Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

140 to be released from Camp X-ray

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Originally posted by chill
    The Taliban attacked America first, that's why America took them out.
    The Taliban did not attack America.
    Do you just make this stuff up or do you really believe it?


  • Options
    #33
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Originally posted by Meh
    Incorrect

    Oh Colon Powell would never be dishonest.


  • Options
    #34
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Originally posted by chill
    The facts are very dodgy on this and I beleive they are right to play safe when dealing with extremely dangerous people like this.

    Says who? The article wrote about it, the Red Cross confirmed it, the US army said they believe some had been detained for money.

    Who exactly has a problem with the facts apart from you?

    Originally posted by chill
    They weren't part of an army. The Taliban attacked America first, that's why America took them out.

    America "took them out" because they refused to hand over Al Queda members. If Afganistan had handed over Al Queda member the Taliban would still be in power, probably still being funded by the CIA. The US government attacked Afganistan because the Taliban refused to jump into line. It was punishment.
    Originally posted by chill

    Nope. They were illegal combatants. There's a huge difference. I would have thught you would have known this by now..

    They weren't soldiers. They were part of an international terrorist organisation. .

    I think you are getting a little confused there Chill ... Al Queda and the Taliban are not the same organisation. Al Queda is a lose group of international terrorist who have bases in Afganistan, among other places.

    The Taliban is an extreme religious government who "governed", for want of a better word, a large part of Afganistan. The Taliban are a Islamic government and army. They refused to hand over Al Queda members so American attacked them. They are not the same organisation, and many Taliban soldiers have never had anything to do with Al Queda.
    Originally posted by chill

    There was never any question that I know about that they were guilty of war crimes, why charge them with that ?

    If none of them committed war crimes, then why are they being held? The only reason to hold a member of a foreign army is to prosecute them for war crimes.

    Originally posted by chill
    I don't agree. They aren't POWs and the war they are fighting isn't over. They'd be nuts to let them go.

    Again ... Al Queda NOT EQUAL Taliban ... and if they are members of Al Queda then they should be charged as such ... they can't just be held indefinitly because the US thinks they might do something in the future.


  • Options
    #35
    chill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 576 ✭✭✭chill


    Originally posted by Frank Grimes
    The Taliban did not attack America.
    Do you just make this stuff up or do you really believe it?
    The Al Queda and Taliban are/were essentially the one organisation, guilty for their actions.


  • Options
    #36
    chill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 576 ✭✭✭chill


    Originally posted by sovtek
    Oh Colon Powell would never be dishonest.

    No money went to the Taliban.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Originally posted by chill
    They were lying through their teeth as anyone with half a brain could see. They were inter twined with Al Qued and just as guilty. They got what they deserved.

    Actually they said that they would hand over OBL if the US provided proof that he was involved.
    That's what any other "civilised" government would request would another country want extradition of a resident of their country.
    I recall another "civilised" nation doing just that a while back


  • Options
    #38
    Frank Grimes
    Registered Users Posts: 5,333 ✭✭✭Frank Grimes


    Originally posted by chill
    The Al Queda and Taliban are/were essentially the one organisation, guilty for their actions.
    The Taliban may have given them free run in Afghanistan, but they are not the same organisation.


  • Options
    #39
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Originally posted by sovtek
    Actually they said that they would hand over OBL if the US provided proof that he was involved.
    That's what any other "civilised" government would request would another country want extradition of a resident of their country.
    I recall another "civilised" nation doing just that a while back
    They did say that, but I doubt if they would have had it in their power to to hand him over if such proof were supplied. How do you get hold of someone like Osama with his own private army of non-uniformed fanatics in a country already on its knees. Obviously he would not have gone voluntarily. Afghanistan is now run by the US, yet even with their vastly superior resources, they can't pin him down. What chance, then, would the Taliban have had? And even if they were holding him and handed him over, would the Taliban not then become the target of relentless attacks from the remnant Al Queda, something they would be ill-equiped to deal with.

    Given this, no amount of 'proof' would have been sufficient for the Taliban to hand over Osama.


  • Options
    #40
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Originally posted by chill
    Wrong. The US didn't 'harbour' OBL and Al Queda and OBL wasn't committing any terrorists acts under instruction of the US.

    Bin Laden and Al Queda was trained and funded by the CIA to carry out terrorist activities against the USSR. He then turned on the West after the collapse of the USSR. He is not the first US sponsered loonie to turn on his masters and he won't be the last. The CIA have a term for this, "blowback."

    This is common public knowledge Chill .. I suggest you do a bit of background reading before you next "Wrong" post.

    Originally posted by chill
    They were lying through their teeth as anyone with half a brain could see. They were inter twined with Al Qued and just as guilty. They got what they deserved.

    No they were trying to save face infront of other Islamic countries ... they weren't that bothered about Al Queda, they just didn't want to look like they were jumping through American hoops. The US could have gotten Bin Laden with little blood shed, but then they weren't really interesting in that.

    Originally posted by chill
    Firstly that was referring to being held by the Northern Alliance and not the US. Secondly this man has no credibility and I don't believe a word he has to say. He's a liar.


    I don't believe a word of it .... where's the evidence ?

    Nice troll .. back under your bridge.
    Originally posted by chill

    Bull****. These guys were captured fighting and killing American soldiers as illegal combatants.

    They were fighting American soldiers because American had invaded their country with a mission to wipe them out. What about American soldiers captured fighting and killing Taliban soldiers. Do you thinking they should be held as illegal combatants? The war was after all illegal by international law.
    Originally posted by chill

    They haven't been released as innocent at all. Any that have been or are about to released were guilty all right.
    .

    No they weren't ... God you must be trolling because no one could be this pig headed and stupid about a position that has been shown to be completely wrong. The US government itself have said some of them are totally innocent, and you still are going on that they are all, by definition, gulity.

    Back under your bridge.


  • Options
    #41
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Originally posted by chill
    No money went to the Taliban.

    ummm .. i smell troll ...

    as Grimes said - Do you just make this stuff up or do you really believe it?

    The US government supported the Taliban for years when they were fighting the USSR.

    They then supported the Taliban when they took control of Afganistan, because they believe it would be good for the oil business.

    In may of 1998 alone the US gave the Taliban $42 million, as aid to support the governments "anti-opium" policy in an effort to bring a stable government to the area (so US companies could build a billion dollar oil pipeline)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Chill is banned for trolling. I asked him to provide facts or links to stories backing up his position and he responded with ignorance.

    Gandalf.


  • Options
    #43
    Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Meh


    Originally posted by Wicknight
    The US government supported the Taliban for years when they were fighting the USSR.
    The USSR withdrew from Afghan in 1992. The Taliban wasn't founded until 1994. Source
    They then supported the Taliban when they took control of Afganistan, because they believe it would be good for the oil business.

    In may of 1998 alone the US gave the Taliban $42 million
    Also untrue. See my post above.


  • Options
    #44
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Yep correct Meh. Unocal (Texan US Oil company) where the ones who were entertaining the taliban with the hopes of getting a pipe through the country.

    Which makes it all the more funnier they gave Hamid Karzai the job as he had previously worked for Unocal.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/156497.stm

    of course Unocal are in a bit of trouble in other parts of the world.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3115515.stm


  • Options
    #45
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Originally posted by Meh
    The USSR withdrew from Afghan in 1992. The Taliban wasn't founded until 1994. Source Also untrue. See my post above.

    The "1998" statement is cheerfully with drawn. Never reading the LA Times again :p

    The Taliban was founded in 1994, but the groups it was founded from were collections of freedom fighters know as the "mujahideen" These factions were funded by the US. The group that was the Taliban was funded by the US when they were members of other factions.


  • Options
    #46
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Originally posted by gandalf
    Chill is banned for trolling. I asked him to provide facts or links to stories backing up his position and he responded with ignorance.
    Gandalf.
    Thanks Gandalf, you interrupted me while I was asking for a mod to do just that - it was starting to read like freerepublic.com in here...


  • Options
    #47
    Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Meh


    Originally posted by Wicknight
    The Taliban was founded in 1994, but the groups it was founded from were collections of freedom fighters know as the "mujahideen" These factions were funded by the US. The group that was the Taliban was funded by the US when they were members of other factions.
    But the Taliban itself was never funded by the US, so your assertion is still false. If you want to say that before the Taliban ever existed, the US funded people who later went on to join the Taliban, that's fine. But to say that the US funded the Taliban without qualifying the statement in any way is untrue.


  • Options
    #48
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Originally posted by Meh
    But the Taliban itself was never funded by the US, so your assertion is still false. If you want to say that before the Taliban ever existed, the US funded people who later went on to join the Taliban, that's fine. But to say that the US funded the Taliban without qualifying the statement in any way is untrue.

    But the "taliban" are not some new distinct group that entered Afghanistan in 1994. It is just a new word given to a group of freedom fighters that formed after the Soviets withdrew. Before they called themselves Taliban they fought the USSR and received funding from the US, to fight the USSR. Because they were not know as "taliban" when they fought the USSR does nullify the support they were given.

    To avoid confusion I probably should have said the US supported the members of the Taliban for years when they fough the USSR, rather than referring singularly to "the Taliban."


  • Options
    #49
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Originally posted by Sparks
    it was starting to read like freerepublic.com in here...

    I just clicked over to see what www.freerepublic.com was and the first thing that hit me was the link for "Pray for George Bush" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=pray%20for%20bush;m=all;o=time

    Oh the irony ... that is the most unintentionally funny thing i have seen all year :D


    Pray for George Bush ... he'll need it


  • Options
    #50
    Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Meh


    Originally posted by Wicknight
    To avoid confusion I probably should have said the US supported the members of the Taliban for years when they fough the USSR
    That statement is still misleading, because when they were fighting the USSR they weren't members of the Taliban, because there was no such organization as the Taliban until 1994.


  • Options
    #51
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Originally posted by Meh
    That statement is still misleading, because when they were fighting the USSR they weren't members of the Taliban, because there was no such organization as the Taliban until 1994.
    And David Bowie and Ziggy Stardust were different people...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Originally posted by Wicknight
    I just clicked over to see what www.freerepublic.com was and the first thing that hit me was the link for "Pray for George Bush" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=pray%20for%20bush;m=all;o=time
    Oh the irony ... that is the most unintentionally funny thing i have seen all year :D
    Pray for George Bush ... he'll need it

    Thing is, they're not that benign - first time I heard of them was when a large contingent of posters on the site were caught harrassing and in fact terrorising a liquor store owner in Texas. Why? She'd called the police when Bush's underage daughter tried to buy alcohol at her store.
    Freepers - it's not a term of endearment!


  • Options
    #53
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    God...I take two days out for work, and Chill goes and gets himself banned. FFS.

    Thats just ruined my weekend that has.....

    jc


  • Options
    #54
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Originally posted by bonkey
    Thats just ruined my weekend that has.....
    jc
    I think we're all broken up JC. We'll just have to compensate by listening uncritically to Rumsfeld for an hour or so :D


  • Options
    #55
    Fionnan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40 ✭Fionnan


    I agree with MEh. The Taliban were formed in 1994 and funded by Saudi and Pakistan. Initially they were not Afghani, mainly Pakistani. The anti-Taliban fighters, Ie Northern Alliance, etc were the remenants of the Mujahadeen that fought the Soviets. Naturally when the Taliban started being successful, locals that fell under their control joined up.


  • Options
    #56
    therecklessone
    Registered Users Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭therecklessone


    Originally posted by Fionnan
    I agree with MEh. The Taliban were formed in 1994 and funded by Saudi and Pakistan. Initially they were not Afghani, mainly Pakistani. The anti-Taliban fighters, Ie Northern Alliance, etc were the remenants of the Mujahadeen that fought the Soviets. Naturally when the Taliban started being successful, locals that fell under their control joined up.

    Not so.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/144382.stm

    Note:
    [the Taliban] comprised of Afghans trained in religious schools in Pakistan along with former Islamic fighters or mujahedin


Advertisement