Whether you claim you're right or not does not change whether you were right or not.

I'm not the one proposing that we find some type of moral equivalence between - to quote Dick Gebhart -
"There is no moral equivalence between suicide bombings and defending against them."
Which is what you have been childishly screaming for the last 6 months in these fora.

Ah, and I'm sure that those children we killed in Afghanistan were terrorists who were threatening us.

You see, I have no problem defending against terrorists.

We've been over this. You can claim whatever you want. It's the actions you take that tell the truth.

Killing children in Afghanistan is NOT "defending against terrorists".

Except in your mind.

You are making a huge assumption there, child. One, that I am willing or want to see the death of women and children and two that I feel a NEED for vengeance (sp) In your own words, BACK UP THAT CLAIM!

Read your post. Note the use of BOLD. If you are not willing to see us killing women and children in Afghanistan, then you had better start protesting our killing women and children in Afghanistan instead of trying to portray such killing of women and children in Afghanistan as "defending against terrorists".

You advocate the killing of people who were in NO WAY involved in the attack and you then claim that this isn't because of your need for vengence?

Whatever.

Who or what is your DIVINE Source? BACK UP THAT CLAIM!

George W. Bush. President of the USofA.

You may have assumed in your childish mind that this is some sort of fact, but I have not seen any documents saying that Bin Laden acted or plotted alone.

I am willing to say that you have not seen ANY documents related to the attack.

As for acting alone, you will recall that there were 19 hijackers. So "acting alone" with 19 other people? Whatever.

Ah, again, your problem with language. When I say "responsible" you translate it into "acted alone".

Typical.

No, sir. You can't get away with that shit. BACK UP THAT CLAIM.

What claim? That we killed women and children in Afghanistan? Are you questioning that?

Tell me if you question that.

Then, when I provide proof that we did, you will admit that you are uninformed on the situation and apologize, right?

Or are you just going to keep demanding that I substantiate every fact that should already be known by anyone familiar with the situation?

We are spending our military resources routing out -cave by cave- men-soldiers/terrorists.

We started with a bombing campaign. During that campaign, we killed women and children.

The women and children are not targets.

I did not say they were targets. They are "collateral damage".

You are an asshole to even suggest that the women and children are targets.

Okay, so, I'm pedantic when I correct your usage of language, but if I don't correct it, you have problems understanding what I say.

To clarify, I never said that women and children in Afghanistan WERE TARGETS. They are people killed because our bombs EXPLODE and take out an AREA. If they're in that AREA, they are damaged (collaterally).

YOU are the one with the language problem who keeps assuming I'm saying we're TARGETING women and children.

We just don't CARE if they happen to be in the area when we drop the bombs.

Your rhetoric in this area is continually offensive to me and
any thinking person.

Well, I'm glad that every thinking person has finally managed to get together and elect YOU as spokesperson for them.

Did they have cookies and juice during the election?

And it is not okay with me that innocents are killed which is why I wrote in this thread to begin with.

So, what are you going to do about it?

To protest the death of an innocent reporter.

Ah, once again, when it is one of OUR'S it is an "innocent". When it is one of THEIR'S, it doesn't exist.

Although I'm sure it would have been better somehow in your sense of equivalency had he been a woman or child?

Actually, I see a great difference between someone who leave the US, flies to a foreign country, knowing that it is dangerous and then seeks out dangerous people
-and-
someone living in the same city she's always lived in suddenly getting some hot shrapnel in her guts courtesy of Unka Sam.

But you won't see that difference. All you'll see is "one of our's" and "", well, you won't even see her, will you? She doesn't exist.

Examples that come immediately to mind: African Embassies, USS Cole, Daniel Pearl, Philippines, Kashmir (man, you are making this easy).

That's good. When it's easy, you can learn.

Now, Kashmir. I know that name, location and that India and Pakistan are fighting over it.

What does Kashmir have to do with terrorist attacks against the US?

Your childish suggestions about sanctions and freezing bank accounts imply that we never under any circumstance TRAVEL or Work abroad.

Really? I see absolutely no problem with travelling and working in Britain. Or Germany. Or Australia. and so on and so forth.

Perhaps you can explain to me how freezing Afghanistan's accounts would result in problems for US citizens working or living in Britain.

Hmmmm?

Come on. If we freeze their assets, they will simply change to barter or cash economy.

Cool. Good for them. What was your point? Ahhh, do you think that they will be able to trade goods for aircraft training in the US? Hmmmmm?

You do remember that they at one time had access TO POPPIES? HEROIN? The key being, at one time, before we went over and didn't achieve anything in Afghanistan.

Hmmmm, you seem to have a severe mental disorder.

Perhaps you would care to link to the post where I said we did not accomplish anything in Afghanistan?

I can provide links showing where I said we destroyed their existing government and so on.

Ahhhh, once again, your translation is flawed.

What I said is that we did not get Osama.

You read that as "we did not accomplish anything in Afghanistan".

Your fault. Not mine.

Which is why Bill Patient's Capone analogy makes a lot more
sense than you gave him credit for.

Considering that you have, repeated, in this very post, illustrated how you misread what I've posted, I don't think I'll take your word on whether someone else's analogy was correct or not. Thanks anyway.

I'm sure that all their bank accounts are in their own names and they list their occupation as INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST or Al-Quaida enthusiast?

Actually, one of them was. In California.

Ah, I see, your ignorance extends to modern criminal investigations.

Don't you find it strange that we had the information we needed to freeze those accounts AFTER the attack?

Particularly when you claim that we would not be able to identify them?

Yes, we did freeze the accounts after the attack.

Yo, Rainman, I may be really stoopeed, but I don't remember calling Bin Laden a country.

That's right, you didn't.

I was referring to a country called AFGHANISTAN and indeed, not only were sanctions in place, we (along with every nation in the world save 3) didn't even recognize them as a legitimate country. Are you really trying to annoy me with your lack of reading ability and comprehension? Or are you just happy to say fuck repeatedly?

Ah, I understand now. You're off on a "tangent".

While I was talking about terrorist attacks against the US and how to halt future ones, you were off about Afghanistan.

No, we didn't freeze Osama's accounts. We didn't freeze al Queda accounts. We didn't freeze accounts used by people in Afghanistan. "Afghanistan" itself doesn't have any accounts. Banks usually don't let rocks open them.

The Taliban has accounts.

Some may have been frozen, others were definately not frozen.

Ah, I see you've also managed to miss the part where I talk about a blockade. Allow me to refresh your memory.

[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41015|Can you locate the USofA on a map?]

If a country is protecting them, we blockade that country and freeze their assets in the US.

But fighting a war with the free world costs more than a few million bucks, bucko.

The price of flight training and 19 plane tickets. I don't see that as costing very much at all.

Running an international terror ring isn't cheap, especially if you are trying to take on the United States and Israel and the rest of the free world...

Actually, it is far less expensive than you imagine. Also note that al Queda is leaving Israel to others. Like I said, flight training and 19 tickets isn't very expensive.

How much money do you think Bin Laden has? Enough?

Enough to fund the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC? Yes. Why do you ask? Do you think he didn't have enough to fund those?

Enough to buy guns and Ammunition for all his buddies and put out training videos and pay for flight schools and ad nauseum?

Okay, I see you've lapsed into the "I'm out of facts so I'll ask rhetorical questions".

#1. M16A2 is $800 on the open market.

#2. Flight training is under $25,000.
[link|http://www.airmanflightschool.com/pricing.htm|Here]

#3. A ticket from NYC to LAX depends upon when you purchase it.

So, someone with a million dollars (only) could fund HOW MANY attacks?

Or do you have as much trouble with math as you do with reading?

But, in your mind he has enough and acted alone, so... I guess that's that.

Hmmm, I think you have another problem here. I didn't say that I thought he was the one behind the attacks. I said that GEORGE W. BUSH said so. And that Osama was our TARGET when we attacked.

Pot - kettle - black. No, you don't have to explain to me that Bin Laden is a millionaire again (unless you really feel like it) unless you want me to explain to you that he isn't rich enough to fund even the ammo for his "troups".

Hmmm, I guess that you do have trouble with math. Or is that reality? Osama doesn't have "troops". "Troops" imply "military". Osama is part of al Queda. He has "operatives". Ammo costs for "operatives" are very low. An excellent example would the the WTC attack. 19 people, box cutters, etc. All easily finance by Osama.

You must think this guy has godzillions of bucks... But, I'll do some more research on how to communicate with children (or chimpanzees) and get back with you with an abstract that is appropriate for your cognitive skills. Kay?

No. And I've already shown, with clear examples, how much it would cost to fund the attack. You're off on some tangent (again) about his "troops" and their ammo costs. No "ammo" was expended during the attack. In fact, I can't think of any terrorist attack that used more than a couple hundred rounds.

The Taliban government was in no position to require anything
from us. We didn't even recognize them as a government.

Strange how, since we didn't recognize them, that we dealt with them as if they were the government. That we even went to them first.

Again, you say one thing, but the facts of the situation seem to show something else.

Let me put it to you in a clear example. I don't recognize you as owning the floor above me. So I'm not ever going to ask you if I can go there. That's what "not recognized" means.