Taliban urges Canada's next PM to pull troops

[Unforgiven]

While I might be confused as to which PM sent us there, Martin or Chretien, it was the Liberals who sent us there, which I agree on.

But I do remember hearing back when this attack occured, even the Taliban did not approve of Osama's plans of attack and he got shatted on for it. This all would have been over with if the Taliban gave him up to the US, but they didn't..... but they were not directly responsible for the attacks either.

"Directly Responsible" Right he's not directly responsible. He didn't actually fly a plane into either of the towers or the Pentagon. Nor did he tell anyone to get a plane full of civilians and fly it into the towers or the Pentagon.

But then you could say that Bush isn't directly responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
Of course we know exactly who to blame for that and we know where the blame lies for Sept 11,01.

If you take over a country, build training camps to brainwash people who have been under a tremendous amount of stress already and so them ways to enact terrorism, you are responsible for their acts right along with them.

Just like Bushco is responsible for Iraq right along with the people who committed the crimes.

Here's a little tid bit of information that doesn't make it around these days.... supplied 6 days after the attack and by CNN:

Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

I suppose he didn't even know it was happeneing at that point. Part of the reason it's effective is that a cell works alone and without direct communication with the main group.

This is a far cry from the proud Osama we hear on audio tapes praising the attacks and all that garbage.

Here's a few questions:

Why are there only audio tapes released, and never video footage of Osama anymore?

Is he dead?

Does he not approve of showing his face as he speaks these words we hear now a days?

Why did the US at the start get these messages sent to them directly, then released to us cut up and limited in what was said? I heard due to National Security BS, but I hardly doubt that crap.

And the biggest of all questions:

Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

^ Why? What was Bush's reasoning at that time that it was him? Sure we have all this muddled crap telling us it was him now.... but at that very moment in time.... 6 days after the attacks..... what was his reasoning for thinking without question that it was him?

These are questions I have never gotten an answer from since this whole thing occured...... and it's the lack of ligit answers for these questions that has created the second guessings and "Conspiracy Theories" that are all over the world today........ due to a government and a president that wasn't straight forward and honest about the details from day one.

Thousands died and everybody wanted blood, so the simplest answers were all that was needed..... point your finger at who you think did it, and you can get the everybody behind you to go blow stuff up.

All the documents and video footage, the over-dubbed Osama videos, cut up videos of Osama that do not give us the full story..... it's all questionable to me.

And I never bought the excuse by the Bush Administration that they cut parts of the video out of public viewing because "He may have secret hidden messages in them that would trigger more attacks" ~ That's flat out bullsh*t if you ask me.

Why would Osama plan for so long on how to attack the WTC buildings, then when it occured, suddenly deny his involvement, only to go back on this and start boasting about it on audio tapes that can not be confirmed by anyone if it is actually him saying these words?

I'm not about to start throwing out blame or my own views on who I think is responsible at this time..... I am just simply asking questions and seeking logical answers to them. Afterwards, I might voice who is involved and what I think.

But come on guys, you have to admit, it's not as simple as most would think. Sure Osama could be lying in the above report I just quoted..... but just as he is as much human as you and I, and Bush.... Bush could be lying as equally. Don't forget that sometimes enemies could tell the truth and allies can lie from time to time.

Keep your enemies close and your friends closer as they say.

I'm just one of those people who doesn't like jumping into something without thinking about it first and getting all the information available to make a sound decision. Canada didn't have all the information that we needed to make a sound decision, and this is why we are in the situation we are currently in.

Not because a few Canadians died during 9/11. That would have been the trigger, but were we aiming in the right direction?

The answers are for you to seek.

But there is no question about the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban. This group is bad, they aim to kill civilians for Allah and have no problem with convincing and supporting some select people to do that.

We are a collective and stronger for our association. When you hurt or kill one in our group you have to fight the whole group. That's the deterrent. To be part of that group you have to turn up and put out when it's time to fight. And that's the name of that tune.

 

[Praxius]

"Directly Responsible" Right he's not directly responsible. He didn't actually fly a plane into either of the towers or the Pentagon. Nor did he tell anyone to get a plane full of civilians and fly it into the towers or the Pentagon.

That remains to be seen, and proven.

But then you could say that Bush isn't directly responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
Of course we know exactly who to blame for that and we know where the blame lies for Sept 11,01.

Oh, so Osama is to blame for the US invading Iraq? Give me a break. The facts do not line up with the propaganda you seem to believe in.

Bush is directly responsible for the invasion of Iraq, because he went against many opinions and reports given to him by his own officials, UN officials and various intelligence agencies around the world and he just simply picked and chose which details suited his agenda.

The fact of the matter is that there were no ties with Saddam to the Taliban or Al'Q, there were no WoMD, and Saddam was in no position to cause any threat to the US, contrary to all the BS lies Bush made.

If you take over a country, build training camps to brainwash people who have been under a tremendous amount of stress already and so them ways to enact terrorism, you are responsible for their acts right along with them.

Saddam didn't do this.... if anybody has, it's Bush. Who has taken over two countries thus far? Who's actions are directly responsible for the insurgency in Iraq that never existed before the invasion? Who has given the Taliban more support and more people to fight against the US and other allied nations due to their actions?

Just like Bushco is responsible for Iraq right along with the people who committed the crimes.

They're one in the same..... and everything we see today further excells my belief of "The Ends do not Justify the Means" One has to have an end to even get to the point of justifying the means.... and if the Ends are not better then before the means were started, then it was all for nothing..... but staying the course forever I suppose will eventually get to a point where they can point their finger in the air and shout "See! This is why we did it.... arn't you glad" Ignoring the millions of bodies left in the wake.

I suppose he didn't even know it was happeneing at that point. Part of the reason it's effective is that a cell works alone and without direct communication with the main group.

That is if there is a cell to begin with to worry about.

The answers are for you to seek.

I sought more then enough of them, and they still keep coming in everyday for me.... I have the answers and they're as clear as day.

But there is no question about the war in Afghanistan against the Taliban. This group is bad, they aim to kill civilians for Allah and have no problem with convincing and supporting some select people to do that.

So sez the propaganda. I know of a few others who aim to kill civilians.... only these others tend to plant weapons and tools on those civilians to make them look like bad guys to us.

Which is worse? The one's who openly do it, or the one's who cover it up and lie to our faces?

We are a collective and stronger for our association. When you hurt or kill one in our group you have to fight the whole group. That's the deterrent. To be part of that group you have to turn up and put out when it's time to fight. And that's the name of that tune.

There seems to be plenty of groups currently existing who practice this.... the problem is one side is more justified then the other, while the other is continually lied to.

Time will eventually tell all, as history has proven in the past countless times, and those responsible will eventually be held accountable, be that by trial and the public, or through the history books.

By the way, you completely avoided all my questions presented..... thanks.

They were very simple questions anybody could have answered with basic logic and common sense.... but you either ignored them or just decided to avoid them all together..... sorry, that doesn't help your side of the argument in anyways.

If you have a solid stance in your beliefs and reasons, then you should have answers to back up your stance and reasons..... and if they are sound, logical and factual, then I am more then willing to accept them.

But ignoring the questions only further proves my point.

 

[darkbeaver]

The history of Afghan resistance movements are really quite interesting. They have my best wishes in thier entirely legal and moral right to defend thier land and culture and to kill and or capture any invading occupying scum. And don't mention the client Afghan government or the dirth of hospitals schools and businesses we've built because we haven't done sweet **** all except irratate the locals to death repeatedly. Anybody with any ideas of imposing the western ethics and who enters thier lands to do so should have some strong tea and a cigarrette and the option of a blindfold. That is the time honoured and universally accepted remedy for highwaymen bandits and mercenary scum. Some people don't remember ethics, rules, morals or manners you don't want them in your lands. You can't hide everything behind a flag all the time, ours is a tattered dirty rag that sorely needs cleaning.