Lots of people have made or commented in threads about that, and sectarian vioelnce, and the war in syria, but you go ahead painting everyone with the same brush while decrying the 'west' doing the same thing.
You are not helping your cause. :/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man dead after 'knife attack' in Woolwich
- Thread starter Fergie
- Start date
- Status
You are not helping your cause. :/
zomgbbqftw
Banned
We just had BBC News on the screens in the office, everyone stopped to watch the parents and wife speak. :*( He was a dad as well.
Fuck these cunts that killed him.
Fuck these cunts that killed him.
captainnapalm
Member
I agree with a lot of what you said Bo-Locks, though I would add that in terms of the West leaving the Middle-East behind, there may be more of a causal relationship there than you're acknowledging. Western interference in that part of the world has been consistent since the end of World War II. That's 70 years the region has been treated as a means to an end and not been fully allowed to develop of its own accord.
Also, do Brits not sense the slightest bit of hypocrisy in its government feigning concern and vowing not to let the terrorists win in response to this nutjob with a cleaver, while simultaneously supporting terror groups in overthrowing Middle-Eastern governments in Libya and Egypt and now Syria? Not to mention the mess countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are in.
That region has been massively destabilised in the past 10+ years, flooded with brand name bombs and guns, and has become far more of a breeding ground for terror and fundamentalism than it ever was. It's similar to what was and is still being done in Africa and it's no surprise the levels of violence are starting to become similarly shocking. People are being dehumanised.
The hypocrisy of the War on Terror has to be dealt with.
Also, do Brits not sense the slightest bit of hypocrisy in its government feigning concern and vowing not to let the terrorists win in response to this nutjob with a cleaver, while simultaneously supporting terror groups in overthrowing Middle-Eastern governments in Libya and Egypt and now Syria? Not to mention the mess countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are in.
That region has been massively destabilised in the past 10+ years, flooded with brand name bombs and guns, and has become far more of a breeding ground for terror and fundamentalism than it ever was. It's similar to what was and is still being done in Africa and it's no surprise the levels of violence are starting to become similarly shocking. People are being dehumanised.
The hypocrisy of the War on Terror has to be dealt with.
This makes more sense to me.
It's even more funny that they were the ones supporting some of these tyrants, like Hosni Mubarak, in the first place.
This website is making the rounds on Facebook.
http://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/londons-false-flag-even-more-pathetic-than-the-boston-bombing/
Why do people believe such things?
http://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/londons-false-flag-even-more-pathetic-than-the-boston-bombing/
Why do people believe such things?
Your whole comment reveals how obsessed you are....
I, in no way did I justify what happened in London
I am just trying to see things from both sides!!!
Words like "You brought this on yourself for bombing Afghanistan" never came out of my mouth
Calling me an idiot and insulting me makes automatically your whole rant inflammatory!!!
Maybe, just maybe I should have started the conversation by saying something in those lines: "Do you guys think its the war between them or this or that, that caused the killing?"
Maybe I was at fault for not properly using the grammar and vocabulary needed to articulate correctly what I wanted to say....
But of course this is the Internet and whatever you say you are bound to have any kind of backfire like you are some kind of animal....
This is what I wanted to say and I am no longer taking part in this thread.
You never did.
If the West does nothing and lets the Muslim world get on with its own affairs, then it's criticised, if it intervenes in varying ways (either through invasions like Iraq or Afghanistan, or supporting uprisings with non-invasive action like in Libya), then it's criticised.
I don't like or support the invasions in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I believe the mainly spontaneous and secular Arab uprisings were a good thing and the West responded to them quite well. Supporting the secular uprisings through diplomacy and non-ground based action in Libya by establishing the no fly zone was a wise move. It was a response to what the Libyan people started. If the West just stood idly by and watched Gaddafi slaughter Benghazi while quashing the uprising, then that would have been an extremely bad outcome. As it is, a tyrant has been killed, a secular government has been formed after free elections and militia and extremist groups have disarmed and given up. The future of Libya is in its own hands. How is this a bad thing? Mubarak was also gotten rid of by the Egyptian people and after it was clear they wanted him to go, Obama pressed him to go diplomatically. Again, how is this a bad thing? You can accuse them of hypocrisy if you like with regards to Bahrain, but that doesn't make the former any less considered and measured. Syria is a much more complicated situation with a history of sectarianism and jihadist groups embedding themselves into the conflict. The West can't really do much other than stand back and appeal for peace. A ground invasion is off the cards. What else has the West got to do with the Syrian conflict? It's like you list all these countries and conflicts in the greater ME without giving any serious thought as to how or why they started or what the proper response should have been.
Iraq and Afghanistan are different and are generally considered to be big mistakes, at least in strategic terms. The conflict in Iraq, however, has resulted in sectarianism and ShiaSunni related violence. The majority of deaths in Iraq for quite some time have come via this sectarianism. This comes back to my earlier point that the reason why the Muslim world is currently in the position it's in is because of a multitude of reasons, some self-administered and some of them not.
I also generally agree with you about meddling in the ME post WWII. That's why in my earlier post I suggested withdrawing support for Authoritarian dictators and encouraging conditions for the secular uprisings like we saw in North Africa.
You clearly don't have the intelligence to respond to any of my points as captainnapalm and others have done, so I stand by my assertion that you are indeed an idiot. You did not say "You brought this on yourself for bombing Afghanistan", but you did say
I did not quote you directly, but the two statements are close enough that I'm comfortable in standing by what I said.
And yes, although you may dance around it a bit, what you said was a form of justification for this act of terrorism. Like I said earlier, I've seen your ilk defend attacks against Danish and American targets because of cartoons and book burnings. It's always the same...and where does it end?
Some Western countries no doubt have an inclination to uphold the principles of human rights. The US is one of the permanent members of the UN, and as a result it has a duty to uphold and maintain the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as best as it can. But answer me this, in what ways does supporting dictatorial regimes, Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali, Saleh, Sultan Qaboos (to name a few, some of whom have already been toppled by their own people), and the contiuned support for the Saudi Royal family, help the case, and in this scenario, help the case of the US?
They have supported rebels, they have supported tyrants/despots and dictators. It seems some governments don't care for who they support as long as it offers them the most utility. I would argue it's not necessarily, 'Oh, what right does America have in invading these countries?!! blah' and so on, I am not comfortable with the notion that they are inconsistent in what they say and who they support. I think that's the real issue here.
As I mentioned, they were the ones who supported some of these regimes in the first place. I believe they helped the rebels in order to gain favour from them, as they no longer saw any benefits in supporting the previous power. In this case this is obviously a smart move, there was no point in supporting Ben Ali or Mubarak when the uprising began.
Agreed, it may have been a smart move overall.
It's a good thing. But they supported Mubarak for almost three decades.
The truth is things have gotten worse in Iraq than when Hussein was there. It has empowered Iran, and as a result the conflict between Shias and Sunnis has escalated even further. Not good at all.
captainnapalm
Member
I think whether you accept or reject the notion that the Arab Spring might have been engineered and backed from afar, and honestly there is considerable evidence to suggest it was, even if you go with the notion that it was a spontaneous grassroots uprising that suddenly hit several countries at once, it must be a cause for grave concern, in the light of the War on Terror and its aims, that the West has chosen to tacitly approve of fundamentalists and terror groups seizing control of these countries and backing their terrible methods. All that promotes is further destabilisation, increased fundamentalism and a stronger foothold for terror groups. I'm amazed you call them secular uprisings. There is nothing secular about the people who have taken control in most of these places.
You believe these uprisings to be a good thing, but have you actually read about what is now happening in most of these countries? Minority groups, religious or otherwise, or being targeted left, right and center. Al-Queda flags are flying over goverment houses. Sectarian violence is erupting.
As for sectarian violence in places like Iraq, if the West's own actions created the instability and unrest, the vacuums these groups started to fill, then they surely must be held responsible for that violence.
INVASION?#!@J#(? that's history channel indoctrination or what, the legitimate Government of Afghanistan had a mutual defense treaty with the Soviet Union and requested support during the insurgency by dumb Northern warlords, who in an alliance with the US government were instrumental in creating the power vacuum that let the Taliban take charge.
This is what your invasion looked like in Kabul:
These Stan's are the result of allowing communism to guide Muslim majority countries: Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. US campaigns against Soviet influence ON THEIR OWN BLOODY FUCKING CONTINENT, is what destroyed Afghanistan.
I seriously propose all future American wars are restricted to South America and Canada.
I'm sorry, but how have you come to the conclusion that I hold that opinion? Seriously, where did you pull that from?
You say blaming foreign policy is an excuse, but do you honestly believe we wouldn't be seeing similar attacks had the resources prevalent in the middle east been found in southern Africa instead? It was also getting pretty bad there before we started to pull out back then. I imagine we'd also have fools looking for a cause committing similar violence too.
Btw, i'm not excusing or justifying anything. I don't think anyone in this thread has defended the attack.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
CHEEZMO;59023677 said:
Apparently he knew enough to push some buttons on you.
Wow this page.
People dismissing the relevancy of US and British foreign policy is astoundingly stupid. The nutter even brought it up so you can't ignore it and hope it goes away or it didn't happen.
The EDL is a terrible organisation but the message to get troops out of other countries is one which resonates strongly with Muslims and non-muslims alike.
Afghanistan was a mess prior to the invasion and it will be a mess even after everyone decides to pull out. Al-Qaeda still exists today it's a global organisation with many arms and branches. Invading Afghanistan was never a good idea and America using 9/11 as the casus belli is still so very laughable because there's no link Afghanistan as a country attacked America but as human history shows; might makes right.
I hope things settle down soon as there is definitely an air of tension around at the minute.
People dismissing the relevancy of US and British foreign policy is astoundingly stupid. The nutter even brought it up so you can't ignore it and hope it goes away or it didn't happen.
The EDL is a terrible organisation but the message to get troops out of other countries is one which resonates strongly with Muslims and non-muslims alike.
Afghanistan was a mess prior to the invasion and it will be a mess even after everyone decides to pull out. Al-Qaeda still exists today it's a global organisation with many arms and branches. Invading Afghanistan was never a good idea and America using 9/11 as the casus belli is still so very laughable because there's no link Afghanistan as a country attacked America but as human history shows; might makes right.
I hope things settle down soon as there is definitely an air of tension around at the minute.
if it wasn't that it would be something else. There's no scenario where they can live side by side with people who don't share their perverse world view.
nothing excuses their actions. nothing.
Dude Abides
Banned
Except for the whole knowingly harboring al quaeda and refusing to turn over bin Laden thing. Minor details, I suppose.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
So is the idea that a different foreign policy approach would deter islamic fundies from hacking a man up in the street.
Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. US ally btw. Omar? Still at large or dead and most likely in Pakistan too. Oh and Al-Qaeda still exists today and has more branches and arms now than prior to 9/11.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
You seem to keep hammering this point for some reason. As if we would have sat back and done nothing after 9/11 Al-Qaeda would have just fizzled out.
Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
Was Nagasaki and Hiroshima 'terrorism'?
My answer is yes and I think is the biggest act of terror ever perpetrated in human history and the man who command it (twice, not the least) is the greatest terrorist of all time!
If your answer is no, then what definition of 'terrorism' you use to exclude it?
My reasoning can be seeing as simplistic but I have a logic behind it as follow...
- Life is the most precious thing in the world for me (my own and those of any human being, even animal).
- Killing a human being is wrong in ALL circonstances. Any death is a tragedy for me because is the instinction of an life experience, the end of an accumulation of bad or good memory, a sort of memory cart who have been erased.
For gamer like us, imagine if an artificial intelligence program you use can learn through succes or mistakes and be able to form a distinct personality (good or bad) over time (said 2-5 years) and can independently interact intellectualy and emotionaly with you because of it. How would you feel if one day you realise his memory have been erased? you going to feel pain because you are aware of his individuality (again, good or bad) and the road you (as an external influence) or himself take to create this unique individuality. Human being are the same, they are just the sum of their personal experience in life who shape their personality. Is that who make me see the life of ANY individual as precious behond anything else, those of my worst enemy included. Nobody grow up in a vacuum, everybody is shape by his environment and that make us all who we are...unique.
Still, it make me ask myself a philosophical question, if life experience shape our personality, are we really free to our decisions? free will really exist? think about it for a second, every decision we take (good or bad) in any given situation is influence by our life experience, our judgement itself is influence by the lesson we previously learn or didn't learn. The key point here is that we have no control to what situation we encounter in our life, we just have an illusion of control. At the end of the day, we just react to what life throw at us.
Can we really in control of the decision we take in our life? or the only power we have is the power of rationalisation, like a wheel car who try to understand and explain to himself why sometime he roll; or a GTA character who try to explain to himself why he always need to go from point A to point B over and over again.
I think Free will can not bet proven, just the illusion of it. The only way to prove the existence of free will is through "time travel" (take one decision, come back in time and take a different decision for the same problem) another way, is to be able to foreseen the consequence of any action you take through "parallel universe" and be able to jump on the one you see fit.
Of course both can't be done.
All this to said everybody should have had the same starting point about the valour of a human life. As long as the expendability of a human life will be relative to human judgement and perspective, the world will stay in chaos.
I'm not religious anymore (ex catholic) but in the Bible I still hold dear in my hear 2 of the most revolutionary idea ever wrote in the history of human kind:
- "love your enemy"
- "don't do to others what you don't want done to you"
Many even say the later way before the Bible:
Confucius: "Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE.
Hindu sacred literature: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)
Zoroastrian sacred literature: "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self."
(Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)
Buddhist sacred literature: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udanavargu, 5:18)
The Greek historian Herodotus: "If I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself." 
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)
Isocrates, the Greek orator: "What things make you angry when you suffer them at the hands of others, do not you do to other people."
This is the key for world peace, unfortunately people choose (they really do?) to not follow this simple "golden rule", instead, people and governement all over the world compete in a senseless exercise of justification of any kind of barbaric instinction of human life and while doing so, accused other to be the most vile and cruel.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 9/11, boston bombing, IRA bombing, woolwich, drone strike in Pakistan, a gang murdeur, a criminal executed by capital punishment, etc, all of this for me are at the same level, decision by human being to take the life of another human being, is that simple! it doesn't matter to me what justification all this killer give for their action because at the end of the day, every killer have his own reason to kill and none of his victim agree with it.
The spin need to stop, I abhor and most of all pity any human being who is willing to take the life of another human being for whatever the reason. I prefer die than do so because even if I value my life as much as enybody else, Nobody give me the power to shut down this marvel of nature call human life, I'm not big enough for that. It will be like ask me and give me the power to destroy the sun. Is a power I refuse to possess. Truman, Obama, Bush, Laden, Saddam, Zimmerman, Hitler, Adebolajo, etc are all the kind of men I'm not... Killer!
I guess, at the end I'm just a "radical pacifist"
PS: Sorry for my english, not my first language.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
Was Nagasaki and Hiroshima 'terrorism'?
My answer is yes and I think is the biggest act of terror ever perpetrated in human history and the man who command it (twice, not the least) is the greatest terrorist of all time!
If your answer is no, then what definition of 'terrorism' you use to exclude it?
My reasoning can be seeing as simplistic but I have a logic behind it as follow...
- Life is the most precious thing in the world for me (my own and those of any human being, even animal).
- Killing a human being is wrong in ALL circonstances. Any death is a tragedy for me because is the instinction of an life experience, the end of an accumulation of bad or good memory, a sort of memory cart who have been erased.
For gamer like us, imagine if an artificial intelligence program you use can learn through succes or mistakes and be able to form a distinct personality (good or bad) over time (said 2-5 years) and can independently interact intellectualy and emotionaly with you because of it. How would you feel if one day you realise his memory have been erased? you going to feel pain because you are aware of his individuality (again, good or bad) and the road you (as an external influence) or himself take to create this unique individuality. Human being are the same, they are just the sum of their personal experience in life who shape their personality. Is that who make me see the life of ANY individual as precious behond anything else, those of my worst enemy included. Nobody grow up in a vacuum, everybody is shape by his environment and that make us all who we are...unique.
Still, it make me ask myself a philosophical question, if life experience shape our personality, are we really free to our decisions? free will really exist? think about it for a second, every decision we take (good or bad) in any given situation is influence by our life experience, our judgement itself is influence by the lesson we previously learn or didn't learn. The key point here is that we have no control to what situation we encounter in our life, we just have an illusion of control. At the end of the day, we just react to what life throw at us.
Can we really in control of the decision we take in our life? or the only power we have is the power of rationalisation, like a wheel car who try to understand and explain to himself why sometime he roll; or a GTA character who try to explain to himself why he always need to go from point A to point B over and over again.
I think Free will can not bet proven, just the illusion of it. The only way to prove the existence of free will is through "time travel" (take one decision, come back in time and take a different decision for the same problem) another way, is to be able to foreseen the consequence of any action you take through "parallel universe" and be able to jump on the one you see fit.
Of course both can't be done.
All this to said everybody should have had the same starting point about the valour of a human life. As long as the expendability of a human life will be relative to human judgement and perspective, the world will stay in chaos.
I'm not religious anymore (ex catholic) but in the Bible I still hold dear in my hear 2 of the most revolutionary idea ever wrote in the history of human kind:
- "love your enemy"
- "don't do to others what you don't want done to you"
Many even say the later way before the Bible:
Confucius: "Do not impose on others what you do not desire others to impose upon you." (Confucius, The Analects. Roughly 500 BCE.
Hindu sacred literature: "Let no man do to another that which would be repugnant to himself." (Mahabharata, bk. 5, ch. 49, v. 57)
Zoroastrian sacred literature: "Human nature is good only when it does not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self."
(Dadistan-I-Dinik, 94:5; in Muller, chapter 94, vol. 18, p. 269)
Buddhist sacred literature: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." (Udanavargu, 5:18)
The Greek historian Herodotus: "If I choose I may rule over you. But what I condemn in another I will, if I may, avoid myself." 
(Herodotus, The Histories, bk. III, ch. 142. Roughly 430 BCE.)
Isocrates, the Greek orator: "What things make you angry when you suffer them at the hands of others, do not you do to other people."
This is the key for world peace, unfortunately people choose (they really do?) to not follow this simple "golden rule", instead, people and governement all over the world compete in a senseless exercise of justification of any kind of barbaric instinction of human life and while doing so, accused other to be the most vile and cruel.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, 9/11, boston bombing, IRA bombing, woolwich, drone strike in Pakistan, a gang murdeur, a criminal executed by capital punishment, etc, all of this for me are at the same level, decision by human being to take the life of another human being, is that simple! it doesn't matter to me what justification all this killer give for their action because at the end of the day, every killer have his own reason to kill and none of his victim agree with it.
The spin need to stop, I abhor and most of all pity any human being who is willing to take the life of another human being for whatever the reason. I prefer die than do so because even if I value my life as much as enybody else, Nobody give me the power to shut down this marvel of nature call human life, I'm not big enough for that. It will be like ask me and give me the power to destroy the sun. Is a power I refuse to possess. Truman, Obama, Bush, Laden, Saddam, Zimmerman, Hitler, Adebolajo, etc are all the kind of men I'm not... Killer!
I guess, at the end I'm just a "radical pacifist"
PS: Sorry for my english, not my first language.
Dude Abides
Banned
That's true. But in September 2001 and prior they were in Afghanistan.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
If that makes you angry you should read what the killers religious teacher says about the killing.
http://news.yahoo.com/exiled-cleric-taught-uk-knifeman-praises-courage-112658347.html
Oh look, it's Choudhary's mentor. My goodness, I'd never have thought these people would have anything at all to do with this sort of thing. Thank goodness we've fed, clothed and housed them for so long.
Well yeah. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has mean't more people have and will become radicalised and conditioned.
If you read some books by people who have spent time with terrorists/rebels like (Scott Atran) whether it be in South America, Africa or the Middle East you will see that environments are created that breed and condition people to think and act in a certain way.
Al-Qaeda in my opinion would not have fizzled out because their objectives have not been reached but it wouldn't be as large or as reaching as it is now. Those invasions have fuelled recruitment spawning more nutters.
The Woolwich attack would not have happened and who knows maybe Michael Adebolajo would not have even converted to Islam. He's never even been to Afghanistan yet he was conditioned to the point that he could kill. Do you not see that? You cannot ignore it as being nothing.
This is interesting, slightly relevant to the discussion (well the discussion about foreign policy I mean, not the terrorist attack):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQviZPyeXk
Thoughts?
He made some good points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQviZPyeXk
Thoughts?
He made some good points.
Boston bomber got training in Dagestan should the US invade Russia?
Dude Abides
Banned
Did Russia know and refuse to extradite him when asked? Was he part of an organization that worked closely with the Russian government?
I'm just using your logic.
So you're ok with invading countries that don't want to extradite it's people and citizens.
Nice.
Dude Abides
Banned
You aren't using any logic. You're just flailing about. Al Quaeda and the Taliban worked closely together. And the Taliban harbored bin Laden and al Quaeda knowingly. The US asked the Taliban to turn over bin Laden, they refused.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Bin Laden was a Saudi not a Afghan citizen and a known terrorist and claimed responsibility for 9/11. So invading seems appropriate in this case.
captainnapalm
Member
Actually, the Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over as far back as October 2001 if the US stopped shelling the country and provided any evidence he was behind 9/11.
Sitting as we are now in 2013, twelve years later, with US and British forces still in Afghanistan, it's amazing to me that people can still believe the country was invaded and occupied because Bin Laden was there. Clearly, there was another agenda.
Dude Abides
Banned
Sure. Probably a Zionist agenda right?
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Oh you mean aside from the video Bin Laden made in Afghanistan claiming responsibility for 9/11.
My favourite was a BBC report yesterday where it was stated Michael Adebolajo was known in the community for having extreme views, but the "community leaders" never thought he was capable of acting upon those views.
This guy nailed it. The moderate Muslim community leaders have simply washed their hands of the youth, leaving them vulnerable to extremist indoctrination.
It's the exact same strategy organised gangs use - find kids who've not had access to positive community influences (either individuals, organisations or facilities) and manipulate them by providing their own twisted take on those values.
There's actually a video of him not claiming responsibility as well lol.
captainnapalm
Member
This was in October 2001. Bin Laden twice denied being behind 9/11 in September 2001. The videos purporting to be Bin Laden confessing came later.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Also one of him claiming responsibility lol.
Come on now denies it originally, then admits it? Poor Taliban must of had no idea. Too busy killing girls for wanting an education I guess.
I know, I read your post the first time.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
So you know that what you posted is not relevant?
Hoya Destroyer
Member
How much responsibility should the people of Iraq take for the sectarian violence that exists within their society?
With so many locals killing each other, it seems kinda unfair to put all the blame on the US.
captainnapalm
Member
I'm just explaining why the government in Afghanistan wanted proof before they extradited. Bin Laden was claiming innocence at the time.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
And I'm saying that the idea that the Taliban didn't have any knowledge of that is complete BS.
Err... how so?
I said he didn't "claim responsibility as well". How is that not relevant? Now someone else here, Captainnaplam, has explained it better to us that he originally denied it and then after some time took responsibility for it.
Not relevant he says, hah.
The US divided the country into 3...it was always going to be a bad decision...
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Not relevant as in there's some sort of question or evidence of Bin Laden's or the Taliban's innocence. There isn't any.
Oh no, I wasn't suggesting he was innocent at all. Just stating the fact that this was known at the time, and may help us better explain why the Taliban may have asked for evidence, and in this case probably more evidence from the US government. That's all.
You are right.
digoutyoursoul
Member
Just saw the press conference from Lee's family, was tough to watch, they are heart broken 
thoughts are with them
thoughts are with them- Status