Not all of us check under the bed and behind the curtains for monsters anymore. Is that unreasonable? Nope!
Re: videos, I think you've been misled, in part due to faulty translation. I know I've heard that about the _one_ video of this nature I've seen and heard about, and I have yet to hear that claim addressed. As I don't know Arabic, I of course can't verify it myself.
Hilarious. Invading foreign countries and killing their leaders and thousands if not millions of their citizens is always a barrel of laughs. And then there's the thrill of starting a civil war and then running away to let them fight it out amongst themselves.
Quite. The US hosts the School of the Americas at Fort Benning which has turned out some of the nastiest Latin American thugs and mass murderers... - - - Updated - - - Actually no, you didn't. The Taliban are still a force to be reckoned with in Afghanistan. I daresay they'll be back in due course, just as soon as you leave their country.
You beat me to it. I've been reading up on this wonderful School of Fascism in Blum's 'Rogue State', which I have here on my desk.
All of those things need a well-known (except to you, evidently), legal fundamental called 'evidence' in order to convict. 'Everyone knows', as you imply, is not evidence, but is hearsay.
Yep. Just different times, a lot less people, and against a country that could not supply their army fast enough due to slow moving boats. Unless the people who oppose how this government is administrating is able to convince the military to back them, it will be nothing short of suicide.
The US military toppled the Taliban. It is the new Afghan government that is losing the ground we acquired. We can't stay forever to help keep governments secure and stable. But of course you missed the point of my post concerning why we attacked Afghanistan in the first place. And we weren't just going after Al Qaeda. We went a nation that supported Al Qaeda's attack on US soil.
While certain segments within the KSA are well known for supporting AQ, if you'll recall Bin Laden declared war on the KSA in the same fatwa in which he declared war on the U.S.. Furthermore; Afghanistan was not a scapegoat, AQ was part and parcel to the Taliban government, AQ sat on the Taliban's ministry of defense and formed the 055 Taliban brigades and was granted safe haven to train for, plan, and launch attacks against the U.S., her overseas assets, and her allies despite repeated extradition requests since 1999 backed by mounds of evidence for the terrorist attacks which Bin Laden was directly responsible including the USS Cole and African Embassy Bombings. According to the documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Omar denied knowing of any "evidence that bin Laden had engaged in or planned any terrorist acts while on Afghan soil." [Doc 2]. The U.S. State Department responded by providing evidence of bin Laden's terrorist activities in one of ultimately thirty-three contacts with the Taliban, thirty by the Clinton administration and three by the Bush administration before 9/11. All diplomatic attempts to get the Taliban to extradite Osama bin Laden ultimately failed. http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEB...dtwit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wordtwit
My point is that there is no need for a court case period as he is incarcerated as an enemy during time of war so no case, no need for evidence or proof or testimonials from either he or his supporters.
Glad you think people dying is a hoot i just think that your pie in the sky fantasy that the Taliban were intent on productive justice is hilarious
It's a perfectly valid argument. I used it in court myself. "Yes, your honor, I murdered all those people. But look at Jeffrey Dahmer! He killed one more than I did, plus, at least I didn't eat the corpses afterwards!" "Very well. I hereby sentence you to ten hours of community service!" "Really? C'mon man!" "Okay. Five hours."
Not no need for evidence. Just no evidence. What evidence is there? You've still not told me any shred of forensics evidence. And shouldn't we bring him to final justice for the families of the victims? Don't they usually want a guilty verdict when loved ones are murdered? And why did they try a military tribunal for him and then abandon it, if there were no point in the first place? Nevertheless, it's moot, as my point still stands. Over ten years in custody and KSM has yet to be proven guilty. That's a fact. The official story as told by you guys and the government and the 9/11 commission report remains devoid of evidence regarding the whodunnit, and is just as speculative as many other conspiracy theories which you people DEMAND proof for.
First of all the 9/11 commission report didn't substantiate their story.. They went off what the CIA said KSM said after they tortured him into going insane using MKULTRA techniques designed to make people go crazy. Not a shred of evidence supports that story.. 31 plots it was.. Plus 9/11 A-Z Principle Architect. As for the money, it's not the amount that's important as where it came from. But of course, that's not important. Because in the case it did come from any state help, we wouldn't want to know?
You're providing vague assumptions only.. This must be the case. You have yet to provide evidence, don't sit here and claim you did. I'm not asking you to believe it's true. I'm asking you how it's been ruled-out. That was the mission of the 9/11 Commission. To find out everything. Did you even read the 9/11 Commission Report? Or my post for that matter. I didn't say they said Saudi Arabia was irrelevant. I said they said the source of funding was irrelevant. Therefore, they wouldn't have to bother looking into any possible state sponsors. Yet you said intelligence said it, so it MUST be true. Why can't they make other mistakes? Fallacy. State sponsorship of terrorism exists. Monsters do not.
It's very simple for me. I'll believe KSM is guilty of masterminding the plot from A-Z as soon as they can prove it. Statements like "it's obvious" or "it's public knowledge" blah blah blah just won't do it for me. I have a standard. I admit to not know who was genuinely behind the plotting of the attack. I firmly believe the hijackers were who the government said they are. Whether they had planning beyond that level isn't necessarily determined. Based on all I've researched, the most evidence points to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, as responsible for more of the plotting than anyone else.
USA claim, right now, that AQ's strongest presence is in Syria. If we are truly in a time of war against Al Qaeda, why won't we attack AQ targets in Syria which is their new stronghold, where they are conducting ruthless genocide, including against Christians?
Strange, you just said you did 't know who planned the attacks and now presto! You do! Prove he planned them and prove he and all those who had anything to do with the planning and excution of 911 were in Pakistan please.
Collective Punishment never helped anything. You don't punch Peter to get even with Paul. The children aren't guilty for the crimes of their parents. Guilt by association isn't guilt at all. This is fair. President Bush was fair to escort the Bin Laden family, some of who were living in the USA at the time, out of the country under armed guard to keep them safe. Osama was just one member of a large family, that family wasn't guilty for Osama's crimes, and many Americans, maddened and unable to tell who was guilty or not, couldn't be trusted to understand friend from foe. President Bush was fair to censor the Saudi financial report, because, again, the Americans, maddened and unable to tell who was guilty or not, couldn't be trusted to understand friend from foe. Even today there are people like YOU who don't understand what the report is saying and can't be trusted to understand friend from foe. THIS is why I think President Bush made the right decision. And, just to show how bad it can get when people don't understand who their enemy is, President Bush stopped being fair and stupidly went to war in Iraq. We got a decade of war and it was all a waste, as we are still finding out now, anew. THIS is why one must know WHO their target is, and WHY they don't go every which way.
No I didn't say anything like that. I said KSM was in Pakistan, not that he planned the attack. I said I'm waiting for the evidence and/or conviction before I'm convinced of that. It doesn't matter. You are claiming KSM was the mastermind, and that that Afghanistan protected him. You have to prove that. You guys keep demanding proof from me because you cannot prove your own claims, but I am not the one making claims about who was behind 9/11 at the top level. I fully admit I don't know that. The closest I've reached, in my research, is Mohammed Atta, who was the lead hijacker. But even that is tenuous.
