• Thanksgiving

    Happy Thanksgiving, Guest!

Breaking News: Osama Bin Laden Is Dead! - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris, I think you're having a completely different argument than the rest of us. None of us here are talking about Iraq. We're talking about Afghanistan as it stands today, Saudi Arabia and what country deserved to be attacked. You started this discussion so the least you can do is keep it on track.

Paroxysm, there are many royals. Some have ties to fundamentalists. This isn't conjecture. It's fact.

What you say is correct also, I should add. But just like there are many royals, there are many Al Qaeda members and connections between some jihadists and royals have been established in the past.
 
Well, now that we've straighten our differences out with Usama , it will be interesting to see what the public opinion will be about Afghanistan.
 
I have a feeling that the public opinion will be resoundingly, get the hell out.
 
Chris, I think you're having a completely different argument than the rest of us. None of us here are talking about Iraq. We're talking about Afghanistan as it stands today, Saudi Arabia and what country deserved to be attacked. You started this discussion so the least you can do is keep it on track.

iraq played a very important role for aghanistan, bin landen and al qaeda. that's a fact. that's why i brought up this point.
 
if the things with the couriers is right...why didnt we get any videos of him anymore? im mean there was a time, where he released videos pretty often and suddenly it stopped? he could have showns us that he is still alive and in charge..

I think one was he was having to move too often, and two because of his health....

I assume the video we will be getting will be years old....

I'm thinking that because he wasn't moving much these last few years is definitely because of his health...
 
I have a feeling that the public opinion will be resoundingly, get the hell out.

It would be great if that swell in opinion would hit about the same time the GOP goes to vote for a nominee.
 
:doh:

Chris, I give up. You make me want to bang my head against the wall.

You started a discussion about whether it was right to go into Afghanistan or if we should have gone into Saudi Arabia. Nowhere in that initial conversation did we delve into whether it was right to later go into Iraq (which near universal consensus now agrees was wrong). Enough about Iraq. It is a separate issue from what we were discussing.
 
:doh:

Chris, I give up. You make me want to bang my head against the wall.

You started a discussion about whether it was right to go into Afghanistan or if we should have gone into Saudi Arabia. Nowhere in that initial conversation did we delve into whether it was right to later go into Iraq (which near universal consensus now agrees was wrong). Enough about Iraq. It is a separate issue from what we were discussing.

Ya really got to quote people....lol
 
I have a feeling that the public opinion will be resoundingly, get the hell out.

As it should be...

iraq played a very important role for aghanistan, bin landen and al qaeda. that's a fact. that's why i brought up this point.

That's actually not a fact. Hussein and Bin Laden never really had any connection. Hussein didn't care for Bin Laden and never supported Al-Qaeda. Two top Bin Laden aides also denied any connection.
 
:doh:

Chris, I give up. You make me want to bang my head against the wall.

You started a discussion about whether it was right to go into Afghanistan or if we should have gone into Saudi Arabia. Nowhere in that initial conversation did we delve into whether it was right to later go into Iraq (which near universal consensus now agrees was wrong). Enough about Iraq. It is a separate issue from what we were discussing.

damn it...so difficult?

people here said, we went to war with afghanistan because al qaeda attacked us from afghanistan. our mission was to kill bin laden and al qaeda members. taliban gave him protection, so we fought them too. i get that but why didnt we just focus on that? why did we left afghanistan out of sight for iraq? bin laden/ al qaeda attacked us, not saddam hussein.. we ignored facts...
 
As it should be...



That's actually not a fact. Hussein and Bin Laden never really had any connection. Hussein didn't care for Bin Laden and never supported Al-Qaeda. Two top Bin Laden aides also denied any connection.

where the hell did i said they had connection. i said iraq played a role because it gave bin laden, taliban and al qaeda the chance to gain power again...
 
where the hell did i said they had connection. i said iraq played a role because it gave bin laden, taliban and al qaeda the chance to gain power again...

And how exactly do you figure that? :huh:

Edit - You're trying to make the argument that american attention being diverted to Iraq opened a hole for Bin Laden and company to regain ground in Afghanistan. I'll play along...

Are you also aware that the United States has kept a significant force in Afghanistan since the initial invasion? Just because we diverted attention to Iraq doesn't mean we abandoned Afghanistan. It wasn't the focus of the Bush Administration but our troops were still there fighting and following orders to stabilize the country.

I also dislike you for essentially making me defend George W. Bush. :argh:
 
hahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha....
 
Are you also aware that the United States has kept a significant force in Afghanistan since the initial invasion? Just because we diverted attention to Iraq doesn't mean we abandoned Afghanistan.

yeah i know but with our full focus on afghanistan, things would have been different...

I also dislike you for essentially making me defend George W. Bush. :argh:

i can live with that...
 
Well they confirmed it through an Internet statement so no, it probably won't.

CNN should invite senior al-Qaeda officials to a sit down interview (dinner provided, of course) to put these conspiracy theories to rest for good. :hehe:

It can be held in Cuba.
 
Paroxysm, there are many royals. Some have ties to fundamentalists. This isn't conjecture. It's fact.

I'm aware of that but lets not forget that there's a large number of royals in Saudi Arabia (around 7,000 members). Some act independently of the country’s senior leadership.

What you say is correct also, I should add. But just like there are many royals, there are many Al Qaeda members and connections between some jihadists and royals have been established in the past.

and your country still does business with them?
 
Propping up a democracy isn't different from outing the Taliban?

Just for argument's sake (and not necessarily my own view point), doesn't outing the Taliban involve setting into place a functioning democracy with the capacity to prevent the Taliban from returning to power after we leave?

***

I truly do worry and become dismayed at what will happen to the women who've voted, gone to school and/or work and started living like it wasn't the stone age when we leave Afghanistan. When the Taliban return, it could be a blood bath. However, to keep the Taliban out of power seems to require us being in Afghanistan for at least another decade (probably more like a century). Our American military cannot afford that, nor can our budget or reputation. Perhaps hammering al-Qaeda hard in the next few months after killing Osama will be enough to cause the Taliban to break from al-Qaeda and allow us to cut a quick deal and get out. Afghanistan is not worth a Hundred Years War, in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,389
Messages
22,095,921
Members
45,891
Latest member
Purplehazesus
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"