Proof

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #19,163

Picture of Arkadiy

11/21/01 3:41:55 PM

Proof

Two things do not seem to be in dispute. One, bin Laden said many times that he is at war with America. Two, bin Laden is a head of a terrorist group.

Therefore, if US declares a war on terrorism, bin Laden is a target.

If you have him in your "custody" and protect him, you place yourself at war with America. This is not justice, "American" or otherwise. This is not a criminal investigation. This is war.

>What tangible advantage does it have against OBL and his terrorist group after all these bombing?

If you still can't discern what advantages in the war on bin Laden we gained by helping Northern Aliance, I have to doubt your mental capabilities. Or your honesty.

Post #19,198

by TTC

11/21/01 11:36:17 PM

Re: Proof

>Therefore, if US declares a war on terrorism, bin Laden is a target.

No dispute there. But you sure it's a war on terrorism OR a war on terrorism AGAINST the US? BIG difference.

>If you have him in your "custody" and protect him, you place yourself at war with America. This is not justice, "American" or otherwise. This is not a criminal investigation. This is war.

So when can we expect the Pentagon to announce the SOA/CIA/Pentagon/White House heads as target? When can we expect the US to start bombing the country that have them in its custody and protection? Remember you said this is war.

If you can't see the hyprocracy in the "War on Terrorism", and the double standards, then I really have to question your mentality or your honesty.

Just look at the Taliban. How organized are they? What have OBL and his group lost? State of the arts weaponary support from Taliban? Enormous cash influx from the Taliban? Political clout from being associated with the Taliban? Or their precious caves in Afghanistan?

Seriously, enlighten me. To quote Ashton, "Sheesh!"

The new hawks - (Silverlock) - (22) - Nov. 21, 2001, 10:13:03 AM EST

Re: The new hawks - (TTC) - (21) - Nov. 21, 2001, 10:31:24 AM EST

Bad, bad US. - (Arkadiy) - (9) - Nov. 21, 2001, 11:22:42 AM EST

Re: Bad, bad US. - (TTC) - (8) - Nov. 21, 2001, 11:41:50 AM EST

"forcing" - (Arkadiy) - (7) - Nov. 21, 2001, 11:50:04 AM EST

Re: "forcing" - (TTC) - (6) - Nov. 21, 2001, 01:22:36 PM EST

Re: "Forcing" - (Arkadiy) - (5) - Nov. 21, 2001, 02:11:12 PM EST

Re: "Forcing" - (TTC) - (4) - Nov. 21, 2001, 02:59:11 PM EST

My conclusions. - (Arkadiy) - (3) - Nov. 21, 2001, 03:34:16 PM EST

Re: My conclusions. - (TTC) - (2) - Nov. 21, 2001, 11:23:04 PM EST

Outlandish. - (Arkadiy) - Nov. 26, 2001, 12:14:02 PM EST

Re: list - (Arkadiy) - Nov. 26, 2001, 12:39:44 PM EST

Oh dear..we actually meant what we said... - (bepatient) - (7) - Nov. 21, 2001, 12:14:45 PM EST

Re: Oh dear..we actually meant what we said... - (TTC) - (6) - Nov. 21, 2001, 01:29:09 PM EST

Nice change of direction there.... - (bepatient) - (5) - Nov. 21, 2001, 02:06:25 PM EST

Oh, don't worry... - (Arkadiy) - Nov. 21, 2001, 02:15:53 PM EST

Oil - (Arkadiy) - Nov. 21, 2001, 02:17:29 PM EST

Re: Nice change of direction there.... - (TTC) - (2) - Nov. 21, 2001, 02:33:09 PM EST

Proof - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Nov. 21, 2001, 03:41:55 PM EST

Re: Proof - (TTC) - Nov. 21, 2001, 11:36:17 PM EST

Re: This bit quoted, seems quite wrong. - (dmarker2) - (2) - Nov. 22, 2001, 02:00:59 AM EST

gawd, agreeing with dm? - (wharris2) - (1) - Nov. 22, 2001, 09:24:11 AM EST

Re: gawd, agreeing with dm? - (TTC) - Nov. 22, 2001, 11:41:20 AM EST

Whelmed.
130 ms