WHEN is Bush going to produce EVIDENCE???

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Bush the idiot bully has sent thousands of young American soldiers to the Afghanistan region to put on a big show of military muscle. The Taliban has said they will turn over Bin Laden if they are given conclusive evidence. Is Bush just going to send our soldiers in to bomb and kill innocent people to get one man without having any proof? If he attacks innocent people without proof, there will be counterattacks right here in America. If he does this, the blood will be on HIS hands.

-- (bush the manchild @ is. a psycho), September 30, 2001

Answers

"Make no mistake about it, we won't negotiate! (that includes providing any evidence)"

-- Dumbya (the@NWO.idiot), September 30, 2001.

Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence. Negotiation? That's for pussy liberal wimps, doncha' know? We got ourselves a whomp-ass Texas-size Christian crusade and the little boy with the big toys is gonna' go out and fuck around with the whole wide world and he doesn't give a shit what anybody thinks. Within days after our first military barrage in Afghanistan - whether we nail bin Laden or not - there will be counterattacks. To hell with the "collateral damage" on either side of the ocean, Bush means Business, dammit (stomp, stomp, stomp) and he's determined to get his way like any other spoiled, naive child.

When the WTC was hit, bin Laden essentially said "Neener, neener....come and get me.....catch me if you can" because he was baiting us to walk into his trap. He pushed all the right psychological buttons and yanked on his puppeteer strings and we responded just as he expected. Don't think for a minute that he doesn't already have Phase 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. in place just waiting to be unleashed after our first military strike. Enjoy the calm before the storm 'cuz it ain't gonna' last long.

-- Batten (Down@Hatches.com), September 30, 2001.


U.S.: No Negotiations With Taliban

By Ronald Powers Associated Press Writer Sunday, Sept. 30, 2001; 11:39 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON –– The Taliban said Sunday they have Osama bin Laden under their control, but a conditional offer to negotiate his fate with the United States was quickly rejected by the White House.

"The president has said we're not negotiating," White House chief of staff Andrew Card said on "Fox News Sunday." "We've told the Taliban government what they should be doing. They've got to turn not only Osama bin Laden over but all of the operatives of the al-Qaida organization. They've got to stop being a haven where terrorists can train."

Meantime, Attorney General John Ashcroft offered a chilling reminder about the threat of more terrorism in this country.

"We believe there are others who may be in the country who would have plans," Ashcroft said on CBS "Face The Nation." "There is a very serious threat of additional problems now."

Taliban leaders said bin Laden is in a secret location and that they are willing to negotiate with the United States if it provides evidence he was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

"He's in Afghanistan," said the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. "He is under our control. Wherever he is, he's in a secret place but that doesn't mean that he is out of the control of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. He's in a place which cannot be located by anyone."

Zaeef criticized the United States for failing to provide evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. "They have provided no evidence but they want the man," he said.

-- (binladen@convenient.scapegoat), September 30, 2001.


"He's in a place which cannot be located by anyone."

Then he is no longer on this planet.

-- Lying (fucking@towel.heads), September 30, 2001.


Fifteen of the hijackers have ties to Florida.

-- maybe (the@evidence.veers), October 01, 2001.


Don't think for a minute that he doesn't already have Phase 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. in place just waiting to be unleashed after our first military strike. Enjoy the calm before the storm 'cuz it ain't gonna' last long.

Of course he does. And he will unleash them in due time regardless of whether we retaliate--unless our "retaliation" puts him out of business totally (I include rounding up his in-place US network in "retaliation").

IMO "retaliation" is the wrong word. It conjurs revenge, tit for tat, etc. I think we are beyond that. We are at war with someone(s) and it won't be over til someone(s) is defeated.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 01, 2001.


The bush-hater, who posted this thread, couldn't tell 'evidence' if it bit him on the butt. Yeah, Osama is just a peace loving kinda guy who wouldn't hurt a fly. He's not responsible for this.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 01, 2001.

Blair 'has seen proof' that bin Laden is guilty By George Jones, Political Editor (Filed: 01/10/2001) TONY BLAIR said yesterday he had seen "absolutely powerful incontrovertible evidence" that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington.

He voiced confidence that while the struggle would be lengthy, America and its allies would be able to locate bin Laden and close down his terror network.

Mr Blair signalled his readiness to commit British forces to any American-led military action against the terrorist networks and sought to prepare the public for the possibility that these forces could suffer casualties.

While he faced a big responsibility, he said, it was more difficult for the troops, who were expected "to go and put their lives on the line".

Mr Blair said it was a tremendous strength to have the dedication and professionalism of the British Armed Forces behind him.

Interviewed on BBC Television's Breakfast with Frost programme, the Prime Minister was asked whether he had seen evidence against bin Laden that would stand up in a British or American court.

"I have seen absolutely powerful, incontrovertible evidence of his link to the events of September 11," he said.

However, there was a question over how much of it could be made public "because much of this evidence comes to us from sensitive sources, from intelligence sources".

Mr Blair insisted that it was possible successfully to hit the terrorist networks. "We can certainly eradicate the bin Laden network and we should do that. And I think we can take huge measures and steps against terrorism if we have the international will," he said.

"If we treat this as a fundamental evil in our world, a new form of mass international terrorism that can wreak absolute devastation and havoc in a country like America, if we consider the threat that that poses, then I am sure that we can take action against it and be successful in the action that we take."

He underlined his previous warnings to Afghanistan's Taliban rulers that they must hand over bin Laden and close down his training camps or face the possible overthrow of their regime.

"If they are not prepared to give up bin Laden, which they could do if they wanted to, then they become an obstacle that we have to disable or remove in order to get to bin Laden, so that is their choice," he said.

"It is not as if we set out with the aim of changing the Taliban regime, but if they remain in the way of achieving our objective - namely that bin Laden and his associates are yielded up and the terror camps are closed - then the Taliban themselves become our enemy."

Labour's national executive declared yesterday that the fight against the "cancer" of terrorism following the September 11 atrocities must be a long-term global effort including appropriate military action.

Meeting ahead of the party's annual conference in Brighton, the NEC agreed a statement on terrorism which will form the basis of a debate to be held tomorrow.

The statement declared: "Just as terrorists operate without borders, so the fight against terrorism needs to be a global one.

"Only a true coalition of the civilised world offers a real chance of cutting out the cancer of mass terrorism."

It urged the Government to work with Britain's allies in the United States, Europe and elsewhere to seek out those who were responsible for the attacks and ensure they were brought to justice.

But in in pursuing the perpetrators of these atrocities, military action, where appropriate, must be "measured, effective and focused".

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 01, 2001.


You fucking liberal cocksuckers. All the evidence we need is laying in the streets of NYC. And you worried about the innocent people that will die fuck them! As I recall the people in the WTC building, the pentagon, and on the airplanes were all innocent. If you want to protest what bush is doing goto afghanistan and stand on a street corner and protest. Who knows maybe we will get lucky and take your ass out.

-- Bosco (Bush_Is_the@man.com), October 01, 2001.

Hey Bosco, has it ever occurred to you that maybe your brain has been replaced by a pile of shit? I think it is a good possibility. Go to your doctor and ask them to do an MRI or a CAT scan. I think they will find a big stinking pile of crap in there where your brain used to be.

-- (yes@it's.true), October 01, 2001.


http://www.number10.gov.uk/news.asp?NewsId=2686

how much evidence do you need before you say someone is guilty? it the terrorist did not intend to kill the people in the WTC then why didn't they do the job at night when the building was closed?

so the only way to prove guilt is when it is happening and someone has a knife in their had as they are stabbing you.

-- TheTruth (thetuth@me.com), November 14, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ