Zherog wrote:Thanks, now I know who you're talking about. Didn't know he was gay. And don't particularly care either, honestly. *shrug*
No, you'r right, it's quite irrelevant. Except in all the documentaries they omit his boyfriend and sexuality, which just heteronormatizes him.
I had no idea that PL thinks it's easier to convince all 35+ people phoned and all the federal traffic controllers and pilots to allow their words to be changed to cover up a shoot-down. Very odd. Or that it would take longer to report such disparate information than a pat story fed by an authority.
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:'d love to see you back that up, since I can't find any evidence of it online. But even if what you say is true, you're arguing that the U.S. shouldn't have declared war on Afghanistan because some figurehead with no real power to deliver made promises that were easily vetoed by the real rulers.
Well, I didn't say we shouldn't have invaded. But we killed all the police, destroyed the civilian government, and started a civil war by backing insurgents unsupported by the populace and who made their money trafficking illegal goods and such. That's what we did. We didn't capture bin Laden, we shot the police and arrested the guy who drove the tractor at his ranch.
...I'm very interested that all the information on Afghanistan prior 9/11 has been pretty much overwritten by modern occurrences. Anyhow, yes, that's how an Islamic Republic works. You have a civil government and a shadow Islamic government and then Islamic courts. It's not like our three-part government, as it's more like five major parts, with some having veto powers over others and some not having really any power at all yet expected to do all the deal-making.
Yes, their power was limited. So that's a reason to shoot them?
-Crissa