Not voting in any direction, since most of the video is of gravel on the ground.

Upvote for artillery is awesome.

What would have made this totally awesome is if a taliban sniper had popped the skulls of all these jarheads. But hey nobody ever stands up to a bully.

The US military: Good at firring guns, no good at holding cameras steady.

>> ^Fade:
What would have made this totally awesome is if a taliban sniper had popped the skulls of all these jarheads. But hey nobody ever stands up to a bully.


Taliban sniper? Do such things exist?

No, really. The Taliban are really, really bad at marksmanship. They rely on firing many, many bullets in roughly the general direction in the hope that a lucky bullet will take someone out.

Fade..... Ugh....

What the hell? Seriously? It's one thing to say that we have no reason to be in Iraq. It's a COMPLETELY different thing to be whining like a bitch and wishing death threats on Marines/Soldiers who are waging a war against the very people that claimed responsibility for 9/11.

Go back to CrudeTube.

When the US provides evidence then you will have a right to make those claims. Till then STFU.

On September 21, 2001, the Taliban responded that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty they would hand him over, stating there was no evidence in their possession linking him to the September 11 attacks.[90]

On September 22, 2001, the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001, it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law.[109][110] Pakistan, recently recast as an ally of the west, is believed to have rejected the offer (even though they still recognized the Taliban).

On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to "detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law" if the United States made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence.[111] This counter offer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient.

Bin Laden for his part, maintained America's attack on the Taliban after 9/11 was motivated only by its hatred for Islam.

So you're actually just looking to start a fight about American policy decisions by making imflammatory comments wishing death on the soldiers and Marines involved. Classy... If you want to debate something, why not discuss it with at least some civility?

"The Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to 'detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law'"

You need to get the whole story before posting such misinformation. You are plainly trying to make it sound like the Taliban was willing to work with the Americans against Osama.

They're original offer was conditional on presenting evidence, and even if such evidence was considered persuasive they would not hand him over directly, but instead to Pakistan. The best and final offer they were willing to make was to have him tried under Sharia law. Sorry, but if you think that's a reasonable and measured response you need to study the history of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda more before voicing such a strong opinion.

You might want to start by reading up on Ahmad Shah Massoud. He was a prominent leader in Afghanistan who had been warning about the strong ties between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and in April of 2001 he was warning of a pending major attack. If you are ill-informed enough to say "so what", then read his obituary. He was killed on Sept. 9, 2001.

I know the whole story. I'm sure you're well aware of how ridiculous it is that the combined might of two of the most powerful armies in the world is completely unable to capture the man who master minded 911. Either the man is genius or they aren't really out to get him.

Bcglorf if what I am posting is misinformation please go to wikipedia and change it to your "correct" information. Which to my eyes appears to be exactly the same info anyway.

Either the man is genius or they aren't really out to get him.


Or maybe Pakistan has nukes and it's border region with Afghanistan is mostly run by Islamic extremists who love him. Then perhaps the US and Britain simply aren't willing to destabilize a nuclear power just to get one man, which seems the most plausible explanation, no?


I know the whole story.
...
Bcglorf if what I am posting is misinformation please go to wikipedia and change it to your "correct" information.


I never said your information was incorrect, I just stated that presenting an incomplete picture and out of context is misinformation. And I stand by that.

Can you explain why Massoud was killed 2 days before 9/11? It seems to me the only sane explanation is that he knew something. Earlier that year he had been stating the Taliban were working with Al-Qaeda, and a major attack was coming.

More to the point, can you explain what more evidence the Taliban wants than the fact that Al-Qaeda assassinated Massoud 2 days before 9-11? You plainly posted how the Taliban was being oh-so reasonable about wanting to hand over Bin Laden if only there were some evidence. Leaving Massoud's assassination out of your post shows either ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking the Taliban wasn't certain Al-Qaeda was responsible for both attacks.

Please provide evidence that it was Al-qaeda that was responsible. You are making assumptions and you know what assuming makes us.

bcglorf:

Fade once called me a "lefty wingnut" in a PM because I don't have the same desire he does to spend my time fellating Hugo Chavez. Of course, he didn't realize that his purported insult was oxymoronic. I suppose he might've meant "moonbat," but since he seems to be farther to the left than most on the site (including me), that wouldn't have made sense either.

I share this to make the point that Fade is, for all intents and purposes, quantumushroom's alter ego. The only difference is that he's less coherent (I know. Who could believe it was possible?). As such, he isn't to be taken seriously. I just wanted to let you know since you're a probie, and I'd hate to see you waste anymore time on him or the vitriol he spews.

good times!

I like that, "quantum mushrooms alter ego". Anyhoo, if believing that Hugo Chavez isn't the son of satan that the US seems to love to pretend he is makes me a lefty then so be it. Personally I think politics , patriotism and nationalism are for the sheep who can't make up their own minds. I'll define myself as an anarchist libertarian and leave it at that.

I'm sorry I find it offensive when pituary retards glorify the slaughter of human life. Woohoo good shot! You blew a man up! yay you, you're my fucking hero for protecting my freedom.

"What would have made this totally awesome is if a taliban sniper had popped the skulls of all these jarheads. . . I'm sorry I find it offensive when pituary retards glorify the slaughter of human life..."

LMFAO. Cognitive dissonance much?

not one for sarcasm and irony then are you?

I'm sorry I find it offensive when pituary retards glorify the slaughter of human life.

And I found ignorance offensive. Sadly war sucks, and yes, it even means soldiers often have a very dark sense of humor. So long as it doesn't extend to mistreating prisoners I can accept it as a coping mechanism and necessary evil.

More importantly, it's blind fools spouting off things about how the Taliban isn't really that bad who are a real problem. It's good to be informed enough to know that Cheney and Bush are awful. It is not, however, being open minded or intelligent to then try to suggest that because of Bush and Cheney's problems their enemies are automagically "victims". If you can claim the Taliban really didn't know Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks your even blinder than the sheeple thinking Bush is a stand-up guy.

Please tell me where I said the Taliban were a bunch of peaceful daisy pickers? Please quote me. I hate the Taliban. They're ignorant fundies.
But if you truly believe that the US is in Afghanistan becuase of 911 then you are a retard. If that were the case then the US definitely had prior knowledge because they were ready to invade before sept 11.

But if you truly believe that the US is in Afghanistan becuase of 911 then you are a retard. If that were the case then the US definitely had prior knowledge because they were ready to invade before sept 11.


They were ready to invade back under the Clinton administration to get rid of Al-Qaeda. Your either ignorant or lying to act as if 9/11 was the first straw, it was the last in a long line of attacks on the US and other nations made by Al-Qaeda. Remember the USS cole? Weren't you around to complain when Al-Qaeda training camps were previously bombed in Afghanistan? Please don't play dumb. It just makes you look dumb.

So what you're saying is the Taliban = Al-Qaeda?

You really are dense. Massoud said that the Taliban is working too closely with Al-Qaeda, he said that a major attack was pending in April 2001. A few months later, and 2 days before the 9/11 attacks, Al-Qaeda has him killed. Since you seem completely ignorant of the matter, did I mention that Massoud was also one of the key leaders in the North in resisting the Taliban? Now, after the 9/11 attacks and Massoud's assassination, the Taliban refuses to hand over Osama without evidence. What more compelling evidence could possibly be provided?
The Taliban's refusal to co-operate in the removal of Al-Qaeda combined with their continual and repeated defense and co-operation with them left them complicit in the attacks. Of course I'm sure you'll ignore this all, enjoy your fiction if that's what you prefer. At least those reading the thread now can get the whole picture, my job's done.

A lot of people said a major attack was pending. The US knew an attack was pending and appears to have done everything in its power to insure that it was successful.

"AL-Qaeda has him killed", prove it. Please.

Let's say for arguments sake you were accused of a terrorist act in "madeupistan" and the government of madeupistan came to the US government and asked them to hand you over sans evidence. What do you think would happen? Does that automatically prove you are guilty? No it doesn't and that is why what you are saying is patently ridiculous.

"not one for sarcasm and irony then are you?"

Neither are you. When you use sarcasm or irony, you usually mean something close to the opposite of what your words would normally mean.

Hyperbole? Maybe. Sarcasm? Very, very doubtful.

sar·casm
Pronunciation[sahr-kaz-uhm]

–noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

----

hy·per·bo·le
Pronunciation[hahy-pur-buh-lee]
–noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Clearly you haven't spent much time with a dictionary.

Would you like a definition of irony too?