Which, like all the other 'evidence' must be deep sixed to keep the so-called 'hidden cells' from receiving their orders. Talk about lame. Not one of the Arabs being held incommunicado for all this time has been linked to AlQaeda ... but they are still being held.
'ObL's Al Qaeda was already involved in previous attacks against American interests abroad.'
American 'interests' in Muslim countries ... = money.
' And as far as I was concerned, Afghanistan was as good a place to start as any.'
Meaning you weren't sure, but bombs away anyway.
'There was no way for the investigators to know the correct names of every suicide high jacker involved in the attacks'
But of course we DID 'know' their ethnicity, didn't we? We DID 'know' their religion, didn't we? Or was it that you just made another 'leap' because someone said so.
a few of them actually used fake names.
Probably with faked nationalities too, since no devout Muslim would drink and whore around the night before he was planning to meet Allah.
' Osama always admitted to the acts.'
Yes, he did admit the other attacks you mentioned .. all of which took place as a result of what they consider our unwanted incursion into their lands. The WTO was a direct attack against the LAND of the US and BinLaden catagorically denied being involved in that.
'I didn't need proof'
You never do. But I did. Guess I must be from Missouri. Lie to me once and I'll never trust you again. They lie. So I won't take that leap with you.
'The NA hate the Arabs anyway so it worked out just right.'
They're all terrorists aren't they? After all, they don't believe in the same things you do and they wear these wierd things on their heads and they speak a different language and worship a 'different' God. So its a good thing when our CIA goes in and stirs up tribal differences in their countries so they will kill each other. That way we can keep our dainty little pinky fingers clean. That right?
'I contend to you that giving up the freedom (liberty) to get on a plane without being searched is NOT my idea of ESSENTIAL LIBERTY.'
Hide and watch. Your temporary freedom to get on a plane without being searched is not my concern ... and it shouldn't be yours either. But then you can just keep on leaping and shouting in joy over these red herrings they keep throwing in front of you, until ALL of your Constitutional (Bill of Rights) liberties are relegated to the dust bin of history. THOSE are your 'essential' liberties and they are being eroded deliberately by those same people who are telling you that you don't need any proof of anything ... just trust us (to vote ourselves some new pay raises while Americans are losing their jobs by the thousands).
'Can you please now do me the favor of telling me your alternative solution to the problem President Bush is currently faced with'
Well, tell me why its so imperative that we keep sticking our noses into these countries/cultures/religions/values for the purpose of assisting transnational companies to profit from the mineral wealth that lurks beneath the crust of those parts of the earth they occupy? The attacks you so fear will probably be coming to theatres near you now because the Arab people are no longer willing to be pawns in the scrabble for all those valuable minerals. For all too long they've watched their American sponsored puppet leaders wallow in obscene wealth while they, themselves, have beem systematically starved? Isn't that why American troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia? To protect the 'kingdom' against the masses of Saudi citizens who, if left to their own devices, might actually bring democracy and representative government to their country, wherein they might also benefit from the fruits of their land? Your military is being used to prevent any such eventuality. Is this a proper use of your military?
As an aside, please tell me, who owns the minerals beneath YOUR land? Certainly YOU no longer do. Congress did that to you MANY MANY years ago. ..... nah. They'd never do that to you, would they? So, tell me, how much water do you extract from that well in your back yard these days? Oh, you 'buy' your water from the city? Thought so.
So you just go right on trusting. And I'll go on questioning.
You replied 1) Which, like all the other 'evidence' must be deep sixed to keep the so-called 'hidden cells' from receiving their orders. Talk about lame.
I'm with you on this one. I wish they would show this tape (I think they will), and the one from before that had Tony Blair all hyped up (from what I've heard, that one used more vague language than this latest one). But lets face it, you would still not be convinced. You would be accusing the U.S. of doctoring the tape, or not interpreting Osama's words correctly. I've just gone over all your posts from this thread, and others, and not only have you not stated any negative response to the terrorist attacks against us, but have indeed made excuses for them. That, amongst other thing, tells me you have no moral compass.
2) Not one of the Arabs being held incommunicado for all this time has been linked to Al Qaeda ... but they are still being held.
All of the Arabs being held have broken U.S. law in one way or another. The United States Constitution grants congress the specific Power To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization in Article 1, section 8. The Arabs being detained have broken one or more of those rules, or other more blatant criminal offenses, and are therefore detained legally. But being on U.S. soil entitles these people to certain rights under our Constitution, even though they are not citizens of our country, under the 14th amendment to our constitution that states (in part):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, in my opinion, these people being held should either be deported to their country or origin, or be allowed their 6th amendment protection that states (in part) the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial , which would be their "due process of law".
BUT, to say "the Arabs being held incommunicado" ...
Definition of incommunicado :
incommunicado : without means of communication ; also in solitary confinement
... is an OUTRIGHT LIE. They ALL have attorneys whom are absolutely free to talk with the families, TV stations, news papers, or whatever. Matter of fact, I, myself, have witnessed two such attorneys defending their clients on the "Bill O'Reily"(sp?) show. Those two were charged with smuggling some 60,000 dollars CASH, hidden in and under honey that was being shipped to establishment in Yemen (I think) that were known fronts for the Al Qaeda network. Both lawyers admitted that the situations their clients were caught in the process of, "looked bad". That being said, I still think they should be either tried, or deported. But maybe they don't want a speedy trial being the state of mind that most Americans (their potential jury) are in right now (after 9-11).
What's sad is, you have to lie to be able to make a point. That shows me two things ... you are a liar, and you can't defend your position with facts.
You replied : American 'interests' in Muslim countries ... = money.
Which one of the attacks I listed = "money"? You just can't make a point without lying can you. Yes, we have a lot of financial interests in Muslim countries, but none of those monetary interests were attacked. Let's go through them again shall we? ...
1) Killing of U.S. soldiers in Somalia (1993) = Money??? We were trying to feed those people. Your Muslim buddies were attacking all the humanitarians that were trying to feed the starving people in that country. We tried to help them, so your Muslim buddies started attacking us (the U.S.A.) Your welcome
2) Bombing under World Trade Center {6 killed} (1993) American 'interests' in Muslim countries ... = money The WTC isn't ... oops, wasn't even in a Muslim country, you boob.
3) Bombing of U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia {22 soldiers killed} (1996) Ok, on this one you are HALF right. BUT we were invited their by the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. If the millions of Muslims in that country don't rise up and rebel against their Muslim rulers, is that our (U.S.A's) fault? We already had our revolution against our tyrannical rulers, now (225 years later) it's your turn. And believe me, we would not defend the Royal family from a revolution that would possibly lead to a democracy. We deal well with democracies. Notice how democracies never war with each other? Why kill Americans when your government invited us there? Kill your government.
4) Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa {224 killed including 12 Americans} (1998) U.S. Embassies in East Africa = money???????
5) Bombing of USS Cole in Yemen {17 U.S. Sailors killed} (2000) The Cole stopped in to refuel, with the ok from the government, nothing to do with money, except that we pay them for the fuel.
You're losing this debate to someone (me) that didn't even finish High school.
You replied : Meaning you weren't sure, but bombs away anyway.
You must be able to read, at least a little, so you must be severely retarded. That's the only reason I can come up with for your extremely poor reading comprehension. Either that, or you're a paid troll for one of the terrorist supporting Muslim organizations (as opposed to the ones that don't support terrorism), and are therefor not interested in truth, facts, or reason, when advancing an argument.
You replied : But of course we DID 'know' their ethnicity, didn't we? We DID 'know' their religion, didn't we? Or was it that you just made another 'leap' because someone said so.
I didn't need my government to tell me anything. I didn't need a leap in faith either. The news articles with quotes from the family members of the suicide terrorists saying "he was a normal, very non religious, guy up until about a year ago when he got caught up in Islam. Then he changed, and soon after that left home for more intense study of the religion. I'm sorry to the Americans for my sons actions."
After a few of those articles, I was convinced the perps were fanatical muslims. Call me crazy.
You replied : Yes, he did admit the other attacks you mentioned .. all of which took place as a result of what they consider our unwanted incursion into their lands. The WTO (you mean WTC?) was a direct attack against the LAND of the US and BinLaden catagorically (you mean categorically?) denied being involved in that.
Very good, you admit that he was responsible for all the attacks, except the WTC attacks, against the U.S. Those attacks he admits to are plenty enough reason to go after him and the government that gave him a safe haven. I couldn't care less what his excuses are for the terrorist attacks. The fact is, there is NO excuse for terrorism.
But you believe him when he, publicly, denies culpability in the WTC attacks. Well that's your right to be easily deceived. Do you believe him when he says it's the duty of every good Muslim to kill every Jew and/or American they can? Or do you just believe some of the things he says? I believe he is just trying to save his ass by just admitting to the attack away from U.S. soil. Kind of like a wife beater tells the cops, "I only pushed her once". If he were to say, "yeah I hit her", he would be hauled off to jail. ObL is that wife beater.
I said : It wasn't the Afghans we were after. It was the Arabs that inhabited their country to use it as a great big TERRORIST camp. The NA hate the Arabs (being in their country) anyway so it worked out just right.
You, like a good troll, said : They're all terrorists aren't they? After all, they don't believe in the same things you do and they wear these wierd (that's weird) things on their heads and they speak a different language and worship a 'different' God.
NOOOOO, not just any/all "Arabs". the ones that took over in non Arab Afghanistan. Those Arabs were the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. That's why it's good the the NA wanted them out too, because we (U.S.A.) were embarking on a war on terrorism. (you like pulling just partial quotes out in order to misrepresent my position, don't ya? That makes you a troll)
You said : So its a good thing when our CIA goes in and stirs up tribal differences in their countries so they will kill each other. That way we can keep our dainty little pinky fingers clean. That right?
You may have had an excuse for your ignorance before, but I've already told you about the war preexisting between the "tribes". That war, as I said before, had been going on for about 10 years before we got there. No need for the CIA to stir things up. And when we need to get our "little pinky fingers" dirty, don't worry ... we will.