Sorry not boxing but Bin Laden is dead.

[Gandalf]

But that was not the reason why we went to Afghanistan. Stop changing the goalposts. We went there to capture terrorists that we thought were being harboured in Afghanistan. If the pretext was to change Afghanistan politically then there should have been an open discussion and a case built up. As things stand we were trigger happy and invaded within weeks of 9-11. It was a mess and we were wrong.

You have to respect international law or else you just become a terrorist state yourself. America is a terrorist state.

LOL, who is changing goalposts? The lack of clarity in your thinking is pretty funny. We ABSOLUTELY went to Afghanistan to change it politically. Here is the clincher statement by President Bush before Congress.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

Pretty clear that the Taliban either acts or is stripped of power aka changing Afghanistan politically.

LOL at "Respect International Law or you are a terrorist state." Fishing inside a twelve mile limit doesn't make one a terrorist. Terrorism can be defined in a pretty straightforward manner. Intentionally targeting non-combatants with violence in forwarding a political goal.

Osama was a combatant, we sent in troops instead of simply bombing the place (clearly safer towards non-combatants). So it fails to meet a reasonable definition.

I assume you're a Brit. If you are, it is ESPECIALLY funny judgemental stuff coming from a citizen of a nation responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, The Loughall Ambush, the "shoot to kill" policy towards the IRA, the Bombing of Dresden and on and on and on.

So when the Taliban asked for evidence proving that Bin Laden was behind the 9-11 attack what was the US response? You decided to go after a collective group of terrorists by invading a sovereign country with little planning and no real anticipation of the consequences. This is why the Afghanistan conquest has gone on far longer than WW2. It was a mess. There was no case made against the Taliban, they did not cause 9-11. Afghanistan was invaded within days of 9-11. Just as Obama is a terrorist, Bush and Blair are war criminals. All of them are monsters. It's just that two of them are viewed as legit and immune and the other is/was an outcast.

You are trying to twist the argument in anticipation of me somehow becoming patriotic about acts of terrorism commited by my own country. It doesn't work because I denounce my country in equal measure. I loath excessive concentrations of power that use that power in malicious and immoral ways and in many regards the UK and America are much the same in that regard.

[marbleheadmaui]

But that was not the reason why we went to Afghanistan. Stop changing the goalposts. We went there to capture terrorists that we thought were being harboured in Afghanistan. If the pretext was to change Afghanistan politically then there should have been an open discussion and a case built up. As things stand we were trigger happy and invaded within weeks of 9-11. It was a mess and we were wrong.

You have to respect international law or else you just become a terrorist state yourself. America is a terrorist state.

LOL, who is changing goalposts? The lack of clarity in your thinking is pretty funny. We ABSOLUTELY went to Afghanistan to change it politically. Here is the clincher statement by President Bush before Congress.

And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats, and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.

Pretty clear that the Taliban either acts or is stripped of power aka changing Afghanistan politically.

LOL at "Respect International Law or you are a terrorist state." Fishing inside a twelve mile limit doesn't make one a terrorist. Terrorism can be defined in a pretty straightforward manner. Intentionally targeting non-combatants with violence in forwarding a political goal.

Osama was a combatant, we sent in troops instead of simply bombing the place (clearly safer towards non-combatants). So it fails to meet a reasonable definition.

I assume you're a Brit. If you are, it is ESPECIALLY funny judgemental stuff coming from a citizen of a nation responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, The Loughall Ambush, the "shoot to kill" policy towards the IRA, the Bombing of Dresden and on and on and on.

So when the Taliban asked for evidence proving that Bin Laden was behind the 9-11 attack what was the US response? You decided to go after a collective group of terrorists by invading a sovereign country with little planning and no real anticipation of the consequences. This is why the Afghanistan conquest has gone on far longer than WW2. It was a mess. There was no case made against the Taliban, they did not cause 9-11. Afghanistan was invaded within days of 9-11. Just as Obama is a terrorist, Bush and Blair are war criminals. All of them are monsters. It's just that two of them are viewed as legit and immune and the other is/was an outcast.

You are trying to twist the argument in anticipation of me somehow becoming patriotic about acts of terrorism commited by my own country. It doesn't work because I denounce my country in equal measure. I loath excessive concentrations of power that use that power in malicious and immoral ways and in many regards the UK and America are much the same in that regard.

LOL, NOW who is trying to move the goalposts? LOL, no planning?? Let's see, the Soviets lose a million men in a decade and can't do anyhting but get shot at, we take 7,000 men, ally ourselves with the Northern Alliance and take down the Taliban in what sixty days, hold elections within a year and you say there was no planning Bwahahahahaha. Come on, seriously, get a grip! We didn't have elections in Germany after WWII until what? 1955? Japan didn't have any until 1957?

Saying the Taliban didn't cause 9/11 is absolutely right...and absolutely a dumb way to look at things. THEY WERE HARBORING THOSE WHO DID!

Glad to see you despise your own nation. Good luck loathing power from behind your keyboard where you benifit daily from it. I'm sure you'll have a major impact! Oh wait, maybe you can speak truth to power and get a high five from Noam Chomsky!

Invading Afghanistan was, by any reasonable ethical code, justified. One can always argue about its wisdom of course, but that's not what we are talking here. Calling Bush and Blair war criminals robs those words of any useful meaning.

[Gandalf]

You have doubled the number of troops since Obama took power and have been there nigh on a decade. You are fighting people that basically want their nation to be free from foreign invaders. The number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is estimated to be a few dozen at best. It was poorly planned, you don't try to catch terrorists by invading a nation. What should have happened is that we provided some evidence that Bin Laden and co caused 9-11. We refused to do this and chose to invade regardless. Now if you regard that as legitimate and correct behaviour then that is your call. I view it quite differently. You want to try someone then you need to show the evidence. We didn't do it then and just this week we once again used a bullet rather than try to bring a man to trial.

As for trying to change the world, I am not trying to do that. I have my own work to do and post here for leisure. This is just what I enjoy doing. Actually it would be a great honour to high five Mr Chomsky. He is one of America's true heroes.

[marbleheadmaui]

You have doubled the number of troops since Obama took power and have been there nigh on a decade. You are fighting people that basically want their nation to be free from foreign invaders. The number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is estimated to be a few dozen at best. It was poorly planned, you don't try to catch terrorists by invading a nation. What should have happened is that we provided some evidence that Bin Laden and co caused 9-11. We refused to do this and chose to invade regardless. Now if you regard that as legitimate and correct behaviour then that is your call. I view it quite differently. You want to try someone then you need to show the evidence. We didn't do it then and just this week we once again used a bullet rather than try to bring a man to trial.

As for trying to change the world, I am not trying to do that. I have my own work to do and post here for leisure. This is just what I enjoy doing. Actually it would be a great honour to high five Mr Chomsky. He is one of America's true heroes.

But as I proved earlier, we weren't merely trying to catch terrorists. We were changing the gov't as well. There is PLENTY of evidence Osama sponsored 9/11 and the Cole Bombing and the Dual Embassy Bombings of 1996 and the Khoabr Towers bombings of 1996 and the one where he tried to kill me (among others) the WTC bombing of 1993.

Again, the notion that WAR is simply another crime flies in the face of 1800 years of Western thought as well as common sense. War is war. Sherman was right, it really cannot be refined.

Noam Chomsky is an immoral slug. Anyone who supported the Khmer Rouge is despicable.

I'm done for the night. Thanks as always for your thoughts...such as they are

[Gandalf]

You have doubled the number of troops since Obama took power and have been there nigh on a decade. You are fighting people that basically want their nation to be free from foreign invaders. The number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is estimated to be a few dozen at best. It was poorly planned, you don't try to catch terrorists by invading a nation. What should have happened is that we provided some evidence that Bin Laden and co caused 9-11. We refused to do this and chose to invade regardless. Now if you regard that as legitimate and correct behaviour then that is your call. I view it quite differently. You want to try someone then you need to show the evidence. We didn't do it then and just this week we once again used a bullet rather than try to bring a man to trial.

As for trying to change the world, I am not trying to do that. I have my own work to do and post here for leisure. This is just what I enjoy doing. Actually it would be a great honour to high five Mr Chomsky. He is one of America's true heroes.

But as I proved earlier, we weren't merely trying to catch terrorists. We were changing the gov't as well. There is PLENTY of evidence Osama sponsored 9/11 and the Cole Bombing and the Dual Embassy Bombings of 1996 and the Khoabr Towers bombings of 1996 and the one where he tried to kill me (among others) the WTC bombing of 1993.

Again, the notion that WAR is simply another crime flies in the face of 1800 years of Western thought as well as common sense. War is war. Sherman was right, it really cannot be refined.

Noam Chomsky is an immoral slug. Anyone who supported the Khmer Rouge is despicable.

I'm done for the night. Thanks as always for your thoughts...such as they are

If we were so set on the Taliban a legitimate case should have been made. Not just "give us the terrorists or we will invade". That is equally barbaric and is the rhetoric of a bully. There is better evidence that Bin Laden was behind other attrocities, but the evidence concerning 9-11 has always been vague. We responded to 9-11 too quickly and without respect to appropriateness. We wanted blood and it was blood that we found. It could and should have been handled far more delicately. Don't get me wrong, the Taliban is awful and I think there is good reason to get rid of them, but they had never really been on the agenda prior to 9-11.

We are obviously on different pages regarding this and that is fair enough. I'm really not looking to change the world or even change minds, I just seek to put my point of view out there. It's just what I do. We have very different views on Chomsky and I don't think I have ever read or heard of him supporting the khmer rouge. You have likely made a mistake there. He has been accused of underestimating the extent of the genocide, but that as far as the criticism goes. If you can show a source stating otherwise I am more than happy to be persuaded otherwise.

[marbleheadmaui]

You have doubled the number of troops since Obama took power and have been there nigh on a decade. You are fighting people that basically want their nation to be free from foreign invaders. The number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is estimated to be a few dozen at best. It was poorly planned, you don't try to catch terrorists by invading a nation. What should have happened is that we provided some evidence that Bin Laden and co caused 9-11. We refused to do this and chose to invade regardless. Now if you regard that as legitimate and correct behaviour then that is your call. I view it quite differently. You want to try someone then you need to show the evidence. We didn't do it then and just this week we once again used a bullet rather than try to bring a man to trial.

As for trying to change the world, I am not trying to do that. I have my own work to do and post here for leisure. This is just what I enjoy doing. Actually it would be a great honour to high five Mr Chomsky. He is one of America's true heroes.

But as I proved earlier, we weren't merely trying to catch terrorists. We were changing the gov't as well. There is PLENTY of evidence Osama sponsored 9/11 and the Cole Bombing and the Dual Embassy Bombings of 1996 and the Khoabr Towers bombings of 1996 and the one where he tried to kill me (among others) the WTC bombing of 1993.

Again, the notion that WAR is simply another crime flies in the face of 1800 years of Western thought as well as common sense. War is war. Sherman was right, it really cannot be refined.

Noam Chomsky is an immoral slug. Anyone who supported the Khmer Rouge is despicable.

I'm done for the night. Thanks as always for your thoughts...such as they are

If we were so set on the Taliban a legitimate case should have been made. Not just "give us the terrorists or we will invade". That is equally barbaric and is the rhetoric of a bully. There is better evidence that Bin Laden was behind other attrocities, but the evidence concerning 9-11 has always been vague. We responded to 9-11 too quickly and without respect to appropriateness. We wanted blood and it was blood that we found. It could and should have been handled far more delicately. Don't get me wrong, the Taliban is awful and I think there is good reason to get rid of them, but they had never really been on the agenda prior to 9-11.

We are obviously on different pages regarding this and that is fair enough. I'm really not looking to change the world or even change minds, I just seek to put my point of view out there. It's just what I do. We have very different views on Chomsky and I don't think I have ever read or heard of him supporting the khmer rouge. You have likely made a mistake there. He has been accused of underestimating the extent of the genocide, but that as far as the criticism goes. If you can show a source stating otherwise I am more than happy to be persuaded otherwise.

In other words Chomsky is a Cambodian Holocaust Denier, is THAT your defense? It is not that "he has been accused." It is that he did it and later was forced to admit it! Te 1977 article "Distortions at Fourth Hand" is one place.

He is typical of the Academy in the US today. He is brilliant in an incredibly narrow portion of the field of linguistics and simply another propogandist otherwise.

[Mars_ax]

Just want to add to this thread that I especially enjoyed what Marble and Miles had to say, I consider myself a fairly smart guy, but you 2 are light-years ahead of me academically & intellectually.

Keep up the good work. ( I won't reveal who I agree with the most)

[Gandalf]

You have doubled the number of troops since Obama took power and have been there nigh on a decade. You are fighting people that basically want their nation to be free from foreign invaders. The number of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is estimated to be a few dozen at best. It was poorly planned, you don't try to catch terrorists by invading a nation. What should have happened is that we provided some evidence that Bin Laden and co caused 9-11. We refused to do this and chose to invade regardless. Now if you regard that as legitimate and correct behaviour then that is your call. I view it quite differently. You want to try someone then you need to show the evidence. We didn't do it then and just this week we once again used a bullet rather than try to bring a man to trial.

As for trying to change the world, I am not trying to do that. I have my own work to do and post here for leisure. This is just what I enjoy doing. Actually it would be a great honour to high five Mr Chomsky. He is one of America's true heroes.

But as I proved earlier, we weren't merely trying to catch terrorists. We were changing the gov't as well. There is PLENTY of evidence Osama sponsored 9/11 and the Cole Bombing and the Dual Embassy Bombings of 1996 and the Khoabr Towers bombings of 1996 and the one where he tried to kill me (among others) the WTC bombing of 1993.

Again, the notion that WAR is simply another crime flies in the face of 1800 years of Western thought as well as common sense. War is war. Sherman was right, it really cannot be refined.

Noam Chomsky is an immoral slug. Anyone who supported the Khmer Rouge is despicable.

I'm done for the night. Thanks as always for your thoughts...such as they are

If we were so set on the Taliban a legitimate case should have been made. Not just "give us the terrorists or we will invade". That is equally barbaric and is the rhetoric of a bully. There is better evidence that Bin Laden was behind other attrocities, but the evidence concerning 9-11 has always been vague. We responded to 9-11 too quickly and without respect to appropriateness. We wanted blood and it was blood that we found. It could and should have been handled far more delicately. Don't get me wrong, the Taliban is awful and I think there is good reason to get rid of them, but they had never really been on the agenda prior to 9-11.

We are obviously on different pages regarding this and that is fair enough. I'm really not looking to change the world or even change minds, I just seek to put my point of view out there. It's just what I do. We have very different views on Chomsky and I don't think I have ever read or heard of him supporting the khmer rouge. You have likely made a mistake there. He has been accused of underestimating the extent of the genocide, but that as far as the criticism goes. If you can show a source stating otherwise I am more than happy to be persuaded otherwise.

In other words Chomsky is a Cambodian Holocaust Denier, is THAT your defense? It is not that "he has been accused." It is that he did it and later was forced to admit it! Te 1977 article "Distortions at Fourth Hand" is one place.

He is typical of the Academy in the US today. He is brilliant in an incredibly narrow portion of the field of linguistics and simply another propogandist otherwise.

It is a fallacy to accuse him of being a holocaust denier too. It is a gross simplication. And lest we forget Distortions at fourth hand was written prior to the collapse of the Khmer Rouge itself. It was only then that the full extend of the genocide began to be known, but Chomsky had never denied that serious crimes had been commited, he was simply stating that there were serious distortions in western media reports and books and this does appear to have been the case. It is a misrepresentation of the right to suggest such an extreme thing as holocaust denial. There are different numbers being used to represent all kinds of atrocities, just because some numbers are estimated as lower does not lead to the automatic claim of denial.

Chomsky is indeed a great in the field of linguistics, but beyond that is equally adept in the field of politics and international affairs IMO. It doesn't take a great mind to follow significant intenational events, check the sources and then interpret those events. If you want to see propagandists at work, I would check out the professors of economics at most top US universities. That's US academia at its most sordid and corrupt, that's what I call propaganda and a field that has started to eat at itself with its own vested agenda.