According to World Net Daily, Osama bin Laden has been placed under house arrest in Afganistan, by the Taliban. Of course, WND isn't always the most reliable source (they recently reported that Iraq had invaded Jordan), so take this with a grain of salt.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Correction. It's being reported by Yahoo! This may increase credibility somewhat.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Well, if it's true, let's hope he stays there.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Further information: he may actually be the CinC of the Taliban military.
As Howard Stern said on this... we know where his house is, lets go blow it up.
Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :
The only reason they put him under house arrest is that the Taliban fear the US and Nato will bomb their country back to the stone age. I suppose the next step will be to get him extradited although i suppose there will be a lot of people will like him to be assasinated.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
We don't even recognize the Taliban government, much less have an extradition treaty with them. Of course, I suppose we can just say, "Give us bin Laden. Now." At this rate, they'd probably do it.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Do we know for certain that bin Laden was behind this? I mean, 100% certain that bin Laden is responsible for this?
And is so, if the Taliban says, "no" ... well, I hope we don't get ourselves involved in the same kind of war the Soviets did when they fought in Afghanistan.
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
The Taliban regime doesn't work that way. You can't coerce them, bribe them, threaten them, or whatever... even if it means total annihilation of their land.
[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
A design for a new WTC was posted at the Slipstream today:
quote: The Taliban regime doesn't work that way. You can't coerce them, bribe them, threaten them, or whatever... even if it means total annihilation of their land.
That can be arranged.
The Russians said today, that they will back any action by the USA, if it comes to Afganistan. I love the irony
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
You do realise, that 90% of Afghanistans' population consists of innocent, oppressed and kept-under-the-thumb civilians... and that blasting the country back to the Stone Age would make us no better than the terrorists. Right?
[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No.
What we have right here is a not-quite-yet-declared war.
We have announced that those who are harboring these terrorists are to be considered our enemies, as well. That's pretty clear.
Enemies in wartime die. That happens. If you want to think of it that way, then the people in NY and DC were the first casualties of that war. Anybody who aids the opposing side in a war is an 'ally' and thusly a legitimate target.
The likelyhood that BinLaden was involved currently is about 95%. With the identification of the terrorists and the current tracing of the links (with some outside help) it appears as though this attack was through BinLaden's people, sponsored by Iraq.
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
So, an illiterate, indoctrinated, and completely ignorant farmer is your enemy too?
Nukes are not the answer. Your quarrel is (possibly, as we still don't know exactly who or what is behind the attacks) with the Afghanian and/or Iraqi governments, not the civilian population.
[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
"In the city of God there will be a great thunder, Two Brothers torn apart by chaos, While the fortress endures, The great leader will succumb. The third big war will begin when the big city is burning."
You know that's a hoax, right?
Posted by My Publically Displayed Name (Member # 256) on :
Yes. But given some of the reactions I've read here, it might be close to becoming reality very soon.
[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: My Publically Displayed Name ]
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Pakistan (one of three countries that acknowledges the Taliban regime) has just reported that it will back up the United States to fight terrorism. Of course, I don't know what that means coming from a country that acknowledges the Taliban.
(if I were the Taliban, I'd either shoot Bin Laden myself or get him the hell out of my country.)
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
The Taliban denied this hours ago. So, unless they've suddenly changed their minds and done so, it's fair to stick this in the "Once again WND comes through for us" file along with the secret plot it reported earlier in the summer that King Adbullah was going to allow Iraq to mount a land invasion of Israel through Jordan.
What we need now is sanity, and even some of the mainstream media outlets, in their zeal, have begun eroding it.
[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: You do realise, that 90% of Afghanistans' population consists of innocent, oppressed and kept-under-the-thumb civilians... and that blasting the country back to the Stone Age would make us no better than the terrorists. Right?
Tell that to the guy who escaped the WTC, only to find out later that his sister and niece were on the flight from Boston, that hit the building, or the man who had two daughters working in the WTC, one of which escaped. The last time anyone saw the second, she was helping others escape from the building. Or tell it to the family of the man who survived the 1993 bombing of the WTC, but has now been missing for 36 hours, and was last seen helping people escape the WTC.
I have no problem with bombing countries haboring terrorist. I was asked yesterday, if that meant that the English should bomb Erie. My responce was that, if the IRA managed to kill 10,000 people at once, Yes.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Eire... If you want to be all smartass and try to use the rarely-used indigenous-language term for a country, please don't confuse a beautiful green island with a polluted lake.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
...and I might add, the Republic of Ireland has been denouncing the acts of the IRA since at least the seventies. For fucks sakes, it imposed internment on them, something the human-rights tribunals are still fretting about. And so if crazy Northern Irish republicans (who, it should be noted to their, erm "credit" (too strong a word, really), never launched terrorist attacks for the sole purpose of creating a large civilian body count) tried to kill thousands of English civilians, Ireland should have been carpet-bombed?
(awaits Liam's return to thread to chide such idiocy)
Think.
[ September 13, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
re: Nostradamus
I'd hardly call New York the "City of God", under any circumstances.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Well, since it's a FAKE ...
I won't even get started that there is no city of God, as there's no God. That's another topic.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
At least, He's not showing His face... ashamed to have been caught napping on the 11th?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
even if bin Laden didnt do this, we still have lots of old beef with him, and the govt may use this as impetus to 'clean house' .. i.e. eliminate any old enemy terrorists sitting around, including but not limited to our bud Osama
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
Oh, yeah, that's it ... it's not like we've never tried to get him before. He's just over in the next building, and we know exactly where he is, we just ain't been motivated enough. It's not as easy as it sounds.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
re: Afghanistan
quote: bomb their country back to the stone age
I'd say they've already accomplished that without our help.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
See, here's what we should do. We should find a section of this country and evacuate it. Then fill it w/ all the people who think it's okay to bomb civilians. Then we can go to war and tell the other side to direct all their bombs at that area.
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
If we do that, how are we any better then the people who thinks its okay to attack civilians?
Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :
GODDMANIT Jeff, he's not being literal!!!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I won't even get started that there is no city of God, as there's no God.
Now weren't you the one who said you were open-minded, and had no firm opinion one way or the other, Mr. MeGotBeer?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Officer's Lounge != theological noodling. Thank you.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: it's not like we've never tried to get him before.
We haven't. Not seriously. Launching cruise missiles at scattered encampments doesn't count. We've never sent anybody after him, never mounted any significant operation aimed at bringing him down. That's what it would take. I hope they hurry, before he tries again.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Weren't Clinton's actions at the time pretty much condemmed by everyone?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Jeff: Well, if we were going to be warring, anyway, we'd just be making sure that the only civilians who get bombed are the ones who have already decided it's okay for themselves, as civilians, to get blown up. The other side would do the bombing, not us. They can refrain if they want. But, if they're going to bomb civilians, we'd just be letting them know where the people who don't mind being killed are living.
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
I dont really remember but i do recall it being a very iffy action on his part.
But I believe that any action taken by the US at this point with teh exception of nuclear weapons would be pretty much accepted by the international community.
Simply put , the terrorists have brought this issue to a whole new level , they have shown the world that they are prepared to act as an army , in a corrdinated , calculated and devious manner to achieve theyre goals. Now they must face the reprecussions as an army.
Now assuming that Afghanistan is harboring the group behind this they are now allies of this army and they must face the reprecussions as if they themselves were behind this.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I think you'll find that the wholescale slaughter of innocent civilians, even with out using nukes, would be universally condemmed by the internation community.
The message most of Europes papers have had is "We're behind you, as long as you don't go too far."
Posted by Obese Penguin (Member # 271) on :
Who said we were out for civilians? Personally i would be outraged if i heard that the US Military was targeting civilians.
An operation like this should be restricted to hostile targets.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Weren't Clinton's actions at the time pretty much condemmed by everyone?
Well, considering pretty well the entirity of his response was to blow up some poor asprin factory in Sudan...
Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :
You know, I don't understand why people are curious why our intelligence agencies didn't pick this up.
The CIA targeted that facility as contributing to Osama bin Laden's efforts.
