Invade Syria? - Page 3

ninty · 10-22-2005, 12:33 PM

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/D ... y/6879.htm

rdeyes · 10-23-2005, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

do you have a source that the Taliban Invited OBL to live in Afghanistan? I haven't heard of this.

1- http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

"The Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan, arose from the religious schools set up during the mujahideen's war against the Soviet invasion. After the Soviet army withdrew in 1989, fighting erupted among mujahideen factions. In response to the chaos, the fundamentalist Taliban was formed and within two years it captured most of the country. The Tali ave bin Laden sanctuary in 1996.

2- http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individua ... laden.html

"Bin Laden, an immensely wealthy and private man, has been granted a safe haven by Afghanistan's ruling Taleban movement. "

sanctuary - a place of refuge and protection

imported_Fluffy_Bunny · 10-23-2005, 07:14 PM

invade Syria with what army?

ninty · 10-25-2005, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdeyes

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

do you have a source that the Taliban Invited OBL to live in Afghanistan? I haven't heard of this.

1- http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

"The Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan, arose from the religious schools set up during the mujahideen's war against the Soviet invasion. After the Soviet army withdrew in 1989, fighting erupted among mujahideen factions. In response to the chaos, the fundamentalist Taliban was formed and within two years it captured most of the country. The Tali ave bin Laden sanctuary in 1996.

2- http://www.terrorismfiles.org/individua ... laden.html

"Bin Laden, an immensely wealthy and private man, has been granted a safe haven by Afghanistan's ruling Taleban movement. "

sanctuary - a place of refuge and protection

Interesting, but still doesn't mean they knew where he was. They granted him scantuary in 96. It's not like OBL blew up NY and then the Taliban said, "hey, hide in this cave!" He was already there. It's a moot point I guess.

TGB! · 10-25-2005, 01:09 PM

[quote:4d182]The UN and its member nations approved an illegal war in Afghanistan.[/quote:4d182]

The war that removed an terrorist orginazation from power that was aiding and abetting another terrorist organization that attacked the United States - nope. . .no justification there.

[quote:4d182]This right off the bat illegitimizes the war.[/quote:4d182]

That is RIDICULOUS logic. Because we make it known that "oh my gosh" we may have to take action against a country that is sponsoring terrorism (something that has been known since Omar came into power) - before they do something ELSE. . .please.

[quote:4d182]He was already there.[/quote:4d182]

He came into the country under the invitation of men who would later be heads of state. Period. End of story. During this time US Embassies, the US Cole and the WTC were bombed. You dont conduct terrorist activities from a country with ease WITHOUT having a relationship with the people in power.

Ninty for all your waxing about the "ills" in this administration - your information seems woefully inadequate and intentional limited.

ninty · 10-25-2005, 02:43 PM

[quote="TGB!":7fdcf][quote:7fdcf]The UN and its member nations approved an illegal war in Afghanistan.[/quote:7fdcf]

The war that removed an terrorist orginazation from power that was aiding and abetting another terrorist organization that attacked the United States - nope. . .no justification there.[/quote:7fdcf]

Just because the war removed a "terrorist organization" does not automatically make it legal.

[quote:7fdcf][quote:7fdcf]This right off the bat illegitimizes the war.[/quote:7fdcf]

That is RIDICULOUS logic. Because we make it known that "oh my gosh" we may have to take action against a country that is sponsoring terrorism (something that has been known since Omar came into power) - before they do something ELSE. . .please. [/quote:7fdcf]

The basis for war in Afghanistan was planes flying into NY. I'm sure that if it was public knowledge that the war was planned before the attacks happened, you'd have some people asking more questions about the legitamicy of the war.

[quote:7fdcf][quote:7fdcf]He was already there.[/quote:7fdcf]

He came into the country under the invitation of men who would later be heads of state. Period. End of story. During this time US Embassies, the US Cole and the WTC were bombed. You dont conduct terrorist activities from a country with ease WITHOUT having a relationship with the people in power. [/quote:7fdcf] oOo: Afghanistan is not like a western country. If a terrorist group is in Candada or the US, or any European country, the police go after them. In Afghanistan, you may have noticed, they don't really have any police. Their country is a desolate wasteland filled with poor people and opium. I don't think the country really had or has the resources to carry out anti terrorist operations.

[quote:7fdcf]Ninty for all your waxing about the "ills" in this administration - your information seems woefully inadequate and intentional limited.[/quote:7fdcf] I suppose I could say the same for you.

TGB! · 10-25-2005, 03:02 PM

[quote:a1972]Just because the war removed a "terrorist organization" does not automatically make it legal.[/quote:a1972]

And yet - other than rhetorical nonsense - you can present no evidence to back up your suggestion.

[quote:a1972]The basis for war in Afghanistan was planes flying into NY.[/quote:a1972]

Terrorists attacked us. Said terrorists were in Afghanistan. Afghanistan said "we'll do it ourselves". They didnt. We went in. Period. Any other information you present does NOT invalidate the fact that the United States had just cause in removing a body that wasnt even recognized as a sovereign nation.

[quote:a1972]I'm sure that if it was public knowledge that the war was planned before the attacks happened, you'd have some people asking more questions about the legitamicy of the war.[/quote:a1972]

Again - it does not INVALIDATE that the US was attacked. At best you can spend all day spinning conspiracy theories that 9/11 was an "inside job" and was meant to happen etc. etc. - but the FACTS that are agreed upon leave little room for debating the justification for going to war.

[quote:a1972]I don't think the country really had or has the resources to carry out anti terrorist operations.[/quote:a1972]

Why would they? If you invite someone into your country, its generally under the assumption that you have good relations with the party and have no objection to their activities. As for being a poor country - so? They had a police-body in place, and if they wanted could have expelled OBL from Afghanistan if they chose to. Again - why would they have.

[quote:a1972]I suppose I could say the same for you.[/quote:a1972]

You could - but the difference would be I'd be right. . .you, wrong.

ninty · 10-25-2005, 04:57 PM

You know you're extremly frustrating to talk to?

The US was not attacked by the Taliban or Afghanistan. In addition, there were plans to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks. All 9/11 did was provide justification for this action. Was it just a coincidence?

You think it's alright to invade countries to dispose of terrorist leaders and install puppet governments whether or not that country did anything to you. I do not. It's a fundamental question. If we don't agree on that part, then we won't agree on anything, and this is the result.

TGB! · 10-25-2005, 06:00 PM

[quote:d2b24]You know you're extremly frustrating to talk to?[/quote:d2b24]

As a kid I used to think the same things about the "know-nothing" adults. . .

[quote:d2b24]The US was not attacked by the Taliban or Afghanistan.[/quote:d2b24]

Who said they were?

[quote:d2b24]In addition, there were plans to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks.[/quote:d2b24]

We have plans for invading several countries. The point of this is. . .

[quote:d2b24]All 9/11 did was provide justification for this action. Was it just a coincidence?[/quote:d2b24]

Nope - but it did give Washington a legitimate reason to move against a body (that again was not recognized by any world body accept Saudi Arabia and the UAE) that had been known to harbor and support terrorists for years.

Again - nothing here invalidates the US reasons for moving against Afghanistan.

[quote:d2b24]You think it's alright to invade countries to dispose of terrorist leaders and install puppet governments whether or not that country did anything to you. I do not. It's a fundamental question. If we don't agree on that part, then we won't agree on anything, and this is the result.[/quote:d2b24]

Hilarious - this is the first time I've EVER seen anyone question our right to move against Afghanistan. You'd think such a bombastic, overly simplified view of the situation would be accompanied by something other than blustering "rhetoric" about a "fundemental question" (other than sound nice and flowery, what exactly is this "fundemental question" ninty).

The leadership in Afghanistan didnt have to strike us directly. That (again for years now - this wasnt some Bush Admin construct despite what Whatreallyhappened.com says) the Taliban/Afghani leadership was harboring, aiding, and providing support for OBL/AlQ was more than enough to remove them from power. Your suggestion is what - keep holding diplomatic "talks" with the Taliban in hopes theyll finally let us in to nab OBL. Right -

ninty · 10-25-2005, 06:11 PM

My suggestion is that Afghanistan would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Iraq would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Of course, the American people would never have stood for these wars without a catylist. This is why 9/11 did happen.

The US didn't go into afghanistan to get OBL. The US didn't go into Iraq to bring freedom to Iraq.

Sgt>Stackem · 10-25-2005, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

My suggestion is that Afghanistan would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Iraq would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Of course, the American people would never have stood for these wars without a catylist. This is why 9/11 did happen.

The US didn't go into afghanistan to get OBL. The US didn't go into Iraq to bring freedom to Iraq.

Id bet you wear a foil hat

rdeyes · 10-25-2005, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

My suggestion is that Afghanistan would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Iraq would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Of course, the American people would never have stood for these wars without a catylist. This is why 9/11 did happen.

The US didn't go into afghanistan to get OBL. The US didn't go into Iraq to bring freedom to Iraq.

the U.S did go into afghanistan to get bin laden , if he would have been in sudan they would have go in to sudan to get him.

Short Hand · 10-26-2005, 04:22 PM

[quote="Sgt>Stackem":87f55]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

My suggestion is that Afghanistan would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Iraq would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Of course, the American people would never have stood for these wars without a catylist. This is why 9/11 did happen.

The US didn't go into afghanistan to get OBL. The US didn't go into Iraq to bring freedom to Iraq.

Id bet you wear a foil hat[/quote:87f55]

gtfo, here is a guy being polite and serious and all you can do is come in while he is debating this with TGB and take a cheap sucker shot at him.. Seriously, SHUT UP and refrain from hitting the post button.

Poseidon · 10-26-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdeyes

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninty

My suggestion is that Afghanistan would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Iraq would have been invaded whether or not 9/11 happened. Of course, the American people would never have stood for these wars without a catylist. This is why 9/11 did happen.

The US didn't go into afghanistan to get OBL. The US didn't go into Iraq to bring freedom to Iraq.

the U.S did go into afghanistan to get bin laden

So tell me, why the fuck havent they got him yet?? If this Is a trully justified war of "just" getting ABL. We WOULD have him by now. its been what 3 years, yet we havent even been fucking close to arresting him yet? Yes this IS the man behind the whole 9/11 attacks in which many american citizens were killed.

If the USA had REALLLY wanted ABL as much as it was made out, we would have invaded Iraq. We would have stayed in Afghanistan and would have used ALL our resourses to find this murderer.

This is why im against the whole war. Because there are things obviously false about the justification as to why we invaded these countries. It is obvoius that there is more to this war.

TGB! · 10-26-2005, 05:48 PM

[quote:0da04]So tell me, why the fuck havent they got him yet?? If this Is a trully justified war of "just" getting ABL. We WOULD have him by now. its been what 3 years, yet we havent even been fucking close to arresting him yet? Yes this IS the man behind the whole 9/11 attacks in which many american citizens were killed.[/quote:0da04]

Bin Laden has been on the loose for more than just "3 years" (your math is funny regardless) - he has been stalked by two administrations. Both the Clinton and Bush admins have failed to bring him in.