Originally posted by notorious_eagle
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Documentary = Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
-
Originally posted by antimony View PostLets not create an unnecessary straw-man. She said "lack of evidence"Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View PostWhat does the statement 'lack of evidence' imply to you?"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus
Comment
-
The fundamental flaw i see with this discussion is ...
One is expected to negotiate with those (or their hosts) that just bombed you !
This isn't some small bomb attack that occurred in a crowded market place, but three missiles aimed at your defense establishment, where your govt sits and a signature office block.
The charge is the US did not try hard enough to negotiate.Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Jun 13,, 17:04.
Comment
-
Originally posted by notorious_eagle View PostIt appears that your hatred is getting the best of your judgement.
BBC News - Clinton exonerates Pakistan over Osama Bin Laden
This is as high up as it goes in the food chain, its the American Secretary of State.
Love your country, but then, love it genuinely. We, as declared by AM are already enemies. However, AM is not getting us anywhere. You are hedging your argument, based on an enemy diplomat's dubious political assertion? Common, you are better than this.sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View PostThe Taliban were not the 'enemy' in 2001 - an 'enemy' would not have made public statements condemning the 9/11 attacks:
CNN.com - Taliban diplomat condemns attacks - September 12, 2001
The mere fact that the terrorists received bread, salt, materiel, and shelter from the Taliban made them our enemies as well. You sleep with the dogs, you get fleas. And a target on your back.
Comment
-
Originally posted by antimony View PostExactly what it says, it does not imply exoneratePakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chogy View PostOh please. You're smarter than that. Of course externally they are going to mouth the necessary words to ingratiate themselves with those countries neutral or otherwise not intimately involved.
The mere fact that the terrorists received bread, salt, materiel, and shelter from the Taliban made them our enemies as well. You sleep with the dogs, you get fleas. And a target on your back.Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Comment
-
Originally posted by Deltacamelately View PostNE,
We, as declared by AM are already enemies.Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Comment
-
Originally posted by Double Edge View PostThe fundamental flaw i see with this discussion is ...
One is expected to negotiate with those (or their hosts) that just bombed you !
This isn't some small bomb attack that occurred in a crowded market place, but three missiles aimed at your defense establishment, where your govt sits and a signature office block.
The charge is the US did not try hard enough to negotiate.
(a) The Taliban knowingly assisted AQ in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks
(b) The Taliban did not directly assist AQ in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks but had knowledge of it and did not do anything to prevent it
Nothing we know so far supports either of those two contentions.Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View PostIf 'ingratiation' was something the Taliban regime wanted to do, it would have done so numerous times before the 9/11 attacks, by stopping the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha's for example.
The issue I have with your argument is that it assumes the Taliban were aware of Al Qaeda's 9/11 plans and still provided AQ support. If the Taliban were not aware of AQ's plans then holding them accountable for the actions of AQ is illogical.Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View PostThe fundamental flaw with your position is that you assume that:
(a) The Taliban knowingly assisted AQ in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks
(b) The Taliban did not directly assist AQ in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks but had knowledge of it and did not do anything to prevent it
Nothing we know so far supports either of those two contentions.
Voice of America interview with Mullah Omar
Tuesday 25 September 2001
Voice of America interviewer: Why don't you expel Osama bin Laden?
Omar: This is not an issue of Osama bin Laden. It is an issue of Islam. Islam's prestige is at stake. So is Afghanistan's tradition.
VOA: So you won't give Osama bin Laden up?
Omar: No. We cannot do that. If we did, it means we are not Muslims... that Islam is finished. If we were afraid of attack, we could have surrendered him the last time we were threatened and attacked. So America can hit us again, and this time we don't even have a friend.sigpic
Comment
-
No. We cannot do that. If we did, it means we are not Muslims... that Islam is finished. If we were afraid of attack, we could have surrendered him the last time we were threatened and attacked. So America can hit us again, and this time we don't even have a friend.
Yes, flying in the face of unequivocal statements like the one above from Mullah Omar, AM has persisted in putting forth his lunatic fantasies as fact.
Like I said, same kind of mentality as a conspiracy theorist.“He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”
Comment
-
Nothing we know so far supports either of those two contentions
The issue I have with your argument is that it assumes the Taliban were aware of Al Qaeda's 9/11 plans and still provided AQ support. If the Taliban were not aware of AQ's plans then holding them accountable for the actions of AQ is illogical.
You have just invited the U.S. Embassy bombers into your home. "I'll bet they behave themselves from now on. We are in no way culpable for their actions before this, or after."
Really, AM? Really?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View PostThe fundamental flaw with your position is that you assume that:
(a) The Taliban knowingly assisted AQ in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks
(b) The Taliban did not directly assist AQ in perpetrating the 9/11 attacks but had knowledge of it and did not do anything to prevent it
Nothing we know so far supports either of those two contentions.
If the Taliban were not going to cooperate with the terms given to them there was only one alternative.
Yes terms, given the attack, they'd already knew a few years earlier who they were dealing with.
Am not undrstanding your point with this discussion ? crying over spilt milk
What is your objective in defending this flawed narrative.
To what end ?Last edited by Double Edge; 19 Jun 13,, 20:50.
Comment
Comment