Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Documentary = Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by notorious_eagle View Post
    Let me flip this argument around

    Lets for argument sake say that Clinton publicly accused the GOP of sheltering OBL without any evidence, you would be yelling at the top of your lungs and would probably swear your life by Clinton's accusations. But in this case, you have dismissed her statement simply because it does not suit your point of view. Its innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.
    Lets not create an unnecessary straw-man. She said "lack of evidence", you took the lazy title and ran with it. You even added your tidbits about the "food chain"
    "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


    • Originally posted by antimony View Post
      Lets not create an unnecessary straw-man. She said "lack of evidence"
      What does the statement 'lack of evidence' imply to you?
      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 Post
        What does the statement 'lack of evidence' imply to you?
        Exactly what it says, it does not imply exonerate
        "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 Post
            It 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.
            NE,

            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 Post
              The 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
              Oh 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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                Exactly what it says, it does not imply exonerate
                What would imply exoneration then, if not a stated lack of evidence establishing guilt?
                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 Chogy View Post
                  Oh 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.
                  If '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 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.
                  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.
                  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 Post
                    NE,
                    We, as declared by AM are already enemies.
                    Who is this 'We', and when did I declare this 'We' an enemy?
                    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 Post
                      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.
                      The 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.
                      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 Post
                        If '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.
                        You need a rest.Really,take a break,breathe.After that, come back and read again,the last pages.And apreciate the patience we're having with your twisted mind.CAN YOU FUCKING UNDERTSAND THE AQ WAS AT WAR WITH US BEFORE 9/11 AND THE TALIBAN PROVIDED SUPPORT?WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT THE TALIBAN KNEW OR BELIEVED ABOUT 9/11?
                        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 Post
                          The 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.
                          Regardless of whether he was a willing accomplice, Mullah Omar knowingly chose his path and that of the Taliban government... to harbor Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda .

                          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.
                          Source: The Guardian
                          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.
                            AM has assured us that the Taliban were ready and willing to negotiate and that the possibility existed of the Taliban cooperating with the United States to destroy AQ.

                            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.
                            Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                            Comment


                            • Nothing we know so far supports either of those two contentions
                              Nor will we ever, since admission of such is a one-way ticket to Gitmo. No sane individual is going to step forward and admit to helping to plan the 9/11 attacks.

                              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.
                              AQ's "track record" prior to 9/11 was not secret.

                              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 Post
                                The 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.
                                no, thats not what i said.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X