They Hate Us For Our Freedoms

[Username17]

Every pipeline built recently for Caspian Sea oil has been made to benefit Western companies as opposed to Russian ones. That's true with the Turkey pipeline and the proposed Afghan Pipeline/Pipelines. I don't see how a 7.6 billion project can be anything more than a scam, when you already showed an Afghan pipeline can be built for 1/3 the cost.

It's exactly this kind of argument that is getting many people to throw up their hands in disgust. You seriously don't see how a pipeline that costs seven and a half billion dollars could be seriously considered when there is a two and a half billion dollar project on the table? Seriously?

Look, a pipeline isn't like a SimCity pipeline, it carries an amount of material per day. The 2.5 billion project carries a million barrels of oil a day. At today's prices, that's about 85 million dollars of oil a day, two and a half billion dollars of oil every month. Now obviously, maintaining the pipeline costs money and you have to pay for the oil at the source in fucking Tajik Rubles or whatever the fuck, but you're still paying off the project (and how!) in a few months.

But you could also build a smaller pipeline that would carry less oil for less money. Or a larger pipeline that would carry more oil for more money. Obviously, if you could ship three times the oil for three times the money, that would be pretty sweet. You'd pay your project off in the same number of months and then rake in more hundreds of millions of dollar a day until Central Asia ran dry. But the amounts of money are so vast that even if the project that cost three times as much was shipping only half again the amount of oil, it would still pay itself off in under a year, and would catch up and surpass the smaller project in two.

If someone talks about a proposed pipeline, and you dismiss it because of the raw production cost, you're being totally irrational. You're looking at the cost and not looking at the benefit in order to announce that something is or is not worth it.

That's a whole other issue entirely that we haven't discussed at all. Care to share the links? Because that would be an allegation seperate from mine, and possibly a plausible one.

Yeah, we know Bush has friends in the oil world. Yes, war jacks up the oil prices. But I would say that applies much more to the Iraqi war than the Afghan one.

Yes. Driving up the price of oil was much more an Iraq War thing. The key is to look at the US Oil Imports from 2002 and 2004. We got more oil from Iraq before the war, but we got a bigger percentage of the oil they sent out, and the price of oil had gone up. It's really that simple.

You can go through the exhaustive list of facts supporting the assertion that the United States was attempting to steal all the oil. But Occam's Razor strikes here. The oil companies apparently calling the shots seriously made unprecedented windfall profits by just breaking the oil infrastructure of the country and driving it into chaos. Why would they need to have a bigger master plan than that?

-Username17

[Zinegata]

It's exactly this kind of argument that is getting many people to throw up their hands in disgust.

Frank, do me a favor. Listen.

You seriously don't see how a pipeline that costs seven and a half billion dollars could be seriously considered when there is a two and a half billion dollar project on the table? Seriously?

No, what I'm saying that a seven billion dollars is obviously overpriced for a pipeline, when the Baku pipeline was half the cost, runs through peaceful Turkey, and also transports 1 million dollars of oil per day.

Would you pay $10 for something that can be purchased for $5... that does the exact same thing? Of course not.

Now, like I said in my previous post though: The reason it actually costs 7 billion is because it's a natural gas pipeline. Which has additional requirements like maintaining pressure. A 7 billion dollar natural gas pipeline is actually the *correct* price for it.

The Afghan Oil pipeline, as it turns out, only costs 2 billion, not 7 billion. This is about the same cost as the Baku pipeline, it has the exact same capacity (1 million barrels a day) so it makes sense at that price.

-----------

This whole confusion came about because PL said the Afghan Oil pipeline would cost 7.6 billion.

Sure, a 7 billion dollar oil pipeline would eventually pay for itself. But why don't you just build another pipeline along the Turkey route if the Turkey route is cheaper? It still saves the oil companies another 5 billion in construction costs, and your pipeline doesn't have people taking potshots at it.

5 billion dollars is still a lot of money. And peace of mind that your investment doesn't need to be protected from Afghan crazies is a bigger plus.

This is the only reason why I thought it was a Cheney corruption deal. His entire modus operandi with Halliburton is to sell $5 dollar houses to the government for $10 by virtue of no-bid contracts. This is clearly factually mistaken, given the clarifications.

And this teaches me to simply never assume anything coming from PL is factual in any way.

Yes. Driving up the price of oil was much more an Iraq War thing. The key is to look at the US Oil Imports from 2002 and 2004. We got more oil from Iraq before the war, but we got a bigger percentage of the oil they sent out, and the price of oil had gone up. It's really that simple.

Yep. That's all I was trying to say. The Iraq War is an oil war, but the Afghan War is much more about satisfying the country that the people who committed 9-11 were whacked good.

Again, I'm not claiming that wars are not fought for oil. But to say that all wars are fought for oil is false. It's about national interest.

[Username17]

Again, I'm not claiming that wars are not fought for oil. But to say that all wars are fought for oil is false.

Thank you for that pointless truism. But the problem is that we've actually shown that the statement "The Afghan war was fought for oil" is true. It's not complete, but it's true. There were many other factors that pushed us into that war, from the need to invade someone after 9/11 (and the fact that if it wasn't Afghanistan, it would have been Saudi Arabia), to the weird NeoCon desire to one-up the Ruskies by "successfully" invading a country that the Soviets failed to hold. But yes, "get the oil" was on the bulleted list drawn up by the damn state department, so saying that the Afghan war was fought for oil is a totally true statement.

The Afghan War was a costly failure. Because creating stability was an actual goal rather than a claimed one. But part of the reasoning for creating the stability that we failed to deliver was getting the fucking oil.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

Thank you for that pointless truism. But the problem is that we've actually shown that the statement "The Afghan war was fought for oil" is true.

Frank, bluntly, can't you even be civil when you're agreeing with someone?

We both agree that it's a reason. I specifically said certain individuals took advantage of the war to push an oil agenda.

But as I keep saying, it's not the primary reason. It's not the only reason. It's a reason on top of a lot of other stuff.

And you're not claiming that oil was a primary reason in Afghanistan either.

Or are you now gonna claim the main reason the United States of America (and NOT Dick Cheney) decided to invade Afghanistan was to build a pipeline?

To quote the statement that sparked this entire debate:

Zinegata - anyone is free game if the US wants your oil

Is this true, or false? Does the United States simply bomb every country it wants oil from?

I will note that your own comments on the Iraq War - which I agree with - is that the oil companies made money by simply denying Iraqi oil to the rest of the world.

That, I believe, is the true story, as opposed to a very general statement that's not really true.

[Zinegata]

You may have mistaken me for someone who wants to argue about politics on a Sunday morning. I want to put your opinions into context of your age. If you are ashamed of your age, think it would somehow count against you, or think that's going too much into your privacy somehow, then say so, and stop trying to wriggle out like you do, because, frankly, it makes you look petty and retarded.

Okay, let's give it a shot then. I'm 26.

[Murtak]

So ladies and gentlemen who have reasonable minds, to quickly recap the thread so far:

Nice one! In one simple stroke you establish yourself as reasonable, everyone who disagrees with you as unreasonable and try to create an official version of the thread. Well, let's see if your homebrew thread summary is at least logical.

1) Crissa claimed that the US only attacked countries because they had oil. This has proven to be false, and not just by me. The US attacks other countries to serve its own national interests, and oil does not always factor to this.

Consistent so far. This being the first point, that is to be expected of course.

2) Phone Lobster came to the defense of the above argument by claiming that Cheney planned to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan that gave people access to Caspian Sea Oil.

Check, he did claim that. Of course those plans actually existed.

3) I noted that it's silly to build a pipeline through Afghanistan... when a cheaper pipeline was already built through Turkey that supplies the world with Caspian Sea Oil.

Oh, if you say something is silly, we have to discard the notion of course. Hey, weren't you the guy who demanded proof and research? That aside, what is silly about this pipeline? Because a pipeline that delivers gas to Europe does not seem to be an alternative to a pipeline that delivers gas to India.

4) I also noted that Cheney's modus operandi so far was to award big no-bid contracts to Halliburton to build silly things. Because Halliburton is actually a construction company.

And because Cheney gets money from Haliburton he can can not get money elsewhere, right. Damn, just reading that sentence hurts. And even if you were correct, why can't he get money from getting Haliburton to build the pipeline? It is their core business, it is expensive and, according to you, silly, where Cheney gets his money from.

5) PL insists that Cheney went to war for the sake of the pipeline despite of #2 and #3. He also ignored the more likely theory that Cheney simply took advantage of the war to award more no-bid contracts to Halliburton to line his own pockets. Because Halliburton earns a lot of money building military bases (billions, in fact) even if they're in the oil-less Balkans, and these contracts are already being investigated as fraudulent by the GAO.

Why need there only be one reason to go to war? Why need there only be one way for Haliburton to make money? Why need their only way Cheney and others get money from the war?

In short, Cheney is a war profiteer, not the Shadow Government Controlling the US.

Of course he is not the Shadow Goverment. He is the fucking Vice President. If you mean to say that Cheney and friends are not in a position to strongly push for a war I have a bridge to sell to you. Look, I even did 2 minutes worth of research: Bush let his expert team handle foreign affairs, his secretary of defense has tried to turn the military into a for-profit-company, his deputy of defense is a war advocate and his vice president refused to sell his shares in Haliburton, even when they had already been awarded contracts. With the president listening to you, do you seriously need someone besides the vice president, the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense to go to war when the masses are already screaming for blood?

1) I have claimed that the main reason for the US attack on Afghanistan was to whack Bin Laden. This was incomplete and I apologize to everyone except Crissa and PL if this caused any confusion. They attacked Afghanistan to both capture Bin Laden and shut down the terrorist training camps.

Why not them? Is it because they were mean to you? If you were wrong, fess up to it and move on. Apologizing to everyone but insert-name-here is not far from "fuck you, insert-name-here", and just as constructive.

2) PL and Crissa both initially claimed that the Taliban had offered to give up BIn Laden. However, the US apparently refused this offer because GWB and Cheney are war-mongering monster.

By your own words Cheney is a war profiteer. If so, why would he not ignore such an offer?

-> a) It was the US Government who initiated a diplomatic solution - which was to demand the Taliban hand over Bin Laden, his cronies, and to shut down the terrorist camps. This would not have involved the loss of a single life

Except of course bin Laden and pals. Who, while monsters, also deserve justice. I seriously doubt they would have gotten a fair trial in the US. Not to mention that I don't get why allegedly planning crimes while in Afghanistan somehow merits extradition. by the way, how do you propose to "shut down the terrorist camps"? That is an open-ended demand and any given camp may be outside of the control zone of the Taliban, in which case closing it is impossible.

-> b) The Taliban changed the offer three times ("flip-flopped"), and the final offer did not even involve turning Bin Laden over to the US. It also never discussed closing the terrorist camps.

See above - "close all terrorist camps" is actually an impossible demand.

-> c) PL, Crissa, and Martuk all claim that the Taliban had the right not to hand over Bin Laden because "there was no evidence". Ignoring the fact that the US government had already presented evidence since 1998 (before the Bush Administration) demanding that Bin Laden be handed over. The Taliban basically said "fuck you" in 1998, and there was no reason to believe they would do the same now.

Links to said evidence please. And while you are addressing me, please note that I don't care about there being evidence or not. I think that handing over someone to be executed by another country when he never even entered said country is bullshit. Publishing evidence or handing evidence over to the Taliban and demanding a trial, sure. Demanding a trial in The Hague, reasonable. Demanding extradition, no way.

3) Since I have presented the facts in #7, PL and Crissa have ceased citing "The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden", and instead claim that the Taliban didn't have the capability to hand him over. This means:

-> a) The Taliban was negotiating in bad faith, because all of their offers require that Osama be under their custody one way or the other.

-> b) They were royally stupid and should have said "We don't have him in custody, but if you really want to catch him we can help you".

I can't remember who brought this up:
-> c) They had to be careful with what to say, because bin Laden is regarded as a hero in parts of the country.

However, no evidence has been shown directly proving the Taliban didn't have the capability to turn over Bin Laden. So we can hold off on saying the Taliban are royally stupid and acting in bad faith for now.

So now absence of proof is proof of absence? Even in the face of logic and reasoning? Let me use your kind of logic for a second: "Zinegata is a martian. He can not prove he is not, there he is."

1) Some people are claiming they should have just kidnapped Bin Laden. Which I am ignoring for the sake of having a civilized discussion. Because:
-> a) That's not the only reason the US went to war (More complicated than "It's an oil war", I know. But it's much more constructive)

It is the official reason though. By showing the official reason is bullshit we can deduce the US government and/or military are lying or incompetent.

-> b) If it were that easy they should have just kidnapped Hitler or Tojo.

Because Hitler and bin Laden are comparable, right.

Thank you for your time. Please use this post as a reference before making snide comments. Thank you!

Happy to. I did indeed read your post and am forced to conclude that you can't think straight for the length of a single post. See above for reasoning. Even by your own version of this thread you are wrong, in nearly every sentence you posted. Note that this does not mean the people you disagree with are not also wrong. It also does not mean you are not also sometimes right. All it means is that you are very often wrong and commit logical fallacies all over the place. Add to that snide remarks and insults, while complaining about other's snide remarks and insults and you come across as a brain-damaged, whining child. If you want to fix that, I suggest you simply ignore insults (or just insult right back), use reason and logic (like some of your posts at the start of this thread) and acknowledge where you where in error.

As is, I can't take you any more seriously than PhoneLobster.

[Zinegata]

...

*shrug* I don't need to repeat what I already said about you.

[cthulhu]

We know the Taliban are assholes. America is supposed to know better, and be more responsible.

You are making the assumption that Osama has some irreplacable skill that means that him and only him can lead the organisation.

I do not think this is true. While it is certainly true this hurts, it's not a fatal blow. I suspect the planners behind this operation probably also do not agree with your assumption.

If you discard this assumption then the 'wack the individual' options won't work, because he can be replaced at the head and the situation is 'net neutral' except you've annoyed everyone. Plus as we have demonstrated the US decided to wack some guy is not guartee of any sort of outcome.

[Parthenon]

The thing is Zinegata, in 2001 all the secretaries of Defense, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, most of the secretaries of State, the US trade representative and the fucking Vice President were all part of an organisation that has been planning the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan since 1997 to get control of oil. The presidents own family was involved in organising the invasion of Afghanistan four years before 9/11. Link, about a quarter of the way down.

You don't need a Shadow Government, you just need a third of your administration and the family of the president heavily involved in organising the invasion of Afghanistan for oil and half of the cabinet secretaries closely tied to oil companies.

You are also pulling some of the same bullshit as PhoneLobster and Crissa. You have repeatedly stated that the Taliban ignored evidence about the 1998 bombings to show that they are likely to throw out any evidence about the 2001 attack. But you haven't shown that at all.

Please show us that they gave the Taliban useful evidence a decent enough time before the trials took place in 1998 and then that they ignored it.

[Zinegata]

The thing is Zinegata, in 2001 all the secretaries of Defense, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, most of the secretaries of State, the US trade representative and the fucking Vice President were all part of an organisation that has been planning the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan since 1997 to get control of oil. The presidents own family was involved in organising the invasion of Afghanistan four years before 9/11. Link, about a quarter of the way down.

So... you linked an article that basically says the Bush Administration intentionally allowed Al Qaeda to blow up the World Trade Center so that they could make war on Iraq and Afghanistan?

That's not evidence. That's some conspiracy nut's theory.

The only "facts" in that piece is that the Bush Administration is in bed with NeoCons and Oil people... which we already know and nobody denies.

You don't need a Shadow Government, you just need a third of your administration and the family of the president heavily involved in organising the invasion of Afghanistan for oil and half of the cabinet secretaries closely tied to oil companies.

You also actualy need Congress to declare war. Where the Democrats voted for the Afghan War, and mostly supported the Iraq War except for a few notables (Obama being one of them).

Do I need to link the structure of the US Government and show that there is an Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch? And that it's designed to prevet the Executive branch from doing crazy stuff unless the Legislative branch follows along?

You are also pulling some of the same bullshit as PhoneLobster and Crissa. You have repeatedly stated that the Taliban ignored evidence about the 1998 bombings to show that they are likely to throw out any evidence about the 2001 attack. But you haven't shown that at all.

Parthenon, I said "likely", meaning it was a reasoned guess on my part. In fact, you also said "likely".

In 1998, we asked for Osama. They demanded evidence. We gave evidence. They didn't hand over Osama anyway.

In 2001, we asked for Osama. They demanded evidence. *Fill in what likely happens next here based on what happened before*

Not that it matters anyway, because they retracted the offer to hand him over anyway.

Please show us that they gave the Taliban useful evidence a decent enough time before the trials took place in 1998 and then that they ignored it.

Parthenon, the evidence was submitted to the Taliban in 1998. They had 3 years to turn him over before 9-11. I would call that a "decent enough time" to prove he was a terrorist. Even if not for 9-11, they should have already turned him over for the embassy bombings in Kenya, since they already had the evidence from the Clinton Administration proving he had been talking to the bombers via satellite phone.

Osama wasn't just wanted for 9-11 you know. He's already got a long list of things going against him since the Clinton years. The people who are claiming that the Taliban were interested in pursuing justice are idiots... because they had already demonstrated they were willing to tolerate Osama killing a couple hundred innocent people. What's a few thousand more?

Unless of course you wanna claim that the Clinton Administration was also in this whole conspiracy too.

[Rejakor]

Zinegata... are you trolling? Seriously. You keep making claims that are so far outside fucking reality that I have to ask if you actually mean them, at all.

The Twin Towers getting hit by planes caused a massive shockwave in american society. If you were senator and voted against the 'get osama!' war of justice and freedom, forget being re-elected, you were in danger of being lynched. And i'm going to interrupt my argument for a second because I can see the stupidity of your next comeback, and I don't want it to exist. YES, several democrat senators and Obamarama voted against the Iraq war. That's because the initial furore had faded, and the sheer grinding nastiness of the entire operation in afghanistan, the casualties, and a few fleeting voices of reason were able to make themselves heard over the unstoppable tide of NEVAR FORGET and IF YOU NOT FOLLOW BUSH YOU TERRIST and start a couple doubts flowing in the minds of the people. Just because some people could vote against a later war does not mean all the people could vote against an earlier war when things were different and they were in danger of being lynched, you asshole.

Seriously, do you know that these are herrings you're throwing out? Do you honestly not understand the political climate in america at the time of the afghanistan war to that extent? And if you don't, why are you arguing? Why not sit down with some books and get educated about political theory, propaganda, and mob mentality? From what i've seen it won't turn you intelligent, but it might help a bit with the frothing at the mouth.

Also, no-one, ever, has ever claimed that the taliban were 'pursuing justice' or anything other than being a disorganized bunch of religious fanatics. You are putting words into people's mouths, and either you're doing it on purpose or you're literally too stupid to understand what they're saying, and in either case, I pity you.

The only "facts" in that piece is that the Bush Administration is in bed with NeoCons and Oil people... which we already know and nobody denies.

You have several times explicitly denied that Bush or any member of his administration acted in any way to support their neocon or oil interests. And that all of their actions were instead based on 'capturing osama' and 'saving the middle east, by killing them'.

Stop lying. Seriously, I can put up with the demanding sources when you don't supply any except in rebuttal (and fucking dubious sources, from which you draw conclusions that aren't supported in the source you literally just linked), I can put up with repeated venomous ad hominem attacks that serve no useful purpose, I can even put up with strawmanning the shit out of your opponent's arguments, if barely. But I can't put up with you fucking lying. Stop.

All of your ranting, multiple posted bullshit is designed to set up a smokescreen of crap that takes another person longer to rebut than it took you to write, and then you demand that they properly source and annotate their rebuttals, even for things that are common knowledge and that any interested party could confirm with 5 minutes and a google search. It's designed to waste time, and turn the entire thread into a series of massive posts about minutiae which turns off anyone who actually turns up to read them. And if any of them miss any of your blithely slathered points, you call them liars, intellectually dishonest, horrible people, liberal media, and declare victory as loudly and as many times as you can. Similarly, if any point in their rebuttals is weak, you take a post, rebut it four or five times, in isolation, and then declare victory. If none of their points are weak, you seriously misread one of their points or sentences in isolation, and then rebut it (which is easy, because by that time you've reduced it to fucking nonsense) four or five times, and declare victory.

This kind of tactic isn't designed to inform, to win arguments, or to express your opinion. It's designed to kill threads.

Well, i'm glad you have the opinion that no-one should discuss the war in afghanistan, the war in iraq, the bush administration, and a video of some helicopter pilots accidentally shooting up a bunch of civilians and what this entails in terms of responsibility and censorship. But you know what? Just because you have that opinion does not give you the right to enforce that opinion on others. Respecting other people's rights is a very important part of being a human being, and you will have literally no enjoyment or fun in your life until you realize that the only reason other people keep breaking your rules and pissing you off is that your rules are unreasonable, and you should change them.


-Rejakor


EDIT: Helipcopter isn't a word

[Ganbare Gincun]

More information about Collateral Murder:

One Day After 2007 Attack, Witnesses Describe US Killings of Iraqi Civilians

Important points in the first interview:

But yeah. I mean, the thing that was most chilling to me about this, as an independent journalist who works unembedded often, is that when the reports came out—the military investigations came out a few days later, you can read them all on the internet now—and they basically—I mean, essentially they blamed the reporters for causing this. They say they did three things wrong. First, they failed to identify themselves to a helicopter gunship flying, I don’t know, hundreds of feet above their heads. Second, their proximity to armed insurgents was reason for them to be killed. And third, their furtive attempt to take a photograph of American troops.

I mean, so, first of all, there is no reason at all to believe or to conclude that any of the people in that picture are armed insurgents. I mean, you can see two men with Kalashnikovs, but this is 2007 in Baghdad. This is the height of the civil war, when dozens of bodies a day were being picked up from the street, when sectarian militias filled the Iraqi security forces, the police and the army. Every neighborhood in Baghdad organized its own protection force. And it was legal at the time for every household to own a Kalashnikov in Iraq, and every household I ever went to did. So the presence of two men, dangling at their sides Kalashnikovs, in a crowd of civilians who have no weapons at all, I mean, is absolutely no—I mean, it’s—the whole thing is ridiculous.

Massacre Caught on Tape: US Military Confirms Authenticity of Their Own Chilling Video Showing Killing of Journalists

Important points in the second interview:

Yeah, something important to remember is that the video we obtained and released is of substantially lower quality than what the pilots saw. This is because it was converted through many stages to digital. But even so, we can just see that there are in fact two children sitting in the front seat of that van. And subsequent witness reports also confirm that.

...you can hear it from the tones of the voices of the pilots that this is in fact another day at the office. These pilots have evidently and gunners have evidently become so corrupted, morally corrupted, by the war that they are looking for excuses to kill. That is why you hear this segment, “Come on, buddy! Just pick up a weapon,” when Saeed, one of the Reuters employees, is crawling on the curb. They don’t want him for intelligence value to understand the situation. The man is clearly of no threat whatsoever. He’s prostate on the ground. Everyone else has been killed. They just want an excuse to kill. And it’s some kind of—appears to me to be some kind of video game mentality where they just want to get a high score, get their kill count up. And later on you’ll hear them proudly proclaiming how they killed twelve to fifteen people.

...something that has been missed in some of the press reportage about this is that there is a third attack, just twenty minutes later, by the same crew, involving three Hellfire missiles fired onto an apartment complex where the roof was still under construction. We have fresh evidence from Baghdad that there were three families living in that apartment complex, many of whom were killed, including women. And we sent a team down there to collect that evidence. So that is in the full video we released, not in the shortened one, because we didn’t yet have that additional evidence. Innocent bystanders walking down the street are also killed in that attack.

So quite a few people have simply focused on the initial attack on Namir, the Reuters photographer, and Saeed, the other one, this initial crowd scene, and gone, “Well, you know, camera, RPG, it can look a bit similar. And there do appear to be two other—two people in that crowd having weapons. A heat-of-the-moment situation. Even if the descriptions were false previously, maybe there’s some excuse for this. I mean, it’s bad, but maybe there’s some excuse.” This is clearly a straw man. We can see, over these three events—the initial attack on the crowd; the attack on the people rescuing a completely unarmed man, themselves completely unarmed; to the Hellfire missile attack on an apartment complex, which killed families—all in the course of one hour, that something is wrong.[/i]

[Zinegata]

Also, no-one, ever, has ever claimed that the taliban were 'pursuing justice' or anything other than being a disorganized bunch of religious fanatics.

Right. Nobody claimed that the Taliban was interested in pursuing justice. So I guess PL never said the following then:

The Taliban agreeing to hand over an accused criminal IF you can legally demonstrate they are a criminal IS them agreeing to hand over Osama. That in itself is NOT an unusual or unjustifiable position. When you want to extradite someone you have to expect SOME sort of legal proceedings.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=talib ... GB___AU355

If you're gonna insult someone, make sure you're not actually lying? Or that while you may not have said it, other people might have.

Get your facts straight: People only began arguing that the Taliban were too disorganized to hand over Osama, when it was shown they had been given the same ultimatum in 1998, given the evidence that was asked for, and they said "Fuck you" to the US anyway.

And yet there are still no links proving "They didn't have the capability to hand over Osama because they were too disorganized". I'm not saying it's false. But nobody has shown a link proving this to be true, unless you consider the org chart for the government of Iran to be proof.

You have several times explicitly denied that Bush or any member of his administration acted in any way to support their neocon or oil interests.

Okay, quote me. I dare you to find something where I denied this.

------

Seriously, this whole thread is about five anti-war idiots... who are more interested in shouting at me for things I never said, because I am demonstrating that while it's fine to be anti-war, there are reasonable claims against the war (i.e. The war drove up the price of oil and Bush's friends profitted - this is true), and outright delusional fantasies (The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden in good faith but the Bush Administration was so war-hungry they attacked anyway. This is false).

And you know what? That's fine. Because your insults mean nothing. It's the Internet. It has, however, allowed me to learn who in TGDMb actually have brains and who can be counted on to have a reasonable discussion with. You are not one of them.

[Zinegata]

Wikileaks Co-Founder Julian Assange wrote:

So quite a few people have simply focused on the initial attack on Namir, the Reuters photographer, and Saeed, the other one, this initial crowd scene, and gone, “Well, you know, camera, RPG, it can look a bit similar. And there do appear to be two other—two people in that crowd having weapons. A heat-of-the-moment situation. This is clearly a straw man. We can see, over these three events—the initial attack on the crowd; the attack on the people rescuing a completely unarmed man, themselves completely unarmed; to the Hellfire missile attack on an apartment complex, which killed families—all in the course of one hour, that something is wrong.

Right. It was a strawman because people are only referring to the first two incidents... when people hadn't even heard of the Hellfire incident until now.

He's a fucking idiot.

And that he's now claiming... that the video saw by the pilots was actually of much better quality than what's been released.

That would have been an awfully important note to all of the people who are looking at the video. And unlike the Hellfire thing, it's not new or fresh evidence. It's something he already fucking knew and forgot to mention.

Regardless, the RoE point I mentioned in the Al Jazeera piece seems to be at the heart of the issue. Why were the pilots cleared? What is the RoE? Wikileaks seems to be leaning towards this to be a system-wide problem, something which the RoE would address.

(Note, I'm not saying it clears the pilots. I'm saying this is looking to be a much bigger problem than one set of three incidents by one air crew would suggest)

[Crissa]

(Note, I'm not saying it clears the pilots. I'm saying this is looking to be a much bigger problem than one set of three incidents by one air crew would suggest)

Strange, isn't that what I said?

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

(Note, I'm not saying it clears the pilots. I'm saying this is looking to be a much bigger problem than one set of three incidents by one air crew would suggest)

Strange, isn't that what I said?

-Crissa

Did I ever contest that comment of yours, if you ever actually stated in that reasonable fashion as opposed to "RAR! US Army Soldiers are psycopaths who will abuse their wives!"? In fact, didn't I say the RoE being kep classified is the fishy bit?

I'm contesting your other idiocies. Like saying Kaelik condones shooting up ambulances when all he's saying is that unmarked vans taking away people for unknown reasons are fair game.

Seriously. You've been a bitch. Don't start latching on to my comments now and claim them as your own. Two other people have pointed this out a possibly system-wide problem (mean_liar and chtulu), but they didn't have to make wild and irrational claims on how the US Army is breeding wife-beaters to do it.

[Parthenon]

I thought that article said that a large portion of the administration pushed for war rather than other options by taking advantage of 9/11 rather than it being caused by Bush. But maybe I'm filtering out conspiracy theories automatically.

But I gave that link because it contains a summary of who was linked to oil and who had been planning an invasion since 1997. Some of the facts the more sane conspiracy theorists use are correct and to say that 2 and 3 are wrong because they think 2+3=7 is silly.

And if half the cabinet and the president make a decision at a time when it is seen as an obligation to support the presidency then it is easy to see how those people who have a strong control over popular opinion can subvert the process to cause them to go to war over taking another two weeks to a month in diplomacy and finding evidence.

---

To be honest, I no longer know why we're arguing about this point. We really ought to change the subject since noone is getting anywhere. Or better, drop it completely.

Why don't we argue about this instead. It has a lot of the same arguments: possible US soldiers rounding up and murdering innocent schoolkids, NATO admitting that it happened and it was a huge fuckup, likely a lot of argument that US soldiers were nowhere near and were only slightly involved.

Could be fun.

[Juton]

Here is some of the first media to come out and discredit this:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/g ... truth.html

I don't know if this blogger is professionally disingenuous or just dangerously retarded.

[Kaelik]

Parth, do you actually believe that Osama was not responsible for 9/11?

Do you actually believe that Osama did not have his training/recruiting centers in Afghanistan?

Do you believe that the US could have captured Osama and destroyed those recruitment centers without either 1) going to war with the Taliban, or 2) The cooperation of the Taliban?

Do you believe that 2 would ever have happened?

If answer to each of the above is no, Then why do you think that people couldn't have gone to war for that reason? Or even primarily that reason. Maybe Dick Cheney personally wanted to award a bunch of no bid contracts, but most of congress gets huge campaign donations from oil companies no matter what, because everyone gets huge campaign contributions from oil companies.

They might have been more concerned about that whole 9/11 thing.

[Zinegata]

I thought that article said that a large portion of the administration pushed for war rather than other options by taking advantage of 9/11 rather than it being caused by Bush. But maybe I'm filtering out conspiracy theories automatically.

The article mentioned repeatedly that the Bush Administration didn't want to investigate the 9-11 attack... because they apparently intentionally allowed Bin Laden the opportunity to build up his network so he can execute the attacks. That's the equivalent of the "Roosvelt knew about Peal Harbor beforehand" conspiracy theory/

But I gave that link because it contains a summary of who was linked to oil and who had been planning an invasion since 1997. Some of the facts the more sane conspiracy theorists use are correct and to say that 2 and 3 are wrong because they think 2+3=7 is silly.

Yes, but as I said... we already know Bush was in bed with the oil industry and neo cons. Nobody denied that. If your intent was to demonsterate Bush was in bed with the Neo Cons and Oil men all you need to link is the wikipage on his Cabinet .

And if half the cabinet and the president make a decision at a time when it is seen as an obligation to support the presidency then it is easy to see how those people who have a strong control over popular opinion can subvert the process to cause them to go to war over taking another two weeks to a month in diplomacy and finding evidence.

I was referring to Congress, not the Cabinet. Cabinet officials serve at the pleasure of the president. Congress are the ones who need to take into account popular opinion.

To be honest, I no longer know why we're arguing about this point.

"Whack Zinegata because certain stupid people kept screaming he's a Bush-lover... who shut up the moment they were challenged to show one time Zinegata denied that Bush was in bed with the oil industry".

Not your fault really. Lots of people "win" arguments by simply screaming falsehoods at the other guy. Keep repeating until most people believe it's true.

Unless the other guy is stubborn and shouts right back .

We really ought to change the subject since noone is getting anywhere. Or better, drop it completely.

Why don't we argue about this instead. It has a lot of the same arguments: possible US soldiers rounding up and murdering innocent schoolkids, NATO admitting that it happened and it was a huge fuckup, likely a lot of argument that US soldiers were nowhere near and were only slightly involved.

Could be fun.

This whole issue's a big question mark right now. No one seems to have known who did what.

The more interesting bit to me really is the Hellfire strike after the shootings of the journalist. The one the Wikileaks guys is claiming.

Okay, killing the journalists may have been a mistake, fine. But why the fuck did they send out these same guys about an hour later, when their superiors *knew* they had already killed civilians? Shouldn't they have been grounded pending further investigation (or at least should have given a "cool down" period)?

It is pointing to what the initial Al Jazeera report had been saying: Something is screwy with the RoE. The official version doesn't say anything about "shoot first ask questions later", but we've already seen an article linked here where troops claimed they were ordered to follow this policy. And that their superiors would "back them up regardless".

So the question of the day is: What is the real RoE of the US Army in Iraq in 2007?

[mean_liar]

Zinegata, your flurry of pedantic shitposting is astounding. I would post in this thread more but it would serve even less purpose than the average pointless internet discussion, which is saying quite a bit.


RoEs are kept classified for multiple reasons. The two largest are:

1. They identify to third parties what elements are NOT being considered in the RoE and provide a general overview of the decision-making process that goes into the mass murder endemic to war.

2. Enemies can game the RoE for their benefit.


This is not a difficult thing to understand.



EDIT - From what I can tell from the WikiLeaks video and their posting of the RoE, the engagement caught on film actually was in accordance with the RoE.

[Crissa]

Strangely, the US has not managed any better to capture and destroy training centers before they destroyed the civilian government (note they didn't destroy the Taliban) in Afghanistan than after.

Kaelik is basically asking leading questions. Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Kaelik?

-Crissa

[Rejakor]

I'm going to split this post up into sections, because I literally can't address all the bullshit you're bringing up in one response.


Let's begin with the very first unaddressed remark you made to me.

3) I require that you retract "hiring a group of adventurers" as a way to catch a guy who committed a very bad crime and all of America wants him dead. Because that has no place in a reasonable adult discussion of the topic.

That was a joke. I made it to lighten the tone of the discussion, and to insert humour into a very unhumourous discussion that quite frankly, could use some.

Oh. And. Hypocrite.

And for Lich Loved, brown people have no rights to life /or/ oil. And it doesn't matter which brown person you shoot back.

Racist.

Unless you were honestly calling a Crissa a racist for summing up LL's post. You fucking apologize for that and i'll retract my innocent fucking joke about an adventuring party being sent into afghanistan to extract bin laden.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A New Challenger Appears!

In your mind,

The Taliban agreeing to hand over an accused criminal IF you can legally demonstrate they are a criminal IS them agreeing to hand over Osama. That in itself is NOT an unusual or unjustifiable position. When you want to extradite someone you have to expect SOME sort of legal proceedings.

=

the taliban were 'pursuing justice'

Uh. Wait, what? Let's deconstruct this a little bit.
"When you want to extradite someone you have to expect SOME sort of legal proceedings." = "'pursuing justice'".

Some sort of legal proceedings != justice. Uh. Do I really have to point out how those two things aren't the same? Let me educate you a bit:

Pursuing:
1 : to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat
2 : to find or employ measures to obtain or accomplish : seek <pursue a goal>
3 : to proceed along <pursues a northern course>

justice:
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : judge c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c : the quality of conforming to law
3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness

And you honestly thought PL was stating that the Taliban were concerned with the quality of being just, impartial and fair? Are you fucking joking? Let me translate this into retard for you.

"When you extradite someone you normally walk them past a judge first. The judge says 'extradite this person'. That is how it happens everywhere IN THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD."

If this is indicative of your ability to understand the written word, then I take back what I said about intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy, since you are clearly not reading what the rest of us are reading.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, quote me. I dare you to find something where I denied this.

As you command, my master, so must I do.

I would think that "haven for terrorism" (a national interest issue) is a much bigger reason as to why the Americans whacked the Afghans as opposed to a proposed pipeline that doesn't yet exist.

This contrary attitude is frankly laughably absurd.

Also, again, Afghanistan has no fucking oil and this is literally grasping straws to paint the Afghan war as an oil war as opposed to "Whack anarchists who blew Americans up"

But this is not the same as arguing that taking out the Taliban and Bin Laden was not the primary reason for bombing Afghanistan.
[...]
I'm not discussing whether fighting the war is dumb or not. I'm saying the reason isn't oil. People go to war for dumb reasons all the time.

Exactly, albeit in Afghanstan I'd say the oil issue is extremely minor compared to all the other reasons, especially when Obama came into power.

Just because you admit oil is a dumb reason doesn't mean it's a primary reason. You're not establishing causality here. Just taking random potshots at the war in general and the Bush administration as a whole.

You're still not making a case that overturns the main reason for going to war - which was whacking the Taliban for harboring Osama (stupid reason or not).

Oh wait, look, you're right.

I'm sorry, I should have put it in a different way.

You have several times explicitly stated that the only reason the Bush Administration went to war to capture Osama, and that profiteering was just something that happened on the side and had nothing to do with the greater war concerns (capturing one man).

Is that better? Does that put it more clearly? Can you understand my point, now? Do I have to put it in retard? I can do that for you, if you want.

Y'see, I missed that you had built in a little escape clause for yourself there. 'MAINLY' is such a great word, isn't it? It implies 'nearly all' without ever saying so. Still, i'm glad you poked a little nitpicking 5% meaning hole in my argument (the same thing you accuse others of doing all the time which you have done in nearly every post you make) because it gave me a reason to read over this thread, and see again, for myself, what you've been doing. Did you know, you throw up a tangential ad hominem point at the end of 2 out of every three of your shorter posts without links? That point is always tangential to the main thrust of the post and so requires at least a paragraph to rebut, and if the person responding to you does rebut it, they break up the thrust of their main argument and come off as less credible.

The American government has never stated they want a new regime in Afghanistan MAINLY to build this pipeline - which is th important bit because we're talking about the MAIN reason for the Afghan war. You wouldn't even acknowldge what while Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi, his powerbase was in Afghanistan because of the support of the Taliban.

I really want to go back and find all those little 'asides' and rebut them all, because without fail they are derogatory of the person they are directed at, either directly, or by the stupidity of them daring to believe such a contrary position.

I think I might. Is it wrong that i'm looking forward to that?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruh roh, shaaaagggyy!~

But the most damning part of all of this is that twice now you've ignored points i've raised, points that basically dustbin your entire 'case'. You've done so even after I raised that you were doing that. 'Talking really loudly and fast until everybody forgets you didn't actually address the issue' only works for a certain amount of time until people twig. That's why when people use it on talk shows or Q&A, they generally change the topic right afterwards.

If you were really interested in further this discussion or presenting your point of view, you would address the points that directly combat your point of view first, not the points directed at your debating style. Since you instead decided to defend your debating style, you are more interested in being taken credibly despite the stupidity/hypocrisy of your claims, you are in fact a troll. Beep boop, basically, try harder next time, [EDITED].

Next, we'll talk about the use of smokescreens and how they retard communication, and the pattern of threads!

-Rejakor

[Kaelik]

Strangely, the US has not managed any better to capture and destroy training centers before they destroyed the civilian government (note they didn't destroy the Taliban) in Afghanistan than after.

Kaelik is basically asking leading questions. Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Kaelik?

-Crissa

No Crissa, I'm not asking leading questions. See, when I am asked "Do you not believe in God?" I answer "Yes." And then I'm done.

So likewise, if I ask, "do you actually believe that Osama was not responsible for 9/11?" And you believe that he was not responsible, you need merely answer "Yes."

And you are done. All that happens is that you admit to what you actually believe. I can see how that would be a problem for you personally, because you believe crazy things, but unlike Lich Loved, are aware that they are crazy.

But that's your problem.

Seriously, read the fucking questions, answer them. Think about the answers. Please explain how even a single question cannot be answered competently by anyone with an opinion on the matter.

Please explain how answering any of those questions "Yes" results in you admitting to having previously beaten your wife.

Or you know, stop lying when you get backed into a corner.

[Zinegata]

RoEs are kept classified for multiple reasons. The two largest are:

1. They identify to third parties what elements are NOT being considered in the RoE and provide a general overview of the decision-making process that goes into the mass murder endemic to war.

2. Enemies can game the RoE for their benefit.

Mean_Liar, #2 is a nice point. But we've already seen the RoE. It was also leaked and shown in this thread.

And it kinda doesn't say "Shoot first and asked questions later".

Yet we HAVE seen an article where troops were told to shoot first, ask questions later, and their officers will simply back them up regardless.

So the question is: Is there a "real" RoE where it says shoot first and we'll back you up regardless?

Because letting the same pilots do a Hellfire strike an hour after their superiors knew they'd actually killed/wounded some civilians sounds pretty lax on their part of ther superiors - which jives with the "We'll back you up regardless" allegations coming from solders.