a thought about that hurricane

[pwxyzg]

Originally posted by derwoodly

Originally posted by pwxyzg
actually.. in sept of 2002..

\"The Taliban offers to turn over bin Laden if presented with evidence of his guilt. They also suggest that they will allow him to be tried by Muslim clerics.\"
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html

so really, the usOFa declined to tun over any evidence, and attacked in an act of agression instead.

Please do not rewrite history.  

sorry.. .. um, i meant 2001 (see the llink, its a typo) .. my appologies.  i am actually not the one rewriting history here.

and

Originally posted by Xordan
I remember..

for everyone\'s enjoyment..another link, another time (1 month later).. alludes to the previous offer but this also talks about the one after aerial attacks started ..when they said basically, ok, ok..just take him, forget evidence.. geeesh:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html

have a look.

yes, i think there is much disinformation; it seems much of the media have misinformed or rewritten history by under/over reporting to follow a popular belief while the drum of war beat on. (/me points in flight attendent style to WMD\'s or lack thereof   ).  Albeit they have a difficult problem in that it is a bit like the duality of light.. the more/less they report, the more they change the reality (a bit of what i am doing here in fact by putting out this information )

it seems to me that most people honestly don\'t care much about the facts, they are only posturing a political ideology, in the effort to root for a team -  the world is much simpler and easier that way; imho this siding is one of the worst things for journalism and democracy.

Anyhow, as to what derwoodly said w/r/t memory and the side you feel you are on: seems you are implying a belief and an ideology and well, i would wager that the side you side with are probably telling you what you want to hear and have always heard.  Open your mind for possibilities, and make up your own mind based on your world view; not for the rest of your life, but for now, with the facts at hand. *shrugs* (stir well, repeat to infinity).  

[derwoodly]

The article in the Gardian was much much better than your first link.  It actually had real facts in it.  Reading the first one left me with the impresion that there was zero negotiation and the USA attacked for almost no reason.

Your second article shows the process of negotiation that took place.  It also refutes your own claim that one month earlier The Taliban agreeded to turn him over.

.......................................................
But until now the Taliban regime has consistently said it has not seen any convincing evidence to implicate the Saudi dissident in any crime.

\"Now they have agreed to hand him over to a third country without the evidence being presented in advance,\" the source close to the military said.
............................................................

Acording to the article that you posted the Taliban only offered to turn Bin Ladin over to another country not dirrectly to the USA after Northern alliance troops were in the country.

You said you wanted to clear up some misconceptions, so you posted....

Originally posted by pwxyzg

so really, the usOFa declined to tun over any evidence, and attacked in an act of agression instead.

I don\'t think this clears anything up.  It makes me wonder about your own bias.  Reread the article in the link that you posted and tell me where I am wrong.   If some american terrorist blew up London, how fast do you think we would cooperate.   It would be done within 24 hours, that is unless Bush is on vacation again.  The USA has made plenty of mistakes without people twisting the truth.


@ Val  Kerry was the worst possible candidate, I am sure with your background you can see where he could have picked up the 2% of the Ohio vote he needed.

[Valbrandr]

Do yo know anything about voting irregularities in Ohio?  Maybe a machine that counted 25,000 extra votes then people who were in that specific county...  Hmm historically Democratic voting counties voting republican... calls going out to poorer/uneducated people telling them that Democrates voted on a different day then Republicans.. Please do not try and act like Bush wins fair and square.. look back at the first election that he lost... Gore got so close in Florida when they started to recount some of the votes.. but quickly the Supreme Court shut him  down.. Think how diffferent things coould have been without Bush...

And Kerry was the worst possible candidate because he is linked to over 2000 American deaths, because of his war over 100,000 Iraqi  civilians are currently dead and the few allies we had are now being attacked.  If you are trying to tell me he could not do as good of a job as Bush.. then you really need to look at your own biases.. you keep talking about them.. hmm maybe you dont notice that you are brainwashed.  51% didnt know it until it was too late as well.

[Xordan]

Originally posted by Valbrandr
Please do not try and act like Bush wins fair and square.. look back at the first election that he lost...

If Kerry had won then we\'d be like: \"Please do not try and act like Kerry wins fair and square.. \"

It\'s quite common for there to be voting irregularities in polls.

Originally posted by fken
Moreover, who said you voting is so important? Do you really think its important? What would change in your life if Kerry is president? Surely nothing.

It makes a huge difference....
Hitler is a good example. If the Nazi party hadn\'t have been voted in with him as leader, I doubt that WW2 would have occurred, or, occured at that time, under the same circumstances.

[derwoodly]

Originally posted by Valbrandr

And Kerry was the worst possible candidate because he is linked to over 2000 American deaths, because of his war over 100,000 Iraqi  civilians are currently dead and the few allies we had are now being attacked.  

Ahh, now we are getting somewhere.  So you agree Kerry was the worst.  
 
I continue to post here, so that you might get a feeling as to why 51% voted the way they did.  Bush must have done something right, he picked up votes on the second try.  

You blame bush for every death in Iraq, why don\'t you blame him for every death in America?  Surely, the president is responsible for the high crime rate.   When a gang-banger kills I am sure it is out of frustration at the 2004 elections.  You can not just count bodies that does not make sense to me.  I can not make that logical leap.

[edit: from Iraq body count . org -- 28,000 deaths NOT 100,000  :
Who did the killing?

    * US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
    * Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
    * Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
    * Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

]

[fken]

Originally posted by Xordan
It makes a huge difference....
Hitler is a good example. If the Nazi party hadn\'t have been voted in with him as leader, I doubt that WW2 would have occurred, or, occured at that time, under the same circumstances.

There was a time when i everytime took example with WW2 and Hitler... Hitler the big evil. Hitler THE responsble of the WW2.

OMG!

Guy! If you react toward me like frenches (for example) reacts toward Germans before the WW2... I really dunno how i would react toward you.
I am not saying Nazis and Hitler were angels but i am saying they really werent the only responsible of the WW2.

Do you know that thanks to the Vichy governments collaboration, the Frenches had almost as food ratio as the Germans themselves ? Today and even just after the war people spit on Vichy Government but believe in me, Petain had ever shown his extremist ideas before the WW2. You just needed to to inform yourself a little... People would say they werent aware of it but if they really wanted they would be able to know that truth. In fact, Frenches didnt want to fight against Germany because they were scared (its perfectly understandable when you know whats happened during the WW1). When the time of the WW2 was about to be ended, everyone in France became \"resistants\", the protectors of the French freedom against german invasion... So they fight like they could the poor people, they mowed the head of the m*therf*cker female that loved a german soldier and even the one that have been raped by germans... No! really. I like to speak about this part of the history. Because it\'s in my mind the best example of the humanity way of life : We did but we arent responsible ! The shame is on someone else!

Dont forget that the WW2 is the consequence of the WW1. Dont forget that it would never happened if Frenches, Britishs or any allies really cared about Germany destiny.

Dont forget neither that France had its \"affaire Dreyfus\". People in France had no problems to say this Dreyfus must be sent in jail just because he was jewish. Dont forget that in the USA there were some issues like this one. Dont forget that GB had the same problems with India or even ireland... People thought that there was superior races and surely still think like that today...

For Kerry I dunno really what he would have done. The war was already waged and won... He would have kept on doing what Bush has already done but he would have said \"I am rebuilding what Bsh destructed!\". But really I cant see whats a Kerry or whats a Bush... For me these guys are kind of puppets and the puppetmasters are behind them saying what they have to do like in every part of the world.

[pwxyzg]

my point is and has been that the taliban did not \"decline\"... just above what you quoted was
..................
The Taliban have offered to hand over Bin Laden before but only if sufficient evidence was presented
.................

You could try to say the counter offer for evidence (and for a \'neutral\' site) was a \'decline\', but if you are familiar with common due processes, you would find that this is normal and in fact expected.

Again, you come to your own conculsions as to the reasons we did not accept this offer; in otherwords, why we declined.


As to the hypothetical what would happen if there was an american terrorist action in london? *sigh* I would guess we would ask for evidence and if we had trouble with the evidence we would ask for a neutral site like canada.  I think you are not understanding the american/international extradition process and what it takes, particularly if there are questions as to the evidence (see here to learn more about extradition http://Http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Extradition).

Also, you are also talking apples and oranges.. i feel a better hypothetical comparison is this:  what if the Venezuelan president IS killed and Venezuela says we want Pat Robertson for his international threat and support of an assaination? I don\'t see us giving him up.  But, maybe you do.. now we are talking beliefs and it is like a relgious discussion, which I for one, am not interested in.

my bias?  i have many biases that are mostly focused on my superhero ideals of truth, justice and the american way.. applied worldwide and always.  

[Xordan]

Originally posted by fken
I am not saying Nazis and Hitler were angels but i am saying they really werent the only responsible of the WW2.

Hitler was the guy who built up the German army in secret. Nobody else caused that. The other parties involved in the elections wouldn\'t have done that. Therefore, if Hitler had never got to power, then Germany would ever have had a army to fight with, and so WW2 would not have happened in that way. Sure, he wasn\'t solely responsible for kicking the war off, but I would say that if Germany hadn\'t have had an army, it wouldn\'t have happened. So he was the root cause.

[fken]

So you are saying that the war would happened 10 years after ? or maybe are you thinking that the situation in Palestinia is better ? no war but a perpetual conflict? I was saying that if there werent a Hitler or a Himmler or a Goeble, the hate would still have been here. Nobody know how the situation would have happened if there werent Hitler. Look for example at the game redalert (I know its a game its not serious but...), the story was the following : Allies fund a way to kill Hitler in 1933 by teleporting themselves in the past. Once they come back they are scared to understand that the situation is worse because the soviets were the one who created the WW2 ... but after, once they were totally prepared.

If the Soviets wanted to wage a war dont forget the germans\' hate toward the french and the allies. Allies would still reject Italia like the way they have done that during the WW2. It would not change anything with Japan... So whats the result ? Allies - URSS VS URSS + Germany + Austria + Italia + Japan... then if you imagine that URSS would have created bombs secretly ... You surely could be able to understand that the WW2 would happened even without Hitler. Moreover, were would the front line be? During the WW2, there were URSS Japan USA So the front line was in the Japan/pacific. Same things with germany and italia : England(/France dont forget the french forces) Germany URSS and the last one : French colony Italia France... now if you realize that if there werent the URSS the direct battle field would have been all around GB and all around USA ... For the first time since the secession war (I am not sure of the way i spell it), USA would be THE battlefield attacked by foreigner countries. Who would win ?

Why this example is so obvious ? simply because of four facts :
1) during the cold war, URSS was about to wage a war against USA. I heard that Kremlin gave his cold war files and that a lot of people were shocked by realizing that the real war was closer than what they imagined.
2)Hitler manipulated Staline by forcing him to kill his greatest generals. Staline was so scared about treason and he simply killed his most important allies ) (What a poor guy!)
->URSS army organization has been shattered
3)URSS lost a lot of people during the WW2 and no one wanted to fight anymore after the WW2 because of all the horror that they saw during the WW2 (at least what they saw in the allies side was already enough to make you runaway)
4)There was a real opposition between the 2 ways of life. Everyone thought they were superior, everyone thought they were in the good side, there was endoctrinment, ...

But without considering science fiction : the consequences of the WW1 were a very bad feeling, a big desire of revenge and still a stupid feeling of superiority. No one abandon their nationalism which was the real fact which drove us to the 2 WW... Everything was designed to create a big delayed-bomb. It simply exploded because it had to explode.

[Xordan]

I think you\'re missing my point. I\'m just trying to say that the leader of a country _does_ make a big difference on how things turn out. The war might have happened 10 years later if Hitler hadn\'t got power, but that just reinforces my point even more. Leaders do make a big impact on history. Another leader you might look at is Julius Caesar, who did some big things in his time.

[Valbrandr]

Sorry I dont believe in the man making the times.. I think the times make the man.  If you take away any specific person there is always another tight behind them that would in one way or another pick up that slack.  maybe the timetable would be changed a bit.. but the same events to an extent would have happened either way.. But im talking about on a very broad scale.. not specific issues like going into Iraq.. would it have been different if Gore would have been president.. sure the specifics would have changed.. and I guess in special circumstances certain men to make the times but that is very rare I would say.

[fken]

hmmm... maybe maybe not... Clinton ask US forces to drop bombs on Iraq too... He didnt wage any war but he did \"his job\". I dont think the war would have been waged if Gore was elected. And really who cares today ? I dont need to know what would happen if the things were different : nothing is different. Things have been done an d today we all must concentrate to behave correctly now.