Bergdahl Charged With Desertion

[Rich]

Ok Rich, the hijackers were Saudi's The Taliban would have turned over OBL if we proved it to them, the war  was illegal in the beginning.

How do you know the Taliban would have turned UBL over? Did they tell you this themselves?

[DenverFinFan]

How do you know the Taliban would have turned UBL over? Did they tell you this themselves?

It was reported on Mainstream news, worth a shot before an all out invasion? As I said why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? All the hijackers were Saudis and most of the funding came from Saudi Arabia they were far more responsible.

[Rich]

It was reported on Mainstream news, worth a shot before an all out invasion? As I said why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? All the hijackers were Saudis and most of the funding came from Saudi Arabia they were far more responsible.

The United States gave the Taliban an opportunity to turn UBL over. They decided to protect him (of course, he basically provided them with their defense and had a lot of money).

Another fact you have incorrect, 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, the rest were from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon.

Also, it was Zacarias Moussaoui that accused the Saudis of funding the hijackers, but this was never proven out.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/saudi-arabia-and-the-911-terrorist-attacks/

[Rich]

From the LA Times, that neocon conspiracy theorist publication that supports invading every country in the world.

WASHINGTON — Afghanistan's ruling Taliban rejected President Bush's ultimatum Friday, vowing to continue to protect Osama bin Laden and his terrorist followers even if that provokes a war and the destruction of the regime.

Word of the Taliban's refusal to comply with Bush's blunt demands came from the regime's ambassador to Pakistan, who said there is no evidence linking Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization to the suicide hijackings that destroyed the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon and killed more than 6,000 people.

"If there is no evidence and proof, we're not prepared to give up Osama bin Laden," Abdul Salam Zaeef told a press conference in Islamabad, Pakistan's capital.

The United Arab Emirates today cut diplomatic relations with Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement, the official UAE news agency WAM reported.

The news agency said the nation decided on the move after trying to persuade the Taliban government to hand over Bin Laden.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/22/news/mn-48537

[DenverFinFan]

The United States gave the Taliban an opportunity to turn UBL over. They decided to protect him (of course, he basically provided them with their defense and had a lot of money).

Another fact you have incorrect, 15 of the hijackers were Saudi, the rest were from UAE, Egypt and Lebanon.

Also, it was Zacarias Moussaoui that accused the Saudis of funding the hijackers, but this was never proven out.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/saudi-arabia-and-the-911-terrorist-attacks/

So what? They weren't Afgahnis. Saudis are the worlds top supporters of terror, there hands are all over ISIS and al Nusra and AQAP. When the 28 pages Bush had classified of the 9/11 report come out we'll know the full extent of the Saudi's role. In the meantime keep fooling yourself. The War on Terror has done nothing but create more terror and puts us in danger. Afghanistan, Iraq, the drone war, Libya, Syria all failures.

[Rich]

In the meantime keep fooling yourself.

This coming from someone who gets their news from antiwar.com. 

[bsmooth]

So what? They weren't Afgahnis. Saudis are the worlds top supporters of terror, there hands are all over ISIS and al Nusra and AQAP. When the 28 pages Bush had classified of the 9/11 report come out we'll know the full extent of the Saudi's role. In the meantime keep fooling yourself. The War on Terror has done nothing but create more terror and puts us in danger. Afghanistan, Iraq, the drone war, Libya, Syria all failures.

They were Saudi's. Al Qaeda was given protection to plan and train its followers in Afghanistan. The Taliban government knowingly harbored a terrorist group and allowed them to train and plan attacks against other states. This is an act of war. That is why the rest of the world did not think our military intervention in Afghanistan was illegal, and were willing to join with us. Iraq is a different story.
Your grasp of international law, geopolitics, and use of force, are misguided and bordering on ignorance.

[DenverFinFan]

They were Saudi's. Al Qaeda was given protection to plan and train its followers in Afghanistan. The Taliban government knowingly harbored a terrorist group and allowed them to train and plan attacks against other states. This is an act of war. That is why the rest of the world did not think our military intervention in Afghanistan was illegal, and were willing to join with us. Iraq is a different story.
Your grasp of international law, geopolitics, and use of force, are misguided and bordering on ignorance.

You have it backwards, go back to reading the National Review or the Weekly Standard.

http://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was-the-nato-invasion-of-afghanistan-legal/

[Rich]

Now we're referencing student essays for our information on international law. Lets not actually reference international law itself, let's rely on student essays and conspiracy websites. Welcome to Bizarro World.

[Dolphster]

They were Saudi's. Al Qaeda was given protection to plan and train its followers in Afghanistan. The Taliban government knowingly harbored a terrorist group and allowed them to train and plan attacks against other states. This is an act of war. That is why the rest of the world did not think our military intervention in Afghanistan was illegal, and were willing to join with us. Iraq is a different story.
Your grasp of international law, geopolitics, and use of force, are misguided and bordering on ignorance.

You hit the nail on the head.  I served in Iraq and the argument can be made that our presence there was a mistake (although arguably not illegal) based on faulty intel and faulty conclusions based on that intel.  Afghanistan however, was an absolutely legal and "proper" invasion for the reasons that you listed.  Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is definitely a case of "sleeping with the enemy" as brilliantly illustrated by Robert Baer in his book.  But that is a whole other conversation. 

[DenverFinFan]

http://www.nlgmass.org/2011/02/war-on-afghanistan-is-illegal Ok there's more, just because the New York Times tells you it's legal doesn't mean so either, you asked where the argument for it being illegal was and I gave you several.

And Dolphster, Iraq is Illegal and deliberate lies not "faulty intel". I'm sure you tell yourself that to help you sleep at night since you were there, but it was nothing but bull shit.

[Dolphster]

And Dolphster, Iraq is Illegal and deliberate lies not "faulty intel". I'm sure you tell yourself that to help you sleep at night since you were there, but it was nothing but bull shit.

Pretty hilarious that some snot nosed kid thinks he is "educating" me when I have 25 years of service including 10 years of Senior Executive Service, 5 years of Executive Level service at the Pentagon, etc etc etc.  Yet you know so much more than I do because you get your SITREP briefings from WarsAreYucky.com    Yeah, you are really in the know with your inner circle connections, son. 

[Rich]

http://www.nlgmass.org/2011/02/war-on-afghanistan-is-illegal Ok there's more, just because the New York Times tells you it's legal doesn't mean so either, you asked where the argument for it being illegal was and I gave you several.

And Dolphster, Iraq is Illegal and deliberate lies not "faulty intel". I'm sure you tell yourself that to help you sleep at night since you were there, but it was nothing but bull shit.

But, here are three neocon websites that say Iraq had WMDs and moved them to the Bekaa Valley prior to the invasion! If it's on the Internet, it must be true... 

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/07/10/flashback2004/

http://pjmedia.com/blog/satellite-photos-support-testimony-that-iraqi-wmd-went-to-syria/

http://www.wnd.com/2004/05/24713/

[Tenshot13]

Pretty hilarious that some snot nosed kid thinks he is "educating" me when I have 25 years of service including 10 years of Senior Executive Service, 5 years of Executive Level service at the Pentagon, etc etc etc.  Yet you know so much more than I do because you get your SITREP briefings from WarsAreYucky.com    Yeah, you are really in the know with your inner circle connections, son. 

I saw the movie In the Army Now with Pauly Shore, so I know more than you...

[Sunstroke]

I saw the movie In the Army Now with Pauly Shore, so I know more than you...

I saw the movie Stripes several times, and I have no doubt there were several recreational vehicles in Iraq at the time of the invasion, so it was definitely Party Time, Camel-Jockey Style!!

I do love how these discussions always seem to end up boiling down to "My sources are more reliable than your sources, because my sources are enlightened, while yours are liars...so if you don't believe my sources, you're an idiot."