On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:02:14 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


If you could point me to those "conditions", I would be most
appreciative. I truly don't remember any realistic conditions ever being
offered. I do remember Mullah Omar at one point, denying that the
Taliban even knew where Bin Laden was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...575593,00.html

Only through the news media's lack of daily coverage, do you perceive
the search for Bin Laden as "on the back burner". The search is
on-going. But it's tough to do, since most experts agree that his likely
hiding spot is in Pakastani territory where we don't have license to
search.

I believe it must be on the back burner. Bin Laden is still free. This
is the most powerful country on the planet. If, bin Laden was a top
priority, there is no way he would still be free 3 years after 9/11.

We don't have a license to search Pakistani territory? So, the following
words, given by Bush to Congress and the American people, were just so
much Bush Bull****? Doesn't the man ever mean what he says?

" And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists."

" From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/2...sh.transcript/

Dave Hall wrote:
If people could be jailed for printing false or misleading
information, a whole slew of "journalists" would be sitting on a slab
right now.


And wouldn't that be convenient for your buddies in Washington?

Here you have it folks: "truth" defined by political convenience of
those in power, enforced by arbitrary & probably indefinite
imprisonment. The U.S. becomes a Stalinist dictatorship, although the
people are encouraged to wave the flag and sing about "freedom."

This is what Dave Hall and his type want to see.

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:
Well, my wife did receive a hand written note from the president
thanking her for her support in the campaign.

Hand-written, eh?


... That's the closest that
I've ever gotten to any correspondence from any other leader.....


Shucks, I've gotten notes, pamphlets, and "letters" from every President
since Nixon, but not because I gave their campaigns money. BTW Pat Nixon
was a beautiful, classy lady. It's a shame she wasted her life on Tricky
Dick.

Your wife got ripped off, some of my friends who gave money to
Republicans got calendars, Christmas cards, invitations to State
functions, and of course an request for more money.

Robert Heinlein once said that buying politicians is a very poor
investment. I think the sorry state of the Union is proof that he was right.

DSK

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:00 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to
us.
We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction.

In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in
'96.
The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi,
hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused
deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here.

A more detailed account of what I basically stated.


You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but
seem
quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The
Taliban
offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11.

When? Where? How? From what I remember, the Taliban refused to cough
up Bin Laden. That's the final straw which lead to the Afghan war. Had
they turned OBL over, in all likelihood, we would have had no need to
use the military.

Yet,
bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but
Bush
had hindsight to guide him, and still failed.

The rules change on a daily basis. I'm not blaming Clinton for not
having the foresight to predict 9/11, I'm blaming him for not taking
the chance to take OBL out of the picture for acts of terrorism that
he had been tied to while Clinton was in office. There's no guarantee,
but there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had we
gotten OBL in 96. Anyone with insight should know that terrorism will
only grow until their warped demands are met. How long are we supposed
to ignore the problem before we finally respond to it? The answer to
that question occurred on 9/11/2001. But we should have seen it coming
long before that.

Dave


We are not following the advice we've been giving the Israelis for 40
years:
Respect the differences with your neighbors and learn to live with them.
Until we do that, nothing will change.

You know, that not such bad advice. You should apply it to your
neighbors who own dogs.......

Snide observation aside, you are correct, but what you have to
remember is that when someone has a problem with your whole existence,
and then attacks that existence, you are forced to defend against it.
Knowing that those who follow this warped mindset will continue until
either:

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave

Circular reasoning. We've offered to make absolutely NO behavior changes.
Until then, "C" will not happen.

Doug Kanter wrote:
snipped

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave


Circular reasoning. We've offered to make absolutely NO behavior changes.
Until then, "C" will not happen.



I guess that leaves A or B. I'd pick "A".
Paul

"Paul Schilter" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
snipped

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave


Circular reasoning. We've offered to make absolutely NO behavior changes.
Until then, "C" will not happen.

I guess that leaves A or B. I'd pick "A".
Paul

You cannot defeat people who truly believe in what they're fighting for.
Perhaps you should try and imagine how YOU would behave if this country were
invaded. Are you capable of doing that?

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:10:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:20:48 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:56:00 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:04:28 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


The Sudanese government had OBL in custody in 96 and offered him to
us.
We declined to pursue it. We see the result of that inaction.

In point of fact, the Sudanese did *not* have bin Laden in custody in
'96.
The offer was to place him in custody, and either deport him to Saudi,
hand him over to the US, or "babysit" him in Sudan. The Saudis refused
deportation and Clinton didn't believe he had a case to try him here.

A more detailed account of what I basically stated.


You seem to be quite critical of Clinton's failures before 9/11, but
seem
quite accepting of Bush's failures after 9/11. Why is that? The
Taliban
offered bin Laden to Bush under similar conditions, *after* 9/11.

When? Where? How? From what I remember, the Taliban refused to cough
up Bin Laden. That's the final straw which lead to the Afghan war. Had
they turned OBL over, in all likelihood, we would have had no need to
use the military.

Yet,
bin Laden is still free. Clinton's crystal ball may have failed, but
Bush
had hindsight to guide him, and still failed.

The rules change on a daily basis. I'm not blaming Clinton for not
having the foresight to predict 9/11, I'm blaming him for not taking
the chance to take OBL out of the picture for acts of terrorism that
he had been tied to while Clinton was in office. There's no guarantee,
but there's a good chance that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had we
gotten OBL in 96. Anyone with insight should know that terrorism will
only grow until their warped demands are met. How long are we supposed
to ignore the problem before we finally respond to it? The answer to
that question occurred on 9/11/2001. But we should have seen it coming
long before that.

Dave


We are not following the advice we've been giving the Israelis for 40
years:
Respect the differences with your neighbors and learn to live with them.
Until we do that, nothing will change.

You know, that not such bad advice. You should apply it to your
neighbors who own dogs.......

Snide observation aside, you are correct, but what you have to
remember is that when someone has a problem with your whole existence,
and then attacks that existence, you are forced to defend against it.
Knowing that those who follow this warped mindset will continue until
either:

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave

Circular reasoning. We've offered to make absolutely NO behavior changes.
Until then, "C" will not happen.

"We" shouldn't have to. "We" aren't the ones who flew 3 airplanes into
their buildings. "We" aren't the ones who blew a hole in the side of a
naval ship. "We" aren't the ones who cut of the heads of prisoners on
TV.

One of their biggest problems with us is with our life of materialism
and consumerism, among other things. Are you suggesting we all wrap
ourselves in Burqa's and raise goats so that we don't "offend" them?

I don't care one iota what they choose to do in their own countries.
But when you take the fight to us, we're going to fight back.

If they want to adopt a live and let live philosophy with respect to
the west, then I'll listen. But remember, they started this fight, not
us.

Dave

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 03:29:36 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Paul Schilter" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
snipped

A. We defeat them.
B. They defeat us.
C. We arrive at a mutual understanding.

we have to be prepared to do what is necessary.

Choice "C" is certainly the most progressive and civilized path to
take. But trying to find common ground with people who are convinced
that we are "the devil", will require diffusing their religious
interpretations. It's not an easy task.

Dave


Circular reasoning. We've offered to make absolutely NO behavior changes.
Until then, "C" will not happen.

I guess that leaves A or B. I'd pick "A".
Paul

You cannot defeat people who truly believe in what they're fighting for.
Perhaps you should try and imagine how YOU would behave if this country were
invaded.

You mean like France in WWII?

Dave

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:32:48 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:02:14 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


If you could point me to those "conditions", I would be most
appreciative. I truly don't remember any realistic conditions ever being
offered. I do remember Mullah Omar at one point, denying that the
Taliban even knew where Bin Laden was.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterro...575593,00.html

A "secret" meeting which was never acknowledged by the Taliban, and an
"offer" given by someone who was under obvious political pressure, and
who, in all likelihood, was not authorized to make.

It's not sounding all that valid. The other key statement:

"However, it is unclear whether the Taliban would have the ability to
seize Bin Laden and hand him over".

...pretty much underlines our reasons for not seriously considering
these "offers".



Only through the news media's lack of daily coverage, do you perceive
the search for Bin Laden as "on the back burner". The search is
on-going. But it's tough to do, since most experts agree that his likely
hiding spot is in Pakastani territory where we don't have license to
search.

I believe it must be on the back burner. Bin Laden is still free. This
is the most powerful country on the planet. If, bin Laden was a top
priority, there is no way he would still be free 3 years after 9/11.

You underestimate the resourcefulness of a single person hiding on a
relatively large planet, with sympathetic supporters. We aren't Star
Fleet, we can't simply search for bio signs and beam them up.


We don't have a license to search Pakistani territory? So, the following
words, given by Bush to Congress and the American people, were just so
much Bush Bull****? Doesn't the man ever mean what he says?

" And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are
with us or you are with the terrorists."

The Pakistani's claim to be with us, but insist that THEY be the ones
to search in their country.

And let's be realistic. We don't have enough military to take on the
entire Wahabbi Muslim world at once.



" From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support
terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Pakistan is not "harboring" terrorists, at least not officially. If
you want to make the claim that they are, then you also add
credibility to the claim that most of those countries are linked
together in a network of terrorism which operates independently from
their respective governments.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


"A" didn't work for the Soviet Unino in Afghanistan.

They didn't have th motivation to win.

Are you nuts? They were brutal. Unfortunately for them, we armed the
Taliban, who began shooting down Russian helicopters at an alarming rate,
using surface to air weapons made in the USA.