The Gaming Den

Zinegata wrote:

violence in the media wrote: Make your points clearer and more efficiently. Right now your words to meaningful content ratio is pretty low, what with all your Apaches lying about. Or was that lying Apaches flying about

Then I ask that you also don't be a smartass in replying and don't make assumptions. Read what I actually wrote or ask for a clarification instead of making insinuations.

I'm a generally reasonable person; you have a deal. Thanks for answering my question.

Zinegata wrote:You also prefer to let Bin Laden the freedom to plan another attack on America while he's under "trial"? What if he planned a dirty bomb attack next while he was under "trial" and New York ends up nuked?

What the fuck? Why the fuck wouldn't they use a dirty bomb to start with if they had access to one? Also: what makes someone able to plan terror attacks while in custody, but unable to plan them while places he is not in get bombed? But more importantly, why do you scoff at the notion of following the due process of law?

Zinegata wrote:You are citing facts that people eight years ago would not have known. You are bullshiting with the benefit of hindsight.

Ok, tell me what I got wrong. Examples please.

Zinegata wrote:That the war did not go as well eight years down the line is a seperate issue from this. People did not say "Let's kill civilians over a naively peaceful solution!" back in 2001. They said "What do you think of us Taliban? IDIOTS?" At any time, the Taliban could have handed Bin Laden over without attaching any conditions. They did not.

What part of the following statement is unreasonable? "Osama bin Laden allegedly committed his crimes while in Afghanistan, therefore he should be tried according to those laws." Heck, the Abu Ghraib jailers committed crimes on Iraqi soil - were they tried according to Iraqi law? If not, why do you think US laws, US courts and US demands apply in Afghanistan?

And even if they did, why do you think it is fine and dandy to launch a fucking war over a criminal's actions? Yes, 9-11 was horrible. But bombing multiple countries into the stone age is much worse than that. Not to mention that there is a world of difference between the actions of a criminal organization and the actions of a government. Basically you are holding the Taliban responsible for actions coordinated by a citizen of a foreign country while in their country. That is bullshit.

Zinegata wrote:

Kaelik wrote:But for you to get on a moral high horse where you claim that it is wrong to kill murderers is fucking hilarious.

Murdering murderers, aka vigilantism is in fact wrong and a crime in all civilized countries. The right thing to do is to punish those people in a court of law. Going to war on the other hand is what you do when you are targeting not individuals, but a country, or at least the government thereof. At the time of the invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban were still offering to treat him as you treat any alleged criminal. They were not even given a chance to police their own country before the bombs started falling. Is that justice? Is that the standard the US holds themselves to?

Murtak wrote:What part of the following statement is unreasonable?

You still haven't answered why the Taliban could not have turned over Osama to the United States with no conditions if their aim was to prevent war.

Also, Bin Laden murdered American citizens, and citizens from numerous other countries. Based on international law the trial should occur where the crimes were committed. This is called "extradition". Killing civilians in mass numbers is also called "crimes against humanity". There is a court (albeit largely ineffective) at The Hague for that.

Yet the Taliban insisted on an Islamic trial they would run themselves. They went back on their initial offer of extradition, and they refused to consider a trial by International Court.

And yet you utterly refuse to condemn them, refuse to lay any blame on them, and cite Abu Ghuraib which happened years AFTER the start of the Afghan War as a reason NOT to turn Bin Laden over?

You're an idiot who hates America more than a regime that forces women to wear a fucking carpet and stones to death those who disobey.

Nothing else need be said, and nothing else you say needs be listened to. It is clear that to you, America can do no right, and the Taliban can do no wrong. And your viewpoint is a major reason why hawks have been able to marginalize the anti-war movement for so long.

@Ganbare Gincun:
Remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Its more likely that they are idiots who shouldn't be behind gun sights or that the videos are too shitty to be of any use than that they are trying to kill arabs.

Then it's more likely that they had cognitive dissonance and forced themselves to believe that the next group were valid targets because they couldn't admit that they were wrong.

Idiocy, not racism.

---

Kaelik wrote:If you kill people just because they kill people, you are not scum, you are a goddam hero.

If you fail to kill the right people, you aren't a hero, but yes you fucking retard, the correct response to someone murdering someone else is to murder the murderer.

That's the best possible response you could ever have.

You say that a death penalty for murderers is the best punishment possible?

Doesn't that go against lots of studies and history showing that the death penalty is worse at reducing murders than incarceration?

If so then the sensible thing to do would have been to let the Taliban run the trial in a known place then bomb them to bits. Kills all the murderers and America is an international hero. Some collateral damage but you don't lose soldiers. Or just assassinate him.

---

Seriously PhoneLobster and Crissa, shit or get off the pot. If you make a claim you need to back it up with something. Religion often gets mocked for making large claims, then refusing to back it up or claiming that it is obvious to any observer and it is a problem with atheists that they can't see it. You are doing the same.

It took a long, long while and the sensible searches couldn't find any specific statement that the US congress has passed any such resolution. And while I found a quote for Cheney back in 1998, that is still only one very corrupt official and took a long and laborious route. But I wouldn't have had to do that if you'd just said that the wikipedia article for the Caspian Sea itself has a quote from Cheney about the strategic importance.

Demonstrate some fucking causality will you? Or at least a lot better correlation.

But why is Afghanistan specifically so important for oil? Is America's relationship with Iran or the EU that bad that they have to destroy a government so that they don't have to pay a charge to use the pipelines?

I can see a conspiracy theory where there are multiple regions that Bin Laden could have been. For example Bin Laden could be in Egypt, Iran, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, wherever. Hell, he could be in America making use of Medicaid with some plastic surgery. However, people high up in the government involved in Halliburton could have helped decide on Afgahanistan specifically because of oil rather than any of the other options. But starting a war just because of the oil is retarded.

Murtak wrote:Murdering murderers, aka vigilantism is in fact wrong and a crime in all civilized countries. The right thing to do is to punish those people in a court of law. Going to war on the other hand is what you do when you are targeting not individuals, but a country, or at least the government thereof. At the time of the invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban were still offering to treat him as you treat any alleged criminal. They were not even given a chance to police their own country before the bombs started falling. Is that justice? Is that the standard the US holds themselves to?

Murdering Murders, aka the police, is a nationally recognized and nationally funded institution in all civilized countries, and most uncivilized ones.

When a country shelters a murderer that you would like to try, you respond by various threats and posturing, until eventually, you have to back that up. Going to war with a government that harbors and provides sanctuary to murderers is something that is not always the right thing to do, but often is.

If the Taliban had actually made a good faith effort to police their own country, they would have extradited Bin Laden. They did not, mostly because they could not, and as such, it was a viable option for the US to invade to encourage other countries to extradite terrorist masterminds to the countries affected by their terrorism.

You'll notice that the US has extradition treaties signed with many nations, and regularly extradites.

Now if you want to be a whiny moral relativist and say that the Taliban not extraditing Bin Laden is identical to the US not extraditing Saalam Rushdie, go ahead you asshat and say it plain words so everyone can see how stupid you are.

Parthenon wrote:You say that a death penalty for murderers is the best punishment possible?

Doesn't that go against lots of studies and history showing that the death penalty is worse at reducing murders than incarceration?

If so then the sensible thing to do would have been to let the Taliban run the trial in a known place then bomb them to bits. Kills all the murderers and America is an international hero. Some collateral damage but you don't lose soldiers. Or just assassinate him.

1) Death Penalty or incarceration has nothing to do with this, because Bin Laden did not quietly surrender himself to our custody. If a guy murders seven people, and then still has a gun, and starts shooting at the cops who try to arrest him, they can either shoot him back, or they can die, and that'sa really it.

Likewise, Bin Laden is free, we can either try to kill him, and even go so far as to demand extradition, enforced with actual war, or we can just tell the Taliban if they don't feel like extraditing him, he can just continue sitting their planning future attacks and we won't bother him.

Those are the options. And that murtak demands that we allow a country that doesn't even have the power to arrest Bin Laden in the first place conduct their own trial with no say and accept the results of that trial is a fucking joke. It is exactly like just asking the bank robber to pretty please lay down his weapon and come out, but if he doesn't feel like it, then the bank tellers can form a jury and try him and we will abide by the outcome of the jury of bank tellers he holds at gunpoint.

2) Displaying such naked contempt of other courts as to bomb the court itself in session is probably not a good outcome, because then France wonders if we are going to bomb their court the next time we are sure (not really France, but Turkey might).

But assassination is fine. I wish they would have done that, it's much better in the long run for us than the invasion, and it shows the same message, "you will get fucked."

It doesn't provide us with a chance to advance a country in that region to standards of treating women and apostates as we might like, but fuck, it's not like we succeeded in Afghanistan at that, nor would you choose that as your test case country.

Zinegata wrote:

Murtak wrote:What part of the following statement is unreasonable?

You still haven't answered why the Taliban could not have turned over Osama to the United States with no conditions if their aim was to prevent war.

Because they get off on flipping off the US? Because they are willing to die for their principles? Look, it does not even matter what they do or don't do. We agree that the Taliban are scum. What matters is what the US do. And stooping down to the level of the Taliban makes the US no better than them. it means they are the bad guys. It also means the terrorists have won. Look at the actual damage all terrorist attacks ever have caused to the US, both in terms of human lives and money. By any rational accounting the damage is a drop in the bucket. Now look what has been spent in terms of human lives, money and citizens' rights. The numbers beggar those of the terrorist attacks.

Zinegata wrote:Also, Bin Laden murdered American citizens, and citizens from numerous other countries. Based on international law the trial should occur where the crimes were committed. This is called "extradition". Killing civilians in mass numbers is also called "crimes against humanity". There is a court (albeit largely ineffective) at The Hague for that.

You mean the same one the US routinely ignores? Facetiousness aside, yes, a trial in the Hague would have been reasonable. And of course the US is entirely reasonable in wanting to try those who committed crimes on their own soil on that very soil. Unfortunately all of those are dead. What is less reasonable is wanting to try the one you accuse of coordinating the attacks on your own soil. What is utterly unreasonable is attacking the country he lives in "because they would not find him guilty". As much as I hate the Taliban I can not blame them for not handing over someone to a country who has already pronounced a verdict.

Zinegata wrote:Yet the Taliban insisted on an Islamic trial they would run themselves. They went back on their initial offer of extradition, and they refused to consider a trial by International Court.

So what? They reserved for themselves the same right the US reserves for themselves. And if they had then turned the trial into a mockery, like the US does, you could still invade, but then at least the US would have a reason, however flimsy. Without the Taliban actually having a trial you can not even be sure whether they approved of bin Laden's actions, much less whether they are in league with him - which was the reason given for the invasion.

Zinegata wrote:And yet you utterly refuse to condemn them, refuse to lay any blame on them, and cite Abu Ghuraib which happened years AFTER the start of the Afghan War as a reason NOT to turn Bin Laden over?

God-fucking-damnit. Let me say it again: The Taliban are murderous scum. But even murderous scum needs to be given the benefit of doubt.

And no, Abu Ghraib is not a reason for not turning over bin Laden. It is an example of what the US apparently considers to be justice. I fail to see how the Taliban don't measure up.

Zinegata wrote:You're an idiot who hates America more than a regime that forces women to wear a fucking carpet and stones to death those who disobey.

Bullshit. I just hold them to a higher standard than the level of an insane religious theocracy. I expect them to be better than the Taliban.

Murtak wrote:Bullshit. I just hold them to a higher standard than the level of an insane religious theocracy. I expect them to be better than the Taliban.

And part of that "higher standard" is that you demand that they obey the dictates of that insane religious theocracy.

Your explicit claim is that the US must treat the insane religious theocracy as their moral equals, and not as an insane religious theocracy.

Zinegata wrote:You still haven't answered why the Taliban could not have turned over Osama to the United States with no conditions if their aim was to prevent war.

Because it is highly doubtful that the Taliban could've actually done this, despite their promises to do so.

The country was and is run by regional warlords. The Taliban - who was in the midst of losing a civil war at the time until Osama killed their #1 enemy - promising to turn over anyone with localized popular support is not the same as a non-failed-state saying they're willing to extradite.

If Osama bin Laden was to be caught, he wasn't going to be caught by agents of the Taliban in 2001.

The 'funny' thing is that we struck the civilian government of Afghanistan, who had said they would cooperate. The government was controlled by the (separate) Taliban, yes, and did not actually have the power to hand over Osama bin Laden - mostly because the latter had more troops and money than the civilian government.

We pretty much blew up the bank tellers because they didn't have enough guns or butter to take on the bank robber.

-Crissa

Okay, I get the difference. You're saying that murdering someone while they are in the process of murdering others is heroic. Not in general, or necessarily as first reaction.

---

Throwing in some random links:

[*]Long article about what the unofficial ROE is.
[*]100 or so veterans from Iraq testifying that they were unofficially told to ignore orders and to plant evidence on corpses
[*]Comment on the apache gunning saying that happened 9 out of 10 times.

Parthenon wrote:Okay, I get the difference. You're saying that murdering someone while they are in the process of murdering others is heroic. Not in general, or necessarily as first reaction.

Not just while they are doing it, but in general up until they are physically incapable of doing it anymore.

The Taliban agreeing to hand over an accused criminal IF you can legally demonstrate they are a criminal IS them agreeing to hand over Osama. That in itself is NOT an unusual or unjustifiable position. When you want to extradite someone you have to expect SOME sort of legal proceedings. Can the USA not afford a couple of lawyers all of a sudden?

But really since they gave up on that and attempted to offer to hand him over WITHOUT any legal justification I can't imagine what you are arguing.

Here DO YOUR HOME WORK you illiterate uninformed idiot. That's right they tried three times to open negotiations to hand Osama over without even the most cursory of legal justification.

Now you CAN make the argument that really the Taliban probably lacked the power and information to actually capture Osama. But then... as suggested by experts at the time and now proven by history The US armed forces lack that power too.

The reality is the local law enforcement infrastructure, local government and local experts were bombed into the stone age even while offering to help and now WITHOUT their help you have failed in the supposed goal of capturing Bin'Laden.

One would think if you really had wanted to do that as your primary goal you would have had any local support you could get. Even if it meant sending in the bombs and the troops to Bin'Laden's door step because the Taliban lacked the troops to take him on one would assume that having the Taliban you know, lead you to his doorstep might have been helpful since you have so far been unable (or unwilling) to get that far by yourselves.

PhoneLobster wrote:The Taliban agreeing to hand over an accused criminal IF you can legally demonstrate they are a criminal IS them agreeing to hand over Osama.

No, no, no. This is you being a lying shit again.

Again, the Taliban's final position is that they demanded they try him in their own fucking courts. That they offered to hand them over after giving evidence is merely their first position, which they subsequently retracted.

In short, you are only linking articles which completely ignore the latter half of the story. That the Taliban did NOT follow through with the offer, and that they instead demanded they try Bin Laden themselves. Again:

On 7 October 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence.[159] This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.

In fact, the very first article returned by your search result (which many other search results link verbatim) says this:

For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

Yeah, your own link doesn't even claim they would hand over Bin laden to the US. They said they would hand him over to some "neutral" country, which was likely Pakistan. Something which was ALSO noted in the wikipedia article:

On 4 October 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law, but Pakistan refused the offer.

Yes, that was their offer three full days BEFORE their final one.

In short, you position is a total lie because:

1) The "evidence" you linked is referring to the offer the Taliban made on October 4, which was not to hand over Bin Laden to the US. It was to hand him over to Pakistan.

2) The final offer was made on October 7. The final offer was to try Bin Laden themselves under Sharia Law.

Only the first offer, which the Taliban subsequently retracted, offered to extradite Bin Laden/

You and your source are all lying shits who don't do any actual research. You took one fucking soundbyte and built an entire bullshit case around it. And you don't even need any evidence outside of fucking Wikepedia (and yes, all of the above quotes have citations) to disprove you.



Also, another nice snippet from the Wikipedia article:

After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, Osama bin Laden and several Al-Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[137] The Taliban protected Osama bin Laden from extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing" in Afghanistan,[138] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[139][140] Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records.[141][142] Bin Laden in turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols like the Buddhas of Bamiyan

Yeah, the Taliban offered to give him up "if the US could show evidence" since 1998. Except that when the evidence was shown to them including fucking satellite phone records, they claimed no evidence was provided.

You're a tool for the Taliban if you buy "They wanted to hand over Bin Laden to prevent war". A quick glance at all of the facts on hand quickly show that:

1) They never intended to hand over Bin Laden in 2001.

2) They offered to hand over Bin Laden in 1998 if the US could show evidence. When the US did, they still refused anyway.

3) There are a lot of dumb shits on the Internet who read the October 4 offer... but didn't do any further research that shows that offer was invalidated 3 days later... and the Taliban already showed they would not honor it anyway based on their actions three fucking years before the fact.

--------

Also

What you are doing is NOT fucking research. This is you typing some nonsensical shit like "Aliens DO Exist!" and then claiming it as factual because you got search results like so:

http://www.google.com.ph/#hl=tl&source= ... a80a870679

You're an idiot, a liar, and not even a researcher. Just a hack.

EDIT: Now bring on your other fucking "evidence" so we can show what an idiot you really are.

violence in the media wrote:

Zinegata wrote:

violence in the media wrote: Make your points clearer and more efficiently. Right now your words to meaningful content ratio is pretty low, what with all your Apaches lying about. Or was that lying Apaches flying about

Then I ask that you also don't be a smartass in replying and don't make assumptions. Read what I actually wrote or ask for a clarification instead of making insinuations.

I'm a generally reasonable person; you have a deal. Thanks for answering my question.

My apologies for not noticing your reply as of yet. You are welcome. This has been a very good conversation.

Crissa wrote:The 'funny' thing is that we struck the civilian government of Afghanistan, who had said they would cooperate. The government was controlled by the (separate) Taliban, yes, and did not actually have the power to hand over Osama bin Laden - mostly because the latter had more troops and money than the civilian government.

We pretty much blew up the bank tellers because they didn't have enough guns or butter to take on the bank robber.

-Crissa

Again, outright lies. See above for a savaging of PL's and the interweb's nonsensical claims that Obama is mistaken that the Taliban never offered to give us Osama.

Obama knew the score: The Taliban's "offer" was a bullshit scam meant to buy time, and only idiots ever bring it up.

mean_liar wrote:

Zinegata wrote:You still haven't answered why the Taliban could not have turned over Osama to the United States with no conditions if their aim was to prevent war.

Because it is highly doubtful that the Taliban could've actually done this, despite their promises to do so.

The country was and is run by regional warlords. The Taliban - who was in the midst of losing a civil war at the time until Osama killed their #1 enemy - promising to turn over anyone with localized popular support is not the same as a non-failed-state saying they're willing to extradite.

If Osama bin Laden was to be caught, he wasn't going to be caught by agents of the Taliban in 2001.

False. The last two offers were to send Osama to Pakistan, and to try him themselves respectively. In fact the first offer was to turn over Osama to the US.

The first two offers would be impossible if they did not have Osama in custody. If they didn't, then the offers were made in bad faith and it was totally justifiable in ignoring them.

Repeat after me: This whole "Taliban Offered To Hand Over Osama" thing? It was a ruse created by the Taliban to buy time and fool idiots like you. Since many people are apparently willing to believe because they are too fucking lazy to do research.

Murtak wrote:Because they get off on flipping off the US?

Again, what you say does not deserve to be read nor responded to.

It's not like the US ever gave the Afghani government any choice in the matter. Our president and administration at the time did not believe in diplomacy, and did not engage in any.

However, comments on this board indicate a possible ignorance of how their government was run. It was very similar to Iran: There's an elected government, who controls basic things like the day to day management, the police force, and efforts against the rebelling parties. Parties in Afghanistan were like parties in Iraq: They were armed forces led by a warlord or cleric. The Taliban were one such party, with a core of clerics that ran their political, military, and policing wings.

What makes Afghanistan even more complex is that there are various overlapping and diverse tribes - which unlike in Iraq, are not controlled by families, but instead warlords. Each tribe even has its own language!

Osama bin Laden came to Afghanistan just as the US was starting to give them arms. He's a hero - or was - to many in the country for bravely fighting for freedom before the US even supplied the weapons they needed to take down the Soviet air power. He stayed and invested deeply into various communities, helping them rebuild from the rubble.

The Taliban came to power as a group of refugees in Pakistan, who believed being more pious would lead to them winning. Their pious words gained them wide-spread support, and from there they began to lock down on freedoms as they took over. It wasn't a quick process, really, it was more generalisms which then resulted in misogynist specifics. They banned opium growing that was the basis for much of the various faction's military funding, and so the US supported them.

But once Osama was targeted, the US funded the poppy-growing rebels, and bombed the government to the ground. At no point did we send envoys to treatise with them directly, relying on French diplomats going through Iran.

bin Laden was a hero and a guest of the nation. It's basically like France showing up and saying Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, George Washington's right hand man or one of the other Founding Fathers was a war criminal and should be handed over. It was going to take more than a little we-say-so apprehend him.

Lastly, the US didn't actually send troops to capture bin Laden. We bombed his farm, put a bounty on his head, and paid thousands of dollars for such criminals as... The guy who drove a truck at one of bin Laden's many farms. There's no evidence the US actually attempted to capture bin Laden, or to do anything other than 'look good' killing brown people.

You can say I'm lying... As I'm asserting facts. However, you can't prove me wrong - in fact, you will find I'm generally right if you bother to search. And I'm certainly willing to change my views if history bears me wrong. But in this thread, it won't.

-Crissa

If you notice, I wasn't disagreeing with PhoneLobster or Crissa. What I was arguing was that if you are going to make a claim you should damn well back it up, and not insist that the other person does their homework and finds all the evidence for you. I was just calling you on your bullshit. And again with Crissa.

Crissa wrote:you will find I'm generally right if you bother to search.

I shouldn't have to search. If you are saying that the US never bothered to search for him, the least you could do is link to a single article saying so. I might as well say that 9/11 was orchestrated by Kim Jong Il, and that the hijackers were assassinated and replaced by Korean shapeshifting secret agents who turned into invisible pterosaurs and flew off after the crash, and then say that the evidence is there if you bother to search for it. (Thats utterly ridiculous I know, but hopefully you get what I mean.)

I gave up trying to find any evidence of PhoneLobster's position after trying to find any US congress resolution on the strategic importance of the Caspian. If PhoneLobster had even just linked the article and recommended reading the second article it quotes then I'd be happy. But he couldn't be bothered to even do that.

Once more: if you are going to make a claim then back it up with some evidence. Three links from PhoneLobster's link a .pdf shows how the same people who planned out an invasion of Afghanistan since 1992 became the ambassadors to Afghanistan and how the oil company Unacol tried first to get the rights to a pipeline through Afghanistan then became the leaders of the country put there by the US forces and put through all the things they had been trying to get the Taliban to do through talks.

From there you could have said that this shows that the same people who decided to go to war and escalated the conflict are the same people who have shown oil interests in the country and that invading was the only way to reach their goals and did so.

But you didn't.

All you did was repeatedly tell me to "do your homework" and then finally give a google search for merely one of your claims.

---

Aside from the bullshit finding it, I did find the pdf pretty interesting since I hadn't realised that PNAC and those involved had been trying for an invasion of Iraq for over a decade before they did, and started planning for it two weeks into the Bush administration.

I did know that. Cheney, of course, denies it.

Why do I have to teach current events?

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:It's not like the US ever gave the Afghani government any choice in the matter. Our president and administration at the time did not believe in diplomacy, and did not engage in any.

Also demonstrably false. "The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden" has already been shown to be a false claim. I knew that you would try to change the subject to cover up the fact you and PL were both lying shits, and that your claim would inevitably lead to this one.

Fortunately, I had already done my research.

You see, it was not the Taliban who initiated any discussions to prevent war. It was the United States of America. Lead by the Bush Administration.

After the 9-11 attacks, the United States launched an investigation into the attacks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

Which gathered evidence and concluded than Bin Laden was the mastermind. The US government then made the following demands to the Taliban in order to avert war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

1.Deliver to the US all of the leaders of Al-Qaeda;
2.Release all imprisoned foreign nationals;
3.Close immediately every terrorist training camp;
4.Hand over every terrorist and their supporters to appropriate authorities;
5.Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps for inspection

All of these request do not involve the killing of a single human being.

However, the Taliban chose to ignore all of these points except the first. Yes, dipshit, they were telling the US "We're gonna keep the terrorist training camps open regardless if we hand Bin Laden over".

Not that they were planning to hand over Bin Laden in the first place. Given that you didn't bother refuting all of the facts I presented showing how "The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden" is a fantasy, I'm just gonna say you're a lying shit who's now attempting to cover up the fact that she didn't bother to do actual research and blindly repeated the statement of a stupid partisan hack.

So no, you are still a lying shit who doesn't do research.

----------

There is no need to address any of your other points. You kept repeating that "The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden", insulted me for saying this was not factual, and now you're squirming to move away from this to "The Taliban had good reason not to hand over Bin Laden!"

The problem is, you haven't presented any evidence showing this is true either. You gave only two links as evidence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi ... 86x292.gif

The supposed organizational structure of the government of Iran. And...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_ ... on_Steuben

A link to Baron Steuben. Who you claim the US would have protected if France claimed he was a war criminal. Except that France never charged him as a war criminal. In fact, it was the fucking French who recommended Steuben to the American Revolutionary Army!

If you want to prove that the Taliban wasn't actually in control of Afghanistan, you need to post a link that states this outright. Not link Iran's government structure (there is no evidence that they have a similar government), and not a link to fucking Baron Steuben.

Instead, link to stuff like wikipedia, which states outright...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

In 8 August 1998 the Taliban again took Mazar-i-Sharif this time avenging their earlier defeat and creating more international controversy with mass killings of thousands of civilians and several Iranian diplomats. This offensive left the Northern Alliance in control of only a small part of Afghanistan (10–15%) in the north. The Taliban retained control of most of the country until the 2001 9/11 attacks

... That the Taliban controlled 85-90% of the country. And the only part they didn't truly control was the Northern Alliance - a US Ally during the war and who certainly didn't have Bin Laden under custody.

Crissa, again, what you are doing is not research. It's simply you being an idiot.

------

Finally, just as an icing on the cake...

You claim:

Lastly, the US didn't actually send troops to capture bin Laden.

And then said:

We bombed his farm, put a bounty on his head, and paid thousands of dollars for such criminals as... The guy who drove a truck at one of bin Laden's many farms.

Yeah. You just claimed the US isn't trying to catch Bin Laden... when they bombed one of his properties, put a 25 million dollar bounty on his head, and paid thousands of dollars for people who are remotely related to him on the off chance he might know where Bin Laden is.

That's a whole lot of effort directed at one man.

But your conclusion is:

There's no evidence the US actually attempted to capture bin Laden, or to do anything other than 'look good' killing brown people.

It is clear why you defend the Taliban so much. You have the same standards when it comes to defining "no evidence".

Again, it's safe to conclude everything coming out of your mouth is an outright lie.

Crissa wrote:I did know that. Cheney, of course, denies it.

Why do I have to teach current events?

-Crissa

Because you're not qualified to say anything on the subject.

Seriously, pretty much everything you've stated in this thread has been proven to be a lie. And the only time you presented "evidence", one of your links was to fucking Baron von Steuben. And theoretically claimed the French wanted him as a war criminal. When he was never a war criminal and it was the French who recommended him to the Americans.

You have not presented evidence. You are not qualified to teach current events. You don't even know what they are.

And what's worst is that you insult other people when they prove you wrong.

You're a bitch. And it shows. And that's why it's actually pretty factual to say that's its safer to treat everything coming out of your mouth as an outright lie, instead of giving it the benefit of the doubt.

Parthenon wrote:Okay, I get the difference. You're saying that murdering someone while they are in the process of murdering others is heroic. Not in general, or necessarily as first reaction.

---

Throwing in some random links:

[*]Long article about what the unofficial ROE is.

See, links like this are actually helpful. The Al Jazeera TV report repeatedly stated that according to the US Military report, the pilots were exonerated and followed the RoE. And that the RoE remains classified.

Which indicates that the problem was not the pilots, but rather an RoE that says it's okay to shoot first and ask questions later. This link gives us testimony from soldiers in the field which confirms this theory.

Thanks to helpful links like this, one can actually pinpoint causality to both correct the problem, and to punish the ones who causes this to happen in the first place.

Which is in sharp contrast to certain lying shits here who claim that the shootings were about race, that the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden, that the Afghan War was an oil war, and Baron von Steuben was a war criminal.

Good job. Frankly, that one link alone makes you a better researcher than Gan, PL, and Crissa. Combined. And by several orders of magnitude. That they fail to praise you for this and instead mock you for "not knowing current events" only shows one thing: They don't actually understand what you linked.

Research is not stating random facts to support an ideological position. That's being a hack. Research is finding the facts in order to complete the our knowledge of an entire incident and therefore pinpoint how exactly something happened.