Al Qaeda's Mission

[Changleen]

In a new tape from AQ, Ayman al-Dhawahiri goes further trying to get the message home to Americans exactly what it is about American foreign policy they have an issue with. Fortunately for America, Fox News and others are doing their normal excellent job of selective reporting so the average citizen can rest peacefully in the knowledge that AQ is Evil, and that America is Good. :nuts:

Al-J:
Al-Qaida releases new video
Tuesday 30 November 2004, 1:24 Makka Time, 22:24 GMT

A leading al-Qaida member has told the Arab world his organisation will continue to attack the US until it changes its policies in the Middle East.

In an exclusive Aljazeera broadcast on Monday, the Islamist network's second-in-command Ayman al-Dhawahiri said the way the US deals with Muslims was unacceptable.

The new video, made before the 2 November presidential elections, told the American electorate that it did not matter whether they voted Republican or Democrat.

"The two US presidential candidates are challenging each other to satisfy Israel, to continue a crime against the Islamic nation in Palestine that began 87 years ago.

"I say to Americans, vote for whomever you want: Bush or Kerry or even the devil - it is not of any importance.

"What concerns us is to purify our nation from the aggressors and to resist whoever attacking us, profaning our sanctities and stealing our wealth", said al-Dhawahiri.The Guardian:
In a brief excerpt broadcast on Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri offered Americans ``one last advice'' for dealing with Muslims, adding, ``I am sure that they will not heed it.''

``You have to choose between one of two methods to deal with Muslims: either on mutual respect and exchange of interests, or to deal with them as if they are spoils of war,'' al-Zawahri said. ``This is your problem and you have to choose yourself. You have to realize that we are a nation of patience and endurance. We will stand firm to fight you with God's help until doomsday.'' Thankfully, as he says, I'm sure George Bush will take no notice of anything he's actually said, call him an evil terrorist several times and describe the video as a message of hatred or something similar. You are so lucky to have him as a President.

[Echo]

And I'm sure all the Kerry supporters will ignore the part about it not mattering who is president... because Kerry could do so much better... you can't have it both ways champ.

[Changleen]

And I'm sure all the Kerry supporters will ignore the part about it not mattering who is president... because Kerry could do so much better... you can't have it both ways champ.Have what both ways? I was only ever a Kerry supporter because on several issues he would have clearly been better than Bush. I totally agree that even if Kerry got in this the Jewish / Middle East problems would still be pretty much as they are now.

All I'm trying to point out is the American mainstream's failure to even acknowledge these 'Evil terrorists' even have an agenda outside the simplified lie that is being fed to the public.

[Echo]

I blame Al-Jazeera.

Do you think it's a coincidence that almost everyone in the Arab world hears what Al-Jazeera says, but more than half of Iraq's citizens either don't understand how to vote in the upcoming elections, or don't know anything about the candidates? It's because Al-Jazeera doesn't tell them. You know damn well they could.

They are just as bad as any of the media here.

[Silver]

Kerry might (maybe...but I really don't think he could have done any worse, even if he had intentionally tried to) have stopped providing neat recruiting footage for the bad guys though.

[ncrider]

I blame Al-Jazeera.

Do you think it's a coincidence that almost everyone in the Arab world hears what Al-Jazeera says, but more than half of Iraq's citizens either don't understand how to vote in the upcoming elections, or don't know anything about the candidates? It's because Al-Jazeera doesn't tell them. You know damn well they could.

They are just as bad as any of the media here.

:stupid:
check out that new documentory, Control Room. It's all about the media and how we need it, but all media is scewed no matter where it's coming from.

[Changleen]

Control room is a very very good movie - it's pretty old now though. I think it'd open a few people on here's eyes (not necassarily you, Echo) about Al-J, and about domestic American media, too.

[Changleen]

I blame Al-Jazeera.

Do you think it's a coincidence that almost everyone in the Arab world hears what Al-Jazeera says, but more than half of Iraq's citizens either don't understand how to vote in the upcoming elections, or don't know anything about the candidates? It's because Al-Jazeera doesn't tell them. You know damn well they could.

They are just as bad as any of the media here.Hmm, I would say it is the place of the Iraqi interim government to tell the people how to vote - I don't see other news stations explaining voting to any other populations, but anyway that is kind of beside the point - we're not talking about the Iraqi elections - start another thread if you wanna discuss that eh?

In this instance Al-J (I only choose to use Al-J as the source for this story to see what prejudices I'd get thrown up) and the Guardian (or AP, or one of several other news sources would have done) are all reporting what the guy actually said, where as Fox, (for example :D) 'translates' the quotes into 'American' (subtly making it more blunt in the process) and selects a few passages for maximum 'impact' and blatently misses out half of the substance of what he said.

Fox's actual coverage of what Zawahri said:
"The results of the elections do not matter for us," al-Zawahiri said in the three-minute excerpt. "Vote [for] whoever you want, Bush, Kerry or the devil himself. This does not concern us. What concerns us is to purge our land from the aggressors."

He advised the Americans to choose between one of two things: "Either you choose to treat us with respect and based on an exchange of interests ... or we will continue to fight you until you change your policies."So - a translation of what he actually said, as used by the guardian and several other international news sources:

"You have to choose between one of two methods to deal with Muslims: either on mutual respect and exchange of interests, or to deal with them as if they are spoils of war. This is your problem and you have to choose yourself. You have to realize that we are a nation of patience and endurance. We will stand firm to fight you with God's help until doomsday."

and the Fox version:

"Either you choose to treat us with respect and based on an exchange of interests ... or we will continue to fight you until you change your policies."

I personally can't believe they have the audacity to put it in quotation marks.

[TheInedibleHulk]

Im gonna catch some serious flak for this one... but here goes...

Put yourselves into the place of a soldier fighting for Al Queda.... hundreds of thousands of people in your homeland (lets say it's Iraq, but it doesnt have to be) have died from american bombs dropped from american planes onto the homes of your friends and family. The US has been supporting terrorist actions by Israel since the 1970's against a nation of people who share your beliefs and values (or maybe your own nation). America's reasons for this are most likely to protect its own financial interests. I dont know about you guys but if I was in that position I would be the first guy planting bombs in American embassies and planning attacks on US soil. If you were in such a small group fighting such an overwhelming foe you would most likely have to resort to the kind of attacks that would have the most symbolic, rather than tactical, impact... you get where I'm going with this. George Bush and the US military are responsible for the number of civilian deaths in 9/11 a hundred times over.

I am not trying to justify terrorism, but if you remove that label and look at this as guerilla warfare the situation begins to look a little different. In general I am a pacifist but I honestly dont believe the US government has the integrity to respond to peaceful negotiations from the Muslim world, nor does Israel. I disagree with Muslim notions of equality and morality, but I have to admit that the american way of life (rampant consumerism and arrogance, general ignorance to the rest of the world) is rightly offensive to Muslims and our system of government would likely not work in Islamic nations. These ARE an oppressed people and the US HAS committed crimes on a grand scale, and we started a treasonous rebellion over a tea tax...

[Changleen]

Im gonna catch some serious flak for this one... but here goes...
Not from me you're not. :thumb:

[fluff]

The problem with Al-Zawahiri is that he wants the US to deal with only the Muslims that he approves of and in only the ways that he approves of. He does not enjoy popular support and has resorted to terrorist attacks on his own people. He is not one of the good guys and the sooner he meets Allah the better. Nothing short of the US installing Islamist governments in Baghdad, Cairo, Tripoli, Damascus, Kabul and Jerusalem would satisfy him.

I don't agree with current US foreign policy in the Middle East but Al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda are most definitely not the solution.

And Fox News sucks and should not be allowed to advertise itself as a serious news station.

[ohio]

The problem with Al-Zawahiri is that he wants the US to deal with only the Muslims that he approves of and in only the ways that he approves of. He does not enjoy popular support and has resorted to terrorist attacks on his own people. He is not one of the good guys and the sooner he meets Allah the better. Nothing short of the US installing Islamist governments in Baghdad, Cairo, Tripoli, Damascus, Kabul and Jerusalem would satisfy him.

I don't agree with current US foreign policy in the Middle East but Al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda are most definitely not the solution.

And Fox News sucks and should not be allowed to advertise itself as a serious news station.

Thank you for a dose of reality in this thread.

Holy christ, as much as some people (including myself) may disagree with US foreign policy, to start taking AQ leadership at their word under the assumption that they are oppressed moderates, is like giving Iran weapons grade plutonium because they say it will make their power plants run better.

[TheInedibleHulk]

The problem with Al-Zawahiri is that he wants the US to deal with only the Muslims that he approves of and in only the ways that he approves of. He does not enjoy popular support and has resorted to terrorist attacks on his own people. He is not one of the good guys and the sooner he meets Allah the better. Nothing short of the US installing Islamist governments in Baghdad, Cairo, Tripoli, Damascus, Kabul and Jerusalem would satisfy him.

I don't agree with current US foreign policy in the Middle East but Al-Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda are most definitely not the solution.

And Fox News sucks and should not be allowed to advertise itself as a serious news station.

I have no disagreements here, im just pointing out that portraying the US on 9/11 as an innocent victim is fallacy. The people in the towers were innocent victims for sure, but the loss of life there is only a fraction of what we have been responsible for in the middle east. My other point is that the very first step the US should have taken after 9/11 shoudl have been re-examining opur foreign policy in the middle east. Instead, the turd sandwich went and invaded and descimated another Middle eastern country that just happens to control the best shipping lines between the superfields in Saudi Arabia and the sea as well as having a significant amount of oil in its own ground. Will AL-Queda bring peace and prospertity to the middle east? Of course not, just like the IRA would never have brought peace to northern Ireland. But I ask you, if not terrorism/war on the US, what would you do as a Muslim in Palestine or Iraq whose family was killed by an american bomb? I would wanna kill some damn infidels (god I hate not being able to cuss anymore, I think that rule shoudlnt apply to the debate forum).

[llkoolkeg]

It is surely a wonderful thing to live in a country that by and large grants you almost limitless opportunity, advances your basic human rights, tolerates your insolent lack of gratitude and protects your worthless hide all the while with the lives of your betters.

[DRB]

My other point is that the very first step the US should have taken after 9/11 shoudl have been re-examining opur foreign policy in the middle east.

The unfortunate part of this is that they did re-examine those policies and they made 'em a lot more aggressive.

Or we could have reacted to the attack and capitulated. That's always an excellent thing to do. :rolleyes:

Instead, the turd sandwich went and invaded and descimated another Middle eastern country that just happens to control the best shipping lines between the superfields in Saudi Arabia and the sea as well as having a significant amount of oil in its own ground.

Where are you talking about? Neither Iraq or Afghanistan overlook any of the shipping lanes that Saudi Arabian oil flow thru. You might mean Iran and the Straight of Hormuz. But we haven't invaded Iran (yet?). If you mean pipelines than you are still way off as Ghawar and Khurais are the two largest known fields in Saudi Arabia and they aren't near Iraq nor does Iraq lay between them and the sea.

[TheInedibleHulk]

The unfortunate part of this is that they did re-examine those policies and they made 'em a lot more aggressive.

Or we could have reacted to the attack and capitulated. That's always an excellent thing to do. :rolleyes:



Where are you talking about? Neither Iraq or Afghanistan overlook any of the shipping lanes that Saudi Arabian oil flow thru. You might mean Iran and the Straight of Hormuz. But we haven't invaded Iran (yet?). If you mean pipelines than you are still way off as Ghawar and Khurais are the two largest known fields in Saudi Arabia and they aren't near Iraq nor does Iraq lay between them and the sea.

Hmm, maybe last years intro to geography class isn't so fresh in my mind anymore, my bad. Doesnt really hurt my argument too much though, just makes me look ignorant. :D Your first point is a good one.

[TheInedibleHulk]

Enough with all this agreement, i want burley and N8 to show up and call me an unpatriotic bastard :mumble:

[TheInedibleHulk]

It is surely a wonderful thing to live in a country that by and large grants you almost limitless opportunity, advances your basic human rights, tolerates your insolent lack of gratitude and protects your worthless hide all the while with the lives of your betters.

I love it how all conservatives can do to defend the US's actions is call the critics names. I love what the US is, that doesnt mean I have to love what the US does.

[Changleen]

Thank you for a dose of reality in this thread.

Holy christ, as much as some people (including myself) may disagree with US foreign policy, to start taking AQ leadership at their word under the assumption that they are oppressed moderates, is like giving Iran weapons grade plutonium because they say it will make their power plants run better.I don't think anyone is actually condoning talking to AQ as a serious way of resolving these problems - The important point here, whoever you might deem a worthy or unworthy person to negotiate with - is that before you can even start to solve this problem, the US leadership (and in many ways therefore the population) have to accept that these people do have a spcific agenda regarding US foreign policy which is increasingly supported by the Arab world due to US actions. AQ may be assumed to be the most vociferous proponents of these views but you'll find similarly strong sentiments at most Arab universities and expressed by many members of the general Arab population and Governments.

However, moving on - given that most of us here seem to agree that there is a gap between the reality of the general Arab issue with US policy and the treatment of the supposed problem by the Government, what do you think is the more logical course of action for the US to act in it's own interests?

Essentially there are two directions availible for the US as I see it:

1) Accepting this disparity and moving to a greater or lesser extent to resolve some of these issues and reduce tensions between the US and Arab world - to seriously have a chance I think that this would require quite a large shift in current US policy towards Israel. And please can we refrain from just countering this point with simplistic 'It ain't gonna happen' type arguments)

2) The Neo-con direction as currently practiced by GW, which essentially self generates or manufactures conflict with the Arab world. Seriously, IMHO I can't see any other final outcome of this policy, if it is continued to be practiced as it is, other than a state of perpetual war and tension, further radicalisation of both the US and Arab populations probably resulting in great economic harm to both sides (probably felt more heavily by the Arabs), hundreds of thousands more deaths and so on.

These are obviously the two general (as much as I hate it) 'black and white' directions availible, obviously there is a huge grey area availible in between these two points - many other possible paths and possibilities that could be taken inbetween these two directions. However, I would contend that due to the degree of radicalisation that has already occured, it is increasingly likely that only solutions that themselves represent a fairly solid and consistent tack (or not, if you see what I mean) have much likelyhood of success.

So which is in the US's longer term interests? I obviously would come down on the side of withdrawing support for Israel, admitting to one's own mistakes and persuing mutually beneficial trade and economic development of these nations.

I would be interested to hear a thorough explanation of what people think the Neo-con direction is hoping to ultimatley achieve, and how this may be achieved.

[llkoolkeg]

I love it how all conservatives can do to defend the US's actions is call the critics names. I love what the US is, that doesnt mean I have to love what the US does.

If you think me a conservative, you know not the definition.

I care for doers- not bitchers and complainers who agitate the situation while accomplishing nothing themselves. It's frankly unimpressive to claim for yourself the moral high ground secured by men who DO.

Anyhow, why do we need one more person jumping on the popular, easy "now-nobody-loves us" bandwagon? If you think our ME policy sucks, what would you do to change it? Cave to the demands of terrorists and despots? Maybe before we dare risk offending another fundamentalist Muslim who condones sawing off the heads of noncombatants, we should send them a copy of our New & Improved Middle East Policy for review and approval. Maybe the UN and EU should have veto power on our policies, as they certainly have opinions on how to better share MORE of our wealth with those who hate us. Perhaps we need to consult more big-mouthed socialist loafers on how to do things, as the ability to point fingers is critical to the success of our nation within the international community. :confused:

[llkoolkeg]

So which is in the US's longer term interests? I obviously would come down on the side of withdrawing support for Israel, admitting to one's own mistakes and persuing mutually beneficial trade and economic development of these nations.

A brilliant suggestion. Abandon our one ally in that wretched region in favor of those who despise us and long for the day Allah lays us low.

Until Muslim nations move into this century and denounce the barbarism(to women, "infidels", contractors, etc.) rampant, tolerated and institutionalized within their theocracies, we will never see eye to eye. I find it most amazing that liberals have no problem screaming for the complete separation of church and state where Christianity is concerned, yet muster only soothing tones when someone brings up Muslim nations where these things exist almost as one.

[Silver]

If you think me a conservative, you know not the definition.

I care for doers- not bitchers and complainers who agitate the situation while accomplishing nothing themselves. It's frankly unimpressive to claim for yourself the moral high ground secured by men who DO.

Anyhow, why do we need one more person jumping on the popular, easy "now-nobody-loves us" bandwagon? If you think our ME policy sucks, what would you do to change it? Cave to the demands of terrorists and despots? Maybe before we dare risk offending another fundamentalist Muslim who condones sawing off the heads of noncombatants, we should send them a copy of our New & Improved Middle East Policy for review and approval. Maybe the UN and EU should have veto power on our policies, as they certainly have opinions on how to better share MORE of our wealth with those who hate us. Perhaps we need to consult more big-mouthed socialist loafers on how to do things, as the ability to point fingers is critical to the success of our nation within the international community. :confused:

Or maybe if we go walking around with that huge idea of bringing "freedom!!" to the world, we can stop supporting bastards all over the world that deny freedom to their own people...

The evil tinpot dictators only become officialy evil after they've pissed us off. Up until that point, we don't give a crap what they do to their own people. Saddam being a good case in point. The House of Saud is another one. The Shah. Pinochet. Suharto. Marcos. Noriega (how many Panamanians died in that one, anyways?) Plus some truly nasty stuff in Nicaragua.

I'd love it if freedom was our goal. The evidence and the last 50 years shows that it's nothing more than a good excuse to go screw with people.

[Changleen]

I care for doers- not bitchers and complainers who agitate the situation while accomplishing nothing themselves. It's frankly unimpressive to claim for yourself the moral high ground secured by men who DO.Yup, America has really secured the moral highground in Iraq, eh? Invaded for false reasons, killed 100,000 locals, abused it's prisoners...Anyhow, why do we need one more person jumping on the popular, easy "now-nobody-loves us" bandwagon?It's not really a 'bandwagon' - it's a fact. The two are subtly different. If you think our ME policy sucks, what would you do to change it? Cave to the demands of terrorists and despots?Yes, everyone in the middle east is either a terrorist or a despot. Makes things so much easier doesn't it?Maybe before we dare risk offending another fundamentalist Muslim who condones sawing off the heads of noncombatants, we should send them a copy of our New & Improved Middle East Policy for review and approval.Maybe you should spend just a few minutes trying to figure out why they feel the need to do this sort of thing in the first place? Maybe the UN and EU should have veto power on our policies, as they certainly have opinions on how to better share MORE of our wealth with those who hate us. Perhaps we need to consult more big-mouthed socialist loafers on how to do things, as the ability to point fingers is critical to the success of our nation within the international community. :confused:Maybe you could consider a point of view without distorting it in your own head into a paranoid, extreme version of what was initially proposed?

[Changleen]

A brilliant suggestion. Abandon our one ally in that wretched region in favor of those who despise us and long for the day Allah lays us low.

Until Muslim nations move into this century and denounce the barbarism(to women, "infidels", contractors, etc.) rampant, tolerated and institutionalized within their theocracies, we will never see eye to eye.Good job you put a stop to all that behaviour in Iraq then eh? Oh wait, Iraq was a highly moderate Islamic country before 1991. Oh well, it's still a good job you put a stop to that in Afghanistan then? Oh wait, only the percentage of the population who happen to live in or around the capital have been 'liberated' and everyone else is in exactly the same situation as before you invaded, except a Opium production is up and a few of their relatives are dead as well.
Well, in that case it's a good job you don't actively support any other regeimes who condone this sort of behaviour... oh wait.... So essentially what you're saying is that you're a hypocrite?I find it most amazing that liberals have no problem screaming for the complete separation of church and state where Christianity is concerned, yet muster only soothing tones when someone brings up Muslim nations where these things exist almost as one.I choose to want to live in a country where church and state are seperated. However, most Muslims prefer not to. It's nothing to do with you how these people run their affairs n their own countries. What part of that is so hard to understand?

[Changleen]

Bush in Canada:

``We just had a poll in our country, when people decided that the foreign policy of the Bush administration ought to stay in place for four more years,'' Bush said.Oh Hooray.

[Changleen]

Again wrt my post above: I would be interested to hear a thorough explanation of what people think the Neo-con direction is hoping to ultimatley achieve, and how this may be achieved.

[llkoolkeg]

First off, I agree with you, Silver, even if this is the first time.


Yup, America has really secured the moral highground in Iraq, eh? Invaded for false reasons, killed 100,000 locals, abused it's prisoners...It's not really a 'bandwagon' - it's a fact. The two are subtly different. Yes, everyone in the middle east is either a terrorist or a despot. Makes things so much easier doesn't it?Maybe you should spend just a few minutes trying to figure out why they feel the need to do this sort of thing in the first place? Maybe you could consider a point of view without distorting it in your own head into a paranoid, extreme version of what was initially proposed?

I never said America secured the moral highground in Iraq; please stop with the red herrings. I was saying that it's easy to "be against war"(as if most people really like it :rolleyes: ) and a pacifist and act all enlightened and somehow above it all when someone else is risking their neck to secure your freedoms and give you a safe place to live.

The invasion of Iraq was poorly sold but inevitable. Somebody had to do something. Lord know our friends in Europe only react after they've already fumbled the ball and need someone else to get dirty falling on it. As far as killing locals, if they point a gun at our soldiers, they get the business end plain and simple. The abuse of prisoners is uncalled for but certainly more excusable than murdering non-Iraqis that have worked for years doing humanitarian good in Iraq. I called it a bandwagon because that is exactly what it is. It's popular to hate America now, so you earn no courage points by jogging along with the mob.

Again, I never said everyone in the ME is a terrorist or a despot; just more rhetoric and red herrings from you to divert debate from the issues at hand. Most people there, like here, are mostly good at heart in my estimation. As is usual, a vocal, extremist troublemaker minority- often imported from other countries- cause almost all of the problems for the people that actually just want to live a "normal" life. Please no more lame jabs to suggest that I am a simpleton that requires a black and white answer to the world's problems. I have considered this debate at a level you could frankly never hope to hang with, so please don't flatter yourself at my expense. The defense of one's homeland or friends/family against a perceived invader makes perfect sense to me. That's why we need to hand over the reins as quickly as possible once the new IRAQI gov't can reasonably be expected to not immediately be bucked off. It would be a great disservice to all Iraqis to cut and run now leaving a power vacuum to be filled by non-Iraqi orchestrated insurgents.

[dan-o]

Again wrt my post above: I would be interested to hear a thorough explanation of what people think the Neo-con direction is hoping to ultimatley achieve, and how this may be achieved.

I would be interested to hear your solution to the problem given the current state of affairs. Something more that "pull out now". You are very adept at dismantling past/current actions by the USA but I have yet to see you propose a viable alternative.

In addition, what are your thoughts on the UKs supporting of US policy (past and present) in Iraq?

[llkoolkeg]

Good job you put a stop to all that behaviour in Iraq then eh? Oh wait, Iraq was a highly moderate Islamic country before 1991. Oh well, it's still a good job you put a stop to that in Afghanistan then? Oh wait, only the percentage of the population who happen to live in or around the capital have been 'liberated' and everyone else is in exactly the same situation as before you invaded, except a Opium production is up and a few of their relatives are dead as well.
Well, in that case it's a good job you don't actively support any other regeimes who condone this sort of behaviour... oh wait.... So essentially what you're saying is that you're a hypocrite?I choose to want to live in a country where church and state are seperated. However, most Muslims prefer not to. It's nothing to do with you how these people run their affairs n their own countries. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Who cares what Iraq was like before Saddam ruined it? Like Silver pointed out, today's ally is often tomorrow's villian. Saddam was someone we should have never supported in the first place but for the fact he was considered the lesser of evils at that point in time. Fault us certainly for our initial bad judgement, but not for finally fixing the problem once he went all "Apocalypse Now" on us. Afghanistan was about toppling the middle-ages theocracy that supported and shrouded the terrorist organization the blackened our eye. That has mostly been accomplished, as the organizational structure is now huddled in in spider-holes and caves in the badlands. Many on their agents have been killed or captured and they haven't been able to pull of crap against us since 09/11 compared to their grand plans of bringing jihad to American soil.

As far as opium production, set some priorities, man! Who gives a $hit about some junkies when better men are being killed off every day? Your calling me a hypocrite is just lost on me, though. Too much stream-of-consciousness babbling on your part for me to follow, I'm afraid. I have no problem with tolerant theocracies; I have a problem with those that kill off the religious minorities within their borders and enslave their women, though. Is that reason to invade? No, but when they intervene and align themselves with our biggest enemy, they choose their friends poorly and suffer the consequences of the choices they make.

[fluff]

On the Iraq question does anybody still consider that Iraq was a 'clear and present danger' to anyone?

Given that we now know:
They had no WMD.
Their armed forces were weak and under-equipped.

This is a hindsight question, if you believed the info at the time, fair enough, but now it's been pretty much entirely disproven, does anyone think he was a threat and if so to who?

(And whether or not you consider that Iraqis are better off without him (after all no one here can really see him as anything other than an evil bastard) that is irrelevant to his danger to the rest of the world.)

[Changleen]

I never said America secured the moral highground in Iraq; please stop with the red herrings.So where were you talking about? I was saying that it's easy to "be against war"(as if most people really like it :rolleyes: ) and a pacifist and act all enlightened and somehow above it all when someone else is risking their neck to secure your freedoms and give you a safe place to live.Yes, that's exactly what's happening in Iraq. The US is making the world safer for everyone. Well done. Keep taking the delusion pills.The invasion of Iraq was poorly sold but inevitable. Somebody had to do something.ABOUT WHAT? Lord know our friends in Europe only react after they've already fumbled the ball and need someone else to get dirty falling on it. React to what? Your whole argument is still based on the fact that Iraq was a threat. Hello? It wasn't! Your argument is BS. As far as killing locals, if they point a gun at our soldiers, they get the business end plain and simple.You invaded their country for NO REASON and say it's acceptable to kill the locals if they resist? The abuse of prisoners is uncalled for but certainly more excusable than murdering non-Iraqis that have worked for years doing humanitarian good in Iraq.What about killing 60-70,000 civilians? Are you totally blind to the devastation your country has caused, for no reason, to a civilian population? You are suprised that a few of the locals got pissed off with you? I called it a bandwagon because that is exactly what it is. It's popular to hate America now, so you earn no courage points by jogging along with the mob.Oh, Courage points! And I was so low on those already. When you grow up give me a call.
Again, I never said everyone in the ME is a terrorist or a despot; just more rhetoric and red herrings from you to divert debate from the issues at hand. Most people there, like here, are mostly good at heart in my estimation. As is usual, a vocal, extremist troublemaker minority- often imported from other countries- cause almost all of the problems for the people that actually just want to live a "normal" life.You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Try reading the Arab press before you assert that it is only 'extremeist minority' who are opposed to US actions. Please no more lame jabs to suggest that I am a simpleton that requires a black and white answer to the world's problems. I have considered this debate at a level you could frankly never hope to hang with, so please don't flatter yourself at my expense.Bwahahaha! What while you were high and watching Fox News? The defense of one's homeland or friends/family against a perceived invader makes perfect sense to me.You just criticised the Iraqi people for doing that - please make your mind up. That's why we need to hand over the reins as quickly as possible once the new IRAQI gov't can reasonably be expected to not immediately be bucked off. It would be a great disservice to all Iraqis to cut and run now leaving a power vacuum to be filled by non-Iraqi orchestrated insurgents.Well, what's one more 'great disservice' when you've already ****ed their country halfway back to the stone age eh?

[BurlyShirley]

Again, Changleen proves that he'd rather Saddam still be in charge.

[Changleen]

Who cares what Iraq was like before Saddam ruined it?WTF? The Iraqis maybe? And may I also point out that for all that he was an 'evil dictator' Saddam also built Iraq into a modern, rich, sucessful economy before 1991? Like Silver pointed out, today's ally is often tomorrow's villian. Saddam was someone we should have never supported in the first place but for the fact he was considered the lesser of evils at that point in time.Actually I think he was considered a friend given the level of state visits, aid and trade he enjoyed with the US. Fault us certainly for our initial bad judgement, but not for finally fixing the problem once he went all "Apocalypse Now" on us.He invaded Kuwait. The world kicked him out. Then, you invaded Iraq on a shakier premis than his! And you bombed the **** out of Iraq and killed many, many times more people. Please define this problem you fixed? A drop in profits of the US war machine? Afghanistan was about toppling the middle-ages theocracy that supported and shrouded the terrorist organization the blackened our eye.Hmm, funny that nearly all the perpitrators of 9/11 came from Saudi eh? And that you got to build a nice oil pipeline across Afghanistan that you'd wanted for ages? How convenient for America that idiots like you just ignore the facts of situations and happily buy into the story pedalled by the US leadership. That has mostly been accomplished, as the organizational structure is now huddled in in spider-holes and caves in the badlands. Many on their agents have been killed or captured and they haven't been able to pull of crap against us since 09/11 compared to their grand plans of bringing jihad to American soil.Gee, I hope you're right. Lets hope the hundreds of international reports about American action creating more Islamic extremists than ever before are wrong. As far as opium production, set some priorities, man! Who gives a $hit about some junkies when better men are being killed off every day? :rolleyes: Your calling me a hypocrite is just lost on me, though. Too much stream-of-consciousness babbling on your part for me to follow, I'm afraid.I figured that already. I have no problem with tolerant theocracies; I have a problem with those that kill off the religious minorities within their borders and enslave their women, though. Is that reason to invade? No, but when they intervene and align themselves with our biggest enemy, they choose their friends poorly and suffer the consequences of the choices they make.Given the reality of your choosen targets and actions, this is a load of ****.

[Changleen]

Again, Changleen proves that he'd rather Saddam still be in charge. :rolleyes: It's not even worth talking to you anymore.

[Changleen]

I would be interested to hear your solution to the problem given the current state of affairs. Something more that "pull out now". You are very adept at dismantling past/current actions by the USA but I have yet to see you propose a viable alternative.You've ****ed up in Iraq. No matter who does what now it's still a cluster****. If your serious about mending your reputation with the Arab world, it's very simple. Withdraw your support for Israel. Oh, and next time your leader suggests you invade a country, try listening to the rest of the world shouting 'It's a bad idea!' before you do it. In addition, what are your thoughts on the UKs supporting of US policy (past and present) in Iraq?I think it sucks big time. Although I note that the towns in southern Iraq that the UK army were given to look after did not turn into hell-holes of spiralling violence.

[TheInedibleHulk]

This thread went from discussing al-queda to discussing the war in Iraq again. llkoolkeg.... you're not uhhh..... you're not smart. Every statement youve made has relied upon the flawed concept that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US, a lie which has been disproven to anyone who is paying attention. You're laos doing a great job of ignoring the devastation caused by the US in Iraq. No one is denying that Saddam Hussein was a bastard and a poor leader, but that doesnt give the US the right to invade a soveriegn nation, and for the 60,000-100,00 Iraqi civilians that are now dead, they were sure as hell better off before.

Burly, as to "Again, Changleen proves that he'd rather Saddam still be in charge." As an Iraqi, would you rather have a bad leader who is aging and hasnt caused any real trouble in 13 years, or have an american bomb fall on the house of one of your friends or family members. Should Saddam have been removed from power, yes. Should the US have invaded the country, killed its civilians and it's soldiers who were merely doing their duty to their country, no. The resistance in Iraq is fully justified, they are defneding their country from an invader and I suspect you and I would do the same.

Statements like the one you made here are really the only defense that supporters of this war have left. Its been proven that the reasons we went to war were lies, Its been proven that the Iraq people were not starving for freedom as Bush asserted they were, and its been proven that all the countries who opposed this invasion were correct about what wold come of it. So now, you morons defend the war by asserting that it's critics support Saddam Husseins policies, or by accusing them of jumping on an anti war bandwagon. There is really no way to defend this war anymore, it was a colossal mistake and is now a colossal mess. I dont think we should pull out, it's way to late for that. We broke it, now we have to fix it, and that will most likely mean many times the original planned cost in terms of both money and American lives.

[llkoolkeg]

So where were you talking about?Yes, that's exactly what's happening in Iraq. The US is making the world safer for everyone. Well done. Keep taking the delusion pills.ABOUT WHAT?React to what? Your whole argument is still based on the fact that Iraq was a threat. Hello? It wasn't! Your argument is BS. You invaded their country for NO REASON and say it's acceptable to kill the locals if they resist? What about killing 60-70,000 civilians? Are you totally blind to the devastation your country has caused, for no reason, to a civilian population? You are suprised that a few of the locals got pissed off with you? Oh, Courage points! And I was so low on those already. When you grow up give me a call.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Try reading the Arab press before you assert that it is only 'extremeist minority' who are opposed to US actions.Bwahahaha! What while you were high and watching Fox News? You just criticised the Iraqi people for doing that - please make your mind up. Well, what's one more 'great disservice' when you've already ****ed their country halfway back to the stone age eh?

I said my piece and arguing with someone who apparently has unlimited time to spout the "truth according to the Arab press" is fruitless. You are nothing but assumption piled upon supposition and I don't have the time to overcome invincible ignorance and still hold down a job. You believe I supported the war in Iraq- not true, but I understand why it was done and stand behind our men in uniform. You believe I supported Bush- not true, I didn't vote for him this time and think many things were handled quite poorly. I merely disagree with your Eurocentric spin on the events. Get used to it, suck it up and deal. Your Monday-morning quarterbacking of the events accomplishes nothing other than allowing you the opportunity to join in another resounding chorus of "The U.S. Sucks". For that, I extend to you a cordial :nuts:.

[BurlyShirley]

Burly, as to "Again, Changleen proves that he'd rather Saddam still be in charge." As an Iraqi, would you rather have a bad leader who is aging and hasnt caused any real trouble in 13 years, or have an american bomb fall on the house of one of your friends or family members.

To look at something on the micro level like that, sure it's easy to say that. But I get the feeling you're not fully aware of what people went through living under saddam. The country as a whole, I mean. I wont try to change your mind with stories about rape squads and feeding live-political prisoners to pet lions, but due to Saddams actions, and the rest of the world being forced to place sanctions, the whole of the country WAS suffering.


Should Saddam have been removed from power, yes. Should the US have invaded the country, killed its civilians and it's soldiers who were merely doing their duty to their country, no.


You cant have that both ways. But you yourself agree that Saddam should have been removed, therefore you agree with this war's premise to some extent.


The resistance in Iraq is fully justified, they are defneding their country from an invader and I suspect you and I would do the same.

You make the mistake of assuming that these "freedom fighters" are fighting to repel US forces in Iraq's interest, in the people's interest, but that is incorrect. They're fighting in the interest of Islam and fundamentalism. Anyone with half a brain that even cared about the country being "free from opression" would see that the obvious way out is to hold elections and let "the Iraqi people" decide. But this is not what these people want. They want civil war and to control the power and the people. It'd be no better off, if not worse than under saddam and you must understand that the US has an OBLIGATION now to let the people decide.

[QUOTE]Statements like the one you made here are really the only defense that supporters of this war have left. Its been proven that the reasons we went to war were lies, Its been proven that the Iraq people were not starving for freedom as Bush asserted they were, and its been proven that all the countries who opposed this invasion were correct about what wold come of it.
How quickly you forget that it was not all US intelligence that led us to believe Iraq had WMDs. It may be true to say we went there under incorrect assumptions, but not lies, as most countries believed Iraq had WMDs. Its just that they wanted it handled differently.




So now, you morons defend the war by asserting that it's critics support Saddam Husseins policies, or by accusing them of jumping on an anti war bandwagon. There is really no way to defend this war anymore, it was a colossal mistake and is now a colossal mess. I dont think we should pull out, it's way to late for that. We broke it, now we have to fix it, and that will most likely mean many times the original planned cost in terms of both money and American lives.

First off, I dont call all people against this war Saddam apologists, thats just Changleen, because he's demonstrated that thus far in his postings, not just in this thread. If Changleen thinks the US had no business there in any way shape or form, then obviously he thought Saddam should have remained. This is a different position than yours, I think.

And finally, your "we broke it, we gotta fix it" summary is where my support for this war lies. So we're not on that different of a page, really. Changleen's position is that we just leave and give them a bunch of money, which is of course, retarded like the rest of his ideas.

[llkoolkeg]

WTF? The Iraqis maybe? And may I also point out that for all that he was an 'evil dictator' Saddam also built Iraq into a modern, rich, sucessful economy before 1991? Actually I think he was considered a friend given the level of state visits, aid and trade he enjoyed with the US. He invaded Kuwait. The world kicked him out. Then, you invaded Iraq on a shakier premis than his! And you bombed the **** out of Iraq and killed many, many times more people. Please define this problem you fixed? A drop in profits of the US war machine? Hmm, funny that nearly all the perpitrators of 9/11 came from Saudi eh? And that you got to build a nice oil pipeline across Afghanistan that you'd wanted for ages? How convenient for America that idiots like you just ignore the facts of situations and happily buy into the story pedalled by the US leadership. Gee, I hope you're right. Lets hope the hundreds of international reports about American action creating more Islamic extremists than ever before are wrong. :rolleyes: I figured that already. Given the reality of your choosen targets and actions, this is a load of ****.

See previous post. Saddam should have been dumped by W's daddy, but he F'ed up and left the mess for later generations to deal with. Also, please don't restate 90% obvious information and then slip in tidbits of bull$hit like a contract rider or pork barrel additive. BTW, I got your idiot right here, biatch! I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week. You can't even fvcking spell correctly and you would dare to call me an idiot? "sucessful"? Obviously not a word you see very often. "premis", "pedalled" and "perpitrators"?? "choosen"??? Is that Kiwi for oral sex performed on a sheep? Get yourself back in school, see a little bit more of the world and then get back with me once you're a little wiser and less obtuse. :rolleyes:

[llkoolkeg]

This thread went from discussing al-queda to discussing the war in Iraq again. llkoolkeg.... you're not uhhh..... you're not smart. Every statement youve made has relied upon the flawed concept that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US, a lie which has been disproven to anyone who is paying attention. You're laos doing a great job of ignoring the devastation caused by the US in Iraq. No one is denying that Saddam Hussein was a bastard and a poor leader, but that doesnt give the US the right to invade a soveriegn nation, and for the 60,000-100,00 Iraqi civilians that are now dead, they were sure as hell better off before.

Burly, as to "Again, Changleen proves that he'd rather Saddam still be in charge." As an Iraqi, would you rather have a bad leader who is aging and hasnt caused any real trouble in 13 years, or have an american bomb fall on the house of one of your friends or family members. Should Saddam have been removed from power, yes. Should the US have invaded the country, killed its civilians and it's soldiers who were merely doing their duty to their country, no. The resistance in Iraq is fully justified, they are defneding their country from an invader and I suspect you and I would do the same.

Statements like the one you made here are really the only defense that supporters of this war have left. Its been proven that the reasons we went to war were lies, Its been proven that the Iraq people were not starving for freedom as Bush asserted they were, and its been proven that all the countries who opposed this invasion were correct about what wold come of it. So now, you morons defend the war by asserting that it's critics support Saddam Husseins policies, or by accusing them of jumping on an anti war bandwagon. There is really no way to defend this war anymore, it was a colossal mistake and is now a colossal mess. I dont think we should pull out, it's way to late for that. We broke it, now we have to fix it, and that will most likely mean many times the original planned cost in terms of both money and American lives.

See previous post. This forum is certainly not short of undereducated regurgitators of half the equation. "You're not smart"? What?? Care to put your IQ to the test, bumblefvck? I'd smoke you like a fat blunt and put you out on the sole of my shoe. When did I ever say "Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US"? That's right, pickletoker- I didn't. You, like the other moron, keep injecting words into my mouth as if I'm the Official Spokesman and Apologist for the Bush Administration. I just so happen to also believe that we screwed up in many ways leading up to the Invasion of Iraq, Part II. No friggin' shiite, popeye! All we can do now is try to correct what was bobbled then. One more prick like yourself pointing fingers and picking scabs after the fact accomplishes nothing but further cementing the opinions of those on either extreme.

[scurban]

It is surely a wonderful thing to live in a country that by and large grants you almost limitless opportunity, advances your basic human rights, tolerates your insolent lack of gratitude and protects your worthless hide all the while with the lives of your betters.
:stupid:

Please remember the values that our nation was founded on (weather you agree with them or not) I'm not a religous man, however I do understand that the United states of American was founded on Christian beliefs. Maybe what we are doing to the Arab nation goes against many aspects of the Bible, However Isreal is God's "promise land", and Jewish people are God's choosen People. Revelations predicts that the end times will come when the "world" turns its back on Isreal. Since the greater majority of our Country are Claimed Christians, including George W. Bush, you can understand how not backing Isreal is a scary thought to them. On the other side, Muslims have their beliefs, and obviously not backing their beliefs would be scary to them. The war is religous, (yes there are financial reasons for both sides too), but above all else, religion is the key ingrediant here. Obviously I am leaving out some facts here, however you could write an entire book backing what I just typed.

Like it or not, being born in the US has given you far more oppertunities than you would have had if you would have been born in 99.9999% of other countries around the world. When all is said and done, we will come out on top of this whole mess, just appreciate that you live where you do, and back the U.S. Rather then talk smack about it on a mountain bike forum. :nono:

[scurban]

[QUOTE=Changleen] Your whole argument is still based on the fact that Iraq was a threat. Hello? It wasn't! Your argument is BS. You invaded their country for NO REASON and say it's acceptable to kill the locals if they resist? What about killing 60-70,000 civilians?
[QUOTE]

Iraq Maybe there are things about Iraq you don't know. Do you really think some things haven't been covered up? In addition maybe Iraq was not a Threat, but Al Queda was, and Iraq gave refuge to Al Queda members. It was only a matter of time, (and maybe still is) that Al Queda got their hands on a weapon of mass destruction. Was America just supposed to sit around and wait until that happend? NO! we were pro-active, and are trying to take care of the issue before is happens. Its easy for you to sit back and point fingers, maybe if the tables were turned, you'd have a different opinion.

[scurban]

by the way Changleen, Revell bikes are pimp, I agree with you on that choice, Nice aviater

[valve bouncer]

Like it or not, being born in the US has given you far more oppertunities than you would have had if you would have been born in 99.9999% of other countries around the world. When all is said and done, we will come out on top of this whole mess, just appreciate that you live where you do, and back the U.S. Rather then talk smack about it on a mountain bike forum. :nono:
I love it when the frothers come out with this sort of crap. I must be part of that 0.00001% because I've never set foot in the USA but I'm doing all all right here, like the majority of country-men in Australia as well as almost all the locals where I live. My sister lives in Britain- they seem to be going OK too, in fact most of Western Europe seems pretty prosperous, free and a good place to lay your hat. Gee i think that that's a bit more than 0.00001% but what would I know, I'm not American :rolleyes:

[scurban]

I am directing that at the ingreats who were born and raised here, that do nothing but talk smack. You are not one of them.

I'm glad to hear you're doing ok though:thumb:

[BurlyShirley]

what would I know, I'm not American :rolleyes:
queer

[Changleen]

See previous post. Saddam should have been dumped by W's daddy, but he F'ed up and left the mess for later generations to deal with. Also, please don't restate 90% obvious information and then slip in tidbits of bull$hit like a contract rider or pork barrel additive. BTW, I got your idiot right here, biatch! I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week. You can't even fvcking spell correctly and you would dare to call me an idiot? "sucessful"? Obviously not a word you see very often. "premis", "pedalled" and "perpitrators"?? "choosen"??? Is that Kiwi for oral sex performed on a sheep? Get yourself back in school, see a little bit more of the world and then get back with me once you're a little wiser and less obtuse. :rolleyes:Aww, did somebody miss nap-time? :D Dude, you got owned. Roll over and take it like the bitch that you are.

[fluff]

On the Iraq question does anybody still consider that Iraq was a 'clear and present danger' to anyone?

Given that we now know:
They had no WMD.
Their armed forces were weak and under-equipped.

This is a hindsight question, if you believed the info at the time, fair enough, but now it's been pretty much entirely disproven, does anyone think he was a threat and if so to who?

(And whether or not you consider that Iraqis are better off without him (after all no one here can really see him as anything other than an evil bastard) that is irrelevant to his danger to the rest of the world.)

That'll be no-one then, not even the frothers? :devil:

[llkoolkeg]

Aww, did somebody miss nap-time? :D Dude, you got owned. Roll over and take it like the bitch that you are.

Actually, yes- I worked a 14-hour day and slept only four hours.

"Owned"?...hmmph. What a laugh! This is now the second time since I've been here that some oaf has said to me "Duuuuuude, you got owned". Why don't you again impress all here with your amazing powers of originality. Maybe you should break out the big guns and post up one of those cute little "owned" .jpg's. I wonder if your meager matter is even capable of producing a single thought of its own. Feel free to applaud your own eighth-grade effort, dimwit.

As far as "rolling over and taking it like the bitch I am", I will just say that I've never rolled over in my life for a male, not to suggest that I would be doing so in your case. Your general tone, excessive whining and resounding aura of PVSSY lead me to believe that in my presence, you would receive a happy thrashing that may just be able shake your dick free of it's home tucked back between your legs.

[llkoolkeg]

BTW, my apologies to anyone who clicked here looking for serious debate. What we have instead is the same group of "experts" parroting the obvious and stirring the pot long since cooked. If my coarse words offended anyone other than their intended recipient, sorry! I don't take kindly to personal attacks from those I do not value, so I often tend to get a bit animated and colorful in my imagery.

[fluff]

"Owned"?...hmmph. What a laugh! This is now the second time since I've been here that some oaf has said to me "Duuuuuude, you got owned". Why don't you again impress all here with your amazing powers of originality. Maybe you should break out the big guns and post up one of those cute little "owned" .jpg's.

Glad to see I'm not the only one tired of the 'own3d' riposte...

Not that I necessarily agree with your arguments...;)

[DRB]

Hmm, funny that nearly all the perpitrators of 9/11 came from Saudi eh?

So because Hitler was Austrian, Germany wasn't responsible for WWII? Idiotic arguement.

And that you got to build a nice oil pipeline across Afghanistan that you'd wanted for ages?

Who got to build a pipeline across Afghanistan? I'm looking to see who won the contracts for that construction job. There hasn't been any construction? Wait maybe its still in bid stage? Let me see the three countries potentially involved agreed to it. And let's see who is trying to develop it? US oil companies and contracted service companies I'm sure..... Oh wait that's can't be right???? The Asian Development Bank.

And the Afghan people wouldn't benefit? The transit fees alone would generate in the neighborhood of 100 million a year for Afghanistan. Plus the jobs that would be created for the contruction and long term maintenance and operation would be a sizeble number. However, I can state pretty close to fact that the odds of such a pipeline in the near term are pretty much 0. Currently, no companies have even nibbled at the ADB plans. The terms are good as well.

Lastly its a natural gas pipeline not a oil pipeline pinhead.

[ohio]

So because Hitler was Austrian, Germany wasn't responsible for WWII? Idiotic arguement.

Normally I agree with your arguments (and acklowledge Changleen's douche-osity), but this analogy doesn't fly. If the overwhelming majority of Nazi's had been Austrian, it would work, except that then I would blame WWII on an Austrio-German alliance rather thaqn Germany. In any case, the Austrians, while a sizable minority, were nowhere near an overwhelming majority... so it that doesn't fly with me.

Besides, the first person to mention Hitler in an e-argument automatically loses.

[DRB]

Normally I agree with your arguments (and acklowledge Changleen's douche-osity), but this analogy doesn't fly. If the overwhelming majority of Nazi's had been Austrian, it would work, except that then I would blame WWII on an Austrio-German alliance rather thaqn Germany. In any case, the Austrians, while a sizable minority, were nowhere near an overwhelming majority... so it that doesn't fly with me.

Besides, the first person to mention Hitler in an e-argument automatically loses.

Okay you're right the whole Hitler thing. Sorry but it was one line for what I was trying to say. However, its still an idiotic arguement.

The point was that Bin Laden and the vast majority of AQ was in Afghanistan. The training camps, the control, the whole nine yards. The then government was providing the infrastructure and a huge portion of the material support. It really is immaterial as to where the folks were from.

If they had been in Saudi Arabia then yeah I would say go get'em but I would have said the samething regardless of where they had been. This is not to say that Saudi Arabia is not a huge problem and one that eventually is going to get worse. However, it isn't the systematic and widespread support that was prevelant in Afghanistan at the time.

The funny thing is though if it had been Saudi Arabia that had been the focus of the US, the folks that are bitchin' about Afghanistan and pointing to Saudi Arabia would still be complaining.

[dan-o]

The point was that Bin Laden and the vast majority of AQ was in Afghanistan. The training camps, the control, the whole nine yards. The then government was providing the infrastructure and a huge portion of the material support. It really is immaterial as to where the folks were from.


I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure AQ was paying the Taliban to allow them to operate within afghanistan.

[DRB]

I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure AQ was paying the Taliban to allow them to operate within afghanistan.

What's your point?

[dan-o]

The point was that Bin Laden and the vast majority of AQ was in Afghanistan. The training camps, the control, the whole nine yards. The then government was providing the infrastructure and a huge portion of the material support.

My point was "you're wrong".

[DRB]

My point was "you're wrong".

Do you know what infrastructure is? Do you understand the term material support?

The Taliban (the Afghanistan government) was supplying these things to AQ. They were allowing AQ to have basic free run of their country, setting up training camps for a wanted international terrorist organization It is completely irrelevant as to whether they were being paid for it or not.

You were able to copy the statement, paste it and highlight it but were apparently unable to understand it.

[dan-o]

All the taliban did was allow AQ to operate within their borders after it was flushed from Sudan. AQ provided the taliban with the financing and physical clout needed to maintain control over the country. This is evidenced by the complete lack of support they received by the general population when the US attacked which led to their immediate collapse.

Beyond the soil within the borders of afghanistan itself, the Taliban had nothing to offer. So enlighten me, is that soil the infrastructure or the huge portion of material support?

[ohio]

My point was "you're wrong".

If I'm a serial killer, and you know I'm a serial killer, and I pay you to give me chloroform, gags, empty warehouse space, phone numbers and addresses of young women, and to hide me from the police, does the fact that I'm paying you make it okay for you to give me those things?

[Changleen]

If I'm a serial killer, and you know I'm a serial killer, and I pay you to give me chloroform, gags, empty warehouse space, phone numbers and addresses of young women, and to hide me from the police, does the fact that I'm paying you make it okay for you to give me those things?If your name was Ariel Sharon and mine was George Bush apparantly it would.

[dan-o]

If I'm a serial killer, and you know I'm a serial killer, and I pay you to give me chloroform, gags, empty warehouse space, phone numbers and addresses of young women, and to hide me from the police, does the fact that I'm paying you make it okay for you to give me those things?

Since Sudan offered to extradite BL to any nation prepared to try him, but none including the US accepted, he would be a suspected serial killer in your analogy. The Taliban also did not supply the training, financing or logistics for 9/11 or other AQ acts, they technically just leased space.

So, is the landlord in your analogy (who merely supplied space) guilty of your crimes once you commit and admit to them? When the cops raid the warehouse does the landlord lose possession just because a tenent committed a crime?

[ohio]

Since Sudan offered to extradite BL to any nation prepared to try him, but none including the US accepted
???
first time I've heard that.

when? clinton era?

[dan-o]

1996
Here is a link outlining the events: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0144/gould.php
There was also a similar story in the washington post around the same time. That's now an archived article that I don't feel like paying to access.

[DRB]

Since Sudan offered to extradite BL to any nation prepared to try him, but none including the US accepted, he would be a suspected serial killer in your analogy. The Taliban also did not supply the training, financing or logistics for 9/11 or other AQ acts, they technically just leased space.

So, is the landlord in your analogy (who merely supplied space) guilty of your crimes once you commit and admit to them? When the cops raid the warehouse does the landlord lose possession just because a tenent committed a crime?

If the landlord had turned over the criminal at the time of admission then fine, however if they don't it turns into harboring a fugitive, obstruction of justice and potentially accessory after the fact. However, when the landlord has knowledge of the activities of the tennant but does nothing its accessory and in some circumstances can be considered conspiracy.

However, your landlord analogy isn't any good, and is certainly not what Ohio described, as the two were joined at the hip. To think that one was doing anything the other was unaware of is naive at best.

1996 when AQ moved their main base of operations into Afghanistan (they had actually been there since the Soviet invasion) their main form of financial support was coming from two streams. One, was the money they were getting from Arab charities but not so much. The second source which grew quite substantially until 2000 was the Taliban. The Taliban was funneling funds from their drug (opium growing) trade to the AQ. Also at the time the Taliban was also receiving money from Arab charities. During these years, the AQ was providing manpower support and training to the Taliban for consolidation of the power base and even helped put then in power as they consolidated control of the country.

It was once the AQ and Taliban could survive on the finances collected from charities that the crack down occurred on the opium trade in 2000.

[DRB]

1996
Here is a link outlining the events: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0144/gould.php
There was also a similar story in the washington post around the same time. That's now an archived article that I don't feel like paying to access.

More to the story huh. But even more interesting notice how the negative comments and critique aren't sited?

because the FBI did not believe it had sufficient evidence to try Bin Laden in a U.S. court—and Saudi Arabia refused Washington's request to arrest and even execute the terrorist, the U.S. demanded that Bin Laden leave Sudan for any other country except Somalia.

Forgoing the opportunity to arrest Bin Laden was "not the most brilliant maneuver we've ever made," notes another former intelligence chief familiar with the story. "But everything looks good in hindsight."

If they had taken him into custody, wouldn't they be in the same position as they are with the Gitmo detainees?

In hindsight it was a bad mistake to that there is no doubt. But what does it have to do with Afghanistan and the Taliban?