?
to maintain security and nation build. thankfully a withdrawal date is set for Iraq. Afghanistan is different. we are fighting a ghost. an enemy to hides in civilian clothes. the outcome of the current civil war in Pakistan will have large impact on what happens in Afganistan, IMO.
but you didn't attack just the training camps ... you attacked almost all of afghanistan to take out the taliban ... like you say - these "terrorists" operate in cells all over the world ... in any case - it's taking away from my primary point which is if you don't understand why anyone would want to attack america - you'll never have peace ...
there "successes" in afghanistan are far outweighed by the "failures" ... bin laden released another tape today - things are going hunky dory for that organization - meanwhile millions of innocent people are dead and america continues to spend a gazillion dollars on war while people lose their jobs and homes ...
thats right. the Taliban needed to be removed from power as well. why? so they can not continue to allow groups like el queda to thrive.
and I already said that I understand America has enemies. and achieving so called peace isn't as cut and dry as you think. I do however we are much more on that path now, then we were under Bush.
I agree it hasnt been easy and ideally, I'd love for both wars to be over.. but things are definitely not going hunky dory for them. especially compared to summer 2001 for example.