I'm not going to comment on the guys down at Guantanamo Bay, because I probably agree with your position. Besides that's not relevent to the lead up to the 2001 war.
I think that it's important to note that the war wasn't based on the non-extradition of bin Laden. There was a fairly compelling argument for it, bin Laden notwithstanding.
First off, Rush Limbaugh is not a reliable source.
Second... if the reports of those two guys is true, then this would be a big thing that the media and the Bush administration would be screaming about. Why aren't they? Is it all based on unreliable intel?
Actually, lots of people looked at Iraq first. I still remember McCain's "nuke Baghdad" comment.
Yeah... the same people who still think the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Iraqi.
Fortunately back then... we didn't go try and prove Iraq had an Al Qaeda link which didn't exist. I mean, Afghanistan's was pretty obvious. But Iraq's was nonexistent.
Let's for a moment, pretend that we're talking about a US Citizen in a regular criminal case(which you apparently are). You have to have SOME evidence, or you can't even get an indictment
Sure. We figured out that some of the hijackers had Al Qaeda connections, and that it was probably an Al Qaeda operation. bin Laden fashioned himself the leader of Al Qaeda. Reasonable to assume he knew something about what his Evil Terrorist Organization was up to.
Or else we could have used all the evidence the FBI and such was collecting about him regarding pre 9/11 stuff. I mean, the guy had a bit of a file down at the Bureau, ya know? We could have extradited him easy on that stuff alone (in fact we tried to a few times)
Osama, of course. Taliban? No. They were the legitimate government of a soverign nation. They had broken no international laws. They didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety or security of my country. There was no justification for attacking them.
I wouldn't argue with you over the Taliban's soverignty (though many would). But they kinda DID pose an immediate threat to the safety and security of the country. And did for a number of years before 9/11/01.
I mean, if you said the same for Iraq. Yeah, I can see where you're coming from.
But the Taliban kinda WERE supporting the terrorist organization bent on destroying Americans, which they had been doing to some success. Which is kind of illegal. Internationally illegal.
Soverignty not a factor... religion not a factor... the fact that they were bad guys not a factor... they were still supporting an evil terrorist organization that was killing people. And they didn't STOP or anything when we asked them to. They kept on doing it. I mean... I'm interested to know how you reconcile that with your position.
that the Taliban government of Afghanistan acted in a manner that is consistant with what any other reasonable country would have done in the situation
A reasonable country would have extradited a known terrorist ringleader, and wouldn't have been given him and his Really Evil organization support to begin with.
Or do you think they were afraid the U.S. wouldn't give bin Laden a fair trial? Yeah, that sounds about right.
ps- you don't have to prove the guy did it before the trial actually begins. What's the point of a trial, then?
Every time a bomb goes off, many groups claim responsibility. That doesn't constitute proof
Okay... okay... you got me. The US Government actually conducted criminal investigations into what terrorist groups killed our citizens in the pre-9/11 attacks. Strangely enough... the trail led back to Al Qaeda, bin Laden, and Afghanistan.
My thoughts (and others) are not proof... but they did represent how pretty much everyone knew bin Laden to be a bad guy who would do JUST that sort of thing.
What planet are you from, btw? I can understand hating war, not liking America, and all that. But can you not see that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were Bad Guys who should have been dealt with somehow, even before all the 9/11 craziness?
After 9/11/01 the US asked the government of Afghanistan if they had him, they replied that he was under their control and that they would turn him over, if the US was willing to provide proof that he had done something wrong.
Get your dick out of your ass. The Taliban were just bullshitting us. There was plenty of proof for extradition, and everyone knew it.
bin Laden was known by everyone to be the head of the terrorist organization that was dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible. They took responsibility for bombing the USS Cole, the two African embassies, and many other terrorist acts.
On Sept 11, I and quite a few other people around the world, when we thought about who to blame, thought first of Osama bin Laden.
Why? Because everyone in the fucking world knew he was the head of an evil international well-funded terrorist organization dedicated to killing Americans! (and based out of Afghanistan)
ps. mod parent down as flamebait. I can't believe I got sucked in.
The Taliban was a legit government, it had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda just like Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, but terrorists were Wahabi, and the Taliban were Wahabi, and they both were around the same area, oh and the Bin Laden was friends with them.
It's hard to define what a 'legit' government is. But you can't really argue that the Taliban had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Everyone in the world knew that the Taliban was helping out Al Qaeda with money, lots of land for training camps, protection from the U.S., etc.
Everyone knew that Taliban and Al Qaeda were in bed. That's why everyone looked at Afghanistan on September 12.
The Nomad is cool and all. And I'd be proud to own one. And it is kinda cheaper. I would recommend it to others! And even myself perhaps if I didn't already own a 3rd gen iPod.
But iPod is smaller, lighter It's way more stylish (aka chicks dig it) It's got a slick interface with a really nice screen You can play solitaire on it gosh darn it!!!
Okay, I'm just trying to defend my impulse 400 (USD) purchase.
If they start seriously going after the Federal fuckin' Government, they're going to get there assess kicked.
Can you imagine how much that would cost the Feds and the states? Once you put a pricetag on it (and god, it would be huge), regular people will say "wait a minute... what's that money for!?"
Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'
So in other words, completely unbiased and perfectly objective studies that people can trust to give an accurate picture of Microsoft products.
I mean, I don't necesarilly trust OSS-sympathetc studies... but that doesn't mean I'll swallow MS propaganda whole.
I'll take a look at this as soon as it gets to 5 gigs in capacity.
If it gets to 10, then I'll really start paying attention, and start comparing it to the iPod.
But sheesh. If you've experienced a player with capacity measured in gigs, then it's hard to seriously consider devices that are measured in (albiet high) megabytes.
256 megs? I couldn't fit more than 3 albums and a few big audiobooks on that. Which is still a lot, I guess... But still not nearly as wonderfully flexible as my 15 gig iPod.
It's an open source 3d space flying/fighting game where you take missions or trade cargo to improve your ship. (quick description)
For the old-schoolers: It's like Wing Commander Privateer For the n00bs: It's like Freelancer
Currently in development, but a lot of fun. It's interesting seeing a game evolve over the course of its development. One of the hardest things, I think, in making it available while its being worked on (even though its essential to attract more developers and artistic talent), is that there is an intense pressure to work on the 'funness' of the game, when perhaps time would be better spent on cleaning up code, adding essential (but boring) features, or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. We've got less than 100. 50-60 SSNs, 15 or so SSBNs and SSGNs. Plus various others.
So like 80 subs. Not all of them get the new tech, of course. So maybe clusters of 4 or 5 of these things?
I'm not going to comment on the guys down at Guantanamo Bay, because I probably agree with your position. Besides that's not relevent to the lead up to the 2001 war.
I think that it's important to note that the war wasn't based on the non-extradition of bin Laden. There was a fairly compelling argument for it, bin Laden notwithstanding.
First off, Rush Limbaugh is not a reliable source.
Second... if the reports of those two guys is true, then this would be a big thing that the media and the Bush administration would be screaming about. Why aren't they? Is it all based on unreliable intel?
Quite possibly.
Actually, lots of people looked at Iraq first. I still remember McCain's "nuke Baghdad" comment.
Yeah... the same people who still think the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Iraqi.
Fortunately back then... we didn't go try and prove Iraq had an Al Qaeda link which didn't exist. I mean, Afghanistan's was pretty obvious. But Iraq's was nonexistent.
Let's for a moment, pretend that we're talking about a US Citizen in a regular criminal case(which you apparently are). You have to have SOME evidence, or you can't even get an indictment
Sure. We figured out that some of the hijackers had Al Qaeda connections, and that it was probably an Al Qaeda operation. bin Laden fashioned himself the leader of Al Qaeda. Reasonable to assume he knew something about what his Evil Terrorist Organization was up to.
Or else we could have used all the evidence the FBI and such was collecting about him regarding pre 9/11 stuff. I mean, the guy had a bit of a file down at the Bureau, ya know? We could have extradited him easy on that stuff alone (in fact we tried to a few times)
Osama, of course. Taliban? No. They were the legitimate government of a soverign nation. They had broken no international laws. They didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety or security of my country. There was no justification for attacking them.
I wouldn't argue with you over the Taliban's soverignty (though many would). But they kinda DID pose an immediate threat to the safety and security of the country. And did for a number of years before 9/11/01.
I mean, if you said the same for Iraq. Yeah, I can see where you're coming from.
But the Taliban kinda WERE supporting the terrorist organization bent on destroying Americans, which they had been doing to some success. Which is kind of illegal. Internationally illegal.
Soverignty not a factor... religion not a factor... the fact that they were bad guys not a factor... they were still supporting an evil terrorist organization that was killing people. And they didn't STOP or anything when we asked them to. They kept on doing it. I mean... I'm interested to know how you reconcile that with your position.
that the Taliban government of Afghanistan acted in a manner that is consistant with what any other reasonable country would have done in the situation
A reasonable country would have extradited a known terrorist ringleader, and wouldn't have been given him and his Really Evil organization support to begin with.
Or do you think they were afraid the U.S. wouldn't give bin Laden a fair trial? Yeah, that sounds about right.
ps- you don't have to prove the guy did it before the trial actually begins. What's the point of a trial, then?
Every time a bomb goes off, many groups claim responsibility. That doesn't constitute proof
Okay... okay... you got me. The US Government actually conducted criminal investigations into what terrorist groups killed our citizens in the pre-9/11 attacks. Strangely enough... the trail led back to Al Qaeda, bin Laden, and Afghanistan.
My thoughts (and others) are not proof... but they did represent how pretty much everyone knew bin Laden to be a bad guy who would do JUST that sort of thing.
What planet are you from, btw? I can understand hating war, not liking America, and all that. But can you not see that the Taliban and Osama bin Laden were Bad Guys who should have been dealt with somehow, even before all the 9/11 craziness?
After 9/11/01 the US asked the government of Afghanistan if they had him, they replied that he was under their control and that they would turn him over, if the US was willing to provide proof that he had done something wrong.
Get your dick out of your ass. The Taliban were just bullshitting us. There was plenty of proof for extradition, and everyone knew it.
bin Laden was known by everyone to be the head of the terrorist organization that was dedicated to killing as many Americans as possible. They took responsibility for bombing the USS Cole, the two African embassies, and many other terrorist acts.
On Sept 11, I and quite a few other people around the world, when we thought about who to blame, thought first of Osama bin Laden.
Why? Because everyone in the fucking world knew he was the head of an evil international well-funded terrorist organization dedicated to killing Americans! (and based out of Afghanistan)
ps. mod parent down as flamebait. I can't believe I got sucked in.
Taliban were very bad guys.
They protected bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Gave them money. Let them use training camps. Protected them from the U.S. government.
"if you aren't with us, you're against us" is pretty strong rhetoric... but it definately applied to the Taliban.
The Taliban was a legit government, it had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda just like Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, but terrorists were Wahabi, and the Taliban were Wahabi, and they both were around the same area, oh and the Bin Laden was friends with them.
It's hard to define what a 'legit' government is. But you can't really argue that the Taliban had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Everyone in the world knew that the Taliban was helping out Al Qaeda with money, lots of land for training camps, protection from the U.S., etc.
Everyone knew that Taliban and Al Qaeda were in bed. That's why everyone looked at Afghanistan on September 12.
The Nomad is cool and all. And I'd be proud to own one. And it is kinda cheaper. I would recommend it to others! And even myself perhaps if I didn't already own a 3rd gen iPod.
But iPod is smaller, lighter
It's way more stylish (aka chicks dig it)
It's got a slick interface with a really nice screen
You can play solitaire on it gosh darn it!!!
Okay, I'm just trying to defend my impulse 400 (USD) purchase.
If they start seriously going after the Federal fuckin' Government , they're going to get there assess kicked .
Can you imagine how much that would cost the Feds and the states? Once you put a pricetag on it (and god, it would be huge), regular people will say "wait a minute... what's that money for!?"
so... would that like make him Silver Surfer's grandpa?
Good god. My parent post was NOT worth being modded up.
I hate it when I see crap like that modded up!
did Hollywood films have quality stories???
Did Deus Ex have a quality story!?
Well, it did. But they must have meant GOOD Hollywood.
NOT mission 2 mars
If you haven't seen it yet, don't.
That is all.
iPod works okay during physical activities.
The only trick is securing it adequately.
Taylor says he plans to focus on (and fund) studies that 'will highlight Microsoft's advantages in areas such as security, feature-completeness and total cost of ownership.'
So in other words, completely unbiased and perfectly objective studies that people can trust to give an accurate picture of Microsoft products.
I mean, I don't necesarilly trust OSS-sympathetc studies... but that doesn't mean I'll swallow MS propaganda whole.
I'll take a look at this as soon as it gets to 5 gigs in capacity.
If it gets to 10, then I'll really start paying attention, and start comparing it to the iPod.
But sheesh. If you've experienced a player with capacity measured in gigs, then it's hard to seriously consider devices that are measured in (albiet high) megabytes.
256 megs? I couldn't fit more than 3 albums and a few big audiobooks on that. Which is still a lot, I guess... But still not nearly as wonderfully flexible as my 15 gig iPod.
Helluva lot cheaper though!
Hey, yeah, I appreciate what you're saying.
I should say instead: Who wants to listen to a group that never changes their sound over the course of their 30 year career?
Rush's sound changes over the years. This is a good thing. If they did not change their sound... that might not be bad.
But it wouldn't be as creative (and good)!
Zing! I should have added in:
for the Uberl33t: It's like Elite
There you go!
Disclaimer: I am a Vega Strike whore
Vega Strike
It's an open source 3d space flying/fighting game where you take missions or trade cargo to improve your ship. (quick description)
For the old-schoolers: It's like Wing Commander Privateer
For the n00bs: It's like Freelancer
Currently in development, but a lot of fun. It's interesting seeing a game evolve over the course of its development. One of the hardest things, I think, in making it available while its being worked on (even though its essential to attract more developers and artistic talent), is that there is an intense pressure to work on the 'funness' of the game, when perhaps time would be better spent on cleaning up code, adding essential (but boring) features, or something.
Anyways, its cool! Czech it out!
They're not keeping up with the current trends.
If anything, they were trying to get a harder crazier grittier sound so people wouldn't realize how old they really were. : )
Exactly. The 'sound' was made in the studio, and the 'loudness' was done when they put the finished stuff onto the CDs.