Manchild,

“Cultural differences should be celebrated”? That sounds terrific. Fantastic. Even noble. Yet you make it abundantly clear that only those who think as you do are welcome.

You, Sir, are a hollow fraud and a bigot. Peddle that weak crap somewhere else. LMAO…........

Note: Learn this well, Oh foolish child. One cannot pretend to be kind and noble. One must live it. One must teach by example!

johannes, October 29 at 6:05 am #

To Ardee,

Are you absolutely sure, that people are every where the same in the world, that we have all the same needs yes, but that we are the same NO.

Vive le difference!

People are the same in that they all aspire to the same needs, share many of the same goals and deserve the same treatment, the same justice, the same opportunity. Cultural differences should be celebrated.

Manchild,

You need to learn to read. LOL…I wrote nothing of the kind.

Your worthless!

I must admit, Thomas has th ecorrect response for such as you…..blah.

First you state that the Taliban made no such offer…right on this thread in black and white..Then you say they reneged after being bombed…jackass.

You may post what you wish, ignoring garbage like you is the only real response.

Manchild,

Man up and graciously admit you’re wrong. You’ll have other opportunities to be “Right”.

BEFORE bombing! After Bombing!.....LMAO

“We won’t hand him over to America UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. It is our stated policy,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010530/aponline063147_000.htm

Taliban Reneges On Offer To Extradite Bin Laden
Apr 3, 2001 ... Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban militia will not extradite suspected ... measures last December to pressure the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, ...
http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20010403/13845_story.asp
Sep 22, 2001
“We won’t hand over bin Laden”, say defiant Taliban
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1341340/We-wont-hand-over-bin-Laden-say-defiant-Taliban.html.

“Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers will not hand over Osama bin Laden”.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

This is what was happening AFTER bombing began.

“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

“Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden.
After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

manchild, ardee.

I’ll keep this simple for you.

1. BEFORE bombing. AFTER bombing.
2. Your first link does not support your view.*
3. You assume a great deal. You see things in writing that are not actually there.
4. You missed a wonderful opportunity to display some intellectual strength, integrity and the ability to learn something new.

*Talk about cherry picking what you want. DAYUM!

I stand by both links, while too right to be believed cannot stand at all, as he dwells under a rock.

From the first link…excerpts.
In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”.

The offer came a day after the Taliban’s supreme leader rebuffed Bush’s “second chance” for the Islamic militia to surrender Bin Laden to the US.

Mullah Mohammed Omar said there was no move to “hand anyone over”.

Afghanistan’s deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

“If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved” and the bombing campaign stopped, “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”, Mr Kabir added.

But it would have to be a state that would never “come under pressure from the United States”, he said.

ardeechild,

LOL….your first link completely refutes your reading of these events and the second (partisan CounterPunch) outlines a single individual’s account of events in support of your view. You choose to ignore the DOZENS I’ve directed you toward and lean on the one. LMAO

As I’ve said. Your Worthless and wholly dishonest if you can’t admit you’re wrong on this.

After all your high minded self righteousness everyone here now understands what kind of person you are. Priceless! LMAO…........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

George Bush, the man whose prime campaign plank has been his ability to wage war on terror, could have had Osama bin Laden’s head handed to him on a platter on his very first day in office, and the offer held good until February 2 of 2002. This is the charge leveled by an Afghan American who had been retained by the US government as an intermediary between the Taliban and both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Kabir Mohabbat is a 48-year businessman in Houston, Texas. Born in Paktia province in southern Afghanistan, he’s from the Jaji clan (from which also came Afghanistan’s last king). Educated at St Louis University, he spent much of the 1980s supervising foreign relations for the Afghan mujahiddeen, where he developed extensive contacts with the US foreign policy establishment, also with senior members of the Taliban.

After the eviction of the Soviets, Mohabbat returned to the United States to develop an export business with Afghanistan and became a US citizen. Figuring in his extensive dealings with the Taliban in the late 1990s was much investment of time and effort for a contract to develop the proposed oil pipeline through northern Afghanistan.

In a lengthy interview and in a memorandum Kabir Mohabbat has given us a detailed account and documentation to buttress his charge that the Bush administration could have had Osama bin Laden and his senior staff either delivered to the US or to allies as prisoners, or killed at their Afghan base. As a search of the data base shows, portions of Mohabbat’s role have been the subject of a number of news reports, including a CBS news story by Alan Pizzey aired September 25, 2001. This is the first he has made public the full story.

By the end of 1999 US sanctions and near-world-wide political ostracism were costing the Taliban dearly and they had come to see Osama bin Laden and his training camps as, in Mohabbat’s words, “just a damn liability”. Mohabbat says the Taliban leadership had also been informed in the clearest possible terms by a US diplomat that if any US citizen was harmed as a consequence of an Al Qaeda action, the US would hold the Taliban responsible and target Mullah Omar and the Taliban leaders.

ardeechild,

We must give credit where credit is due. There are groups out there that tend to see things your way. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/tali-o16.shtml

Then there’s the following. Do your best to follow along. REMEMBER: Before bombing! AFTER bombing!

[PDF]
UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES Quick View
over the territory of Afghanistan under Taliban control and expanded the ... time limit on the arms and financial sanctions over Usama bin Laden and Al-Qaida, ... take the necessary steps to increase cooperation between the United ...
http://www.un.org/.../Information package - 2009.08 - English.pdf

“Taliban Again Refuses to Hand Over bin Laden”
Oct 12, 2001 ... The Taliban envoy to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Satam Zaeef laughed away Bush’s offer.. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200110/12/eng20011012_82122.html

Online NewsHour: “Taliban Won’t Hand Over bin Laden”
May 29, 2001 ... Taliban leaders called the ruling “unfair,” and said they would never hand over bin Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire whom U.S. ...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/may01/embassy_5-30.html

“Taliban reject clerics’ call to hand over bin Laden” - Asia, World ...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-reject-clerics-call-to-hand-over-bin-laden-752136.html

“Taliban maintains refusal to turn over bin Laden”—dailypress.com http://www.dailypress.com/news/national/sns-worldtrade-taliban-chi,0,2325274.story

“Taliban refuses to hand over Bin laden” http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/011020/2001102010.html

“Taliban won’t give up bin Laden even if proof”-paper
Reuters | 10/04/01 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/539340/posts

“UN sanctions against Taliban”: Indian perception of Pak-US motives-http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/un-sanctions-against-6341.html

FCN Interview with Taliban Ambassador- http://news.indiamart.com/news-analysis/un-sanctions-against-6341.html

“Taliban reject ‘second chance’ offer” | The Russia Journal - http://www.russiajournal.com/node/7608

I could go on for hours of you wish. My question is this….. Will you Man Up and admit you know nothing about this subject?

ardeechild, - Try to follow along. BEFORE bombing! AFTER bombing!

Taliban Won’t Hand Over Bin Laden
Associated Press
Wednesday, May 30, 2001; 6:31 a.m. EDT

KABUL, Afghanistan –– Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban on Wednesday said the conviction in New York of four men for the bombing of U.S. embassies was “unfair” and VOWED NEVER TO HAND OVER Osama bin Laden.—“We won’t hand him over to America UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. It is our stated policy,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010530/aponline063147_000.htm

Taliban Reneges On Offer To Extradite Bin Laden
Apr 3, 2001 ... Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban militia will not extradite suspected ... measures last December to pressure the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, ...
http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20010403/13845_story.asp

Sep 22, 2001
“We won’t hand over bin Laden”, say defiant Taliban
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1341340/We-wont-hand-over-bin-Laden-say-defiant-Taliban.html.

“Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers will not hand over Osama bin Laden”.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/world/main310852.shtml

This is what was happening AFTER bombing began.

“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

“Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden.
After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

Will the manchild, ardee, ever tire of being wrong? Or is manchild LYING….LMAO.

Go away young man once again demonstrates he knows nothing whatever about his subject matter:

Set aside the fact that the Taliban was being resoundingly pummeled, and would have said anything to make it stop at the time,

The dialogue between the Taliban and the US concerning Osama bin Laden took place before any American troops were on the ground in Afghanistan. But thanks, yet again, for proving how worthless and ignorant your opinions usually are.

ardeechild,—“As soon as you stop laughing you can explain why you are positive that the offer from the Taliban, detailed and explicit as to the conditions involved in said turn over were false.”

I never make claims of being positive of anything. As far as I can tell that’s one of the biggest differences between us. I like to stay within the realm of the real word. Not the television world you covet.

Set aside the fact that the Taliban was being resoundingly pummeled, and would have said anything to make it stop at the time, we can do some actual historical research and see for ourselves the 2001 Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, from his own mouth, explain how the offer was never intended to be real. According to him the offer was an attempt to make the bombing end, regroup and solicit the sympathy of the world community.

Saying things that suite your purpose obviously comes easy to you.

And let me point out again how you MUST be lying. If you weren’t lying though your south hole you would agree with ME…..LMAO.

Sepharad, October 31 at 7:22 pm

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your words, Sepharad as ever. My concerns are regarding those who seek, not truth, not honest debate, not solutions, but to obfuscate and place ideology and rote learning before thinking, before compassion, before truth, before justice, before everything.

This ‘farrightandworthless’ person does not seek to debate he seeks to sledgehammer his memorized and unsupportable views upon everyone. He seeks, I think, to make debate harder , to keep people from arriving at commonality. A perfect example is his refusal to explain why he believes that Taliban offer is less than genuine, and does so in rather sophomoric fashion at that. Just obfuscation at work, attack the messenger when you cannot attack the message.

That self interest is not unique, that we are kept, at least in part, apart because of such as this is moot of course. That some of us strive to overcome it, with fact, with logic and with reason, and with occasional passion and displays of disgust at the most egregious examples, like this guy for example is also moot.

I thank you for reminding me of the ultimate goal.

ardee, People are all the same in their physical needs and in the basic desires that meet those needs. Apart from individual psychological conditioning and nurture, all the rest is cultural, and all cultures are not even close to being the same. I think that NOT recognizing the differences between peoples and cultures accounts for some of the most ghastly blunders, the most tragic misunderstandings and subsequent actions, and the stunning apathy that some people display in the face of outright evil when and where it occurs.

Only if we understand that we are not all the same can we develop the recognition that to be the Other is not to be bad—just different. Then, and only then, with a realistic grasp of our differences, can we begin to explore where our common interests lie and how we might coexist and cooperate based on those commonalities without trampling on one another’s differences.

Go Right Young Man, October 30 at 7:22 am #

ardee—“I actually had to wait until I stopped laughing”

Freak ....LMAO

As soon as you stop laughing you can explain why you are positive that the offer from the Taliban, detailed and explicit as to the conditions involved in said turn over were false.

Keep laughing turd for brains.

ardee—“I actually had to wait until I stopped laughing”

LMAO….this from the clown who believes the Taliban’s offer to hand over bin Laden was legitimate.

Freak ....LMAO

Will an inexperienced Barack Obama, in the fashion of Harry Truman, learn quickly that the world is chaotic and unstable — best dealt with through strength and unabashed confidence in America’s historic role galvanizing democratic allies to confront illiberal aggressors?

I actually had to wait until I stopped laughing in order to respond to this bewildering bit of balderdash….Nope still laughing…maybe later….. unabashed confidence…oh stop!....historic role in galvanizing ..I just cant ... really, stand up comedy great stuff…..

$300 billion is what we*ll spend in Afghanistan to occupy and kill Afghans.
We could have given or spent $10,000 on every man,woman ,and child and
rebuild their their country and culture with that same $300 billion.

Dear Sir Pistolata,

I as an Historian, can only agrè with you about the facts of the killing religions, if you take a look again I havent used the name of Islam.

But on the other hand its so dammed onhuman every day people geth blowen to peaces, its so shameful for the so called civilized world.

Will an inexperienced Barack Obama, in the fashion of Harry Truman, learn quickly that the world is chaotic and unstable — best dealt with through strength and unabashed confidence in America’s historic role galvanizing democratic allies to confront illiberal aggressors?

Or will a sermonizing Mr. Obama follow the aberrant Democratic path of the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter: finger-wagging at allies, appeasing enemies, publicly faulting his less than perfect predecessors, and hectoring the American people to evolve beyond their supposed prejudices?

America awaits the president’s choice. The world’s safety hinges upon it.

To Ardee,

Are you absolutely sure, that people are every where the same in the world, that we have all the same needs yes, but that we are the same NO.

Sepharad, October 29 at 1:16 am

People are the same, worldwide. Thus programs that bring clean water, electricity, roads, schools,economic prosperity to those people pull them from the radicals who bring death and rigid ideologies.

And those programs are far cheaper than military action too.

This bad murderes people, their spirits are without reason, they still have the evil genius of the cave people, their so called enlighted religion is pulling them down in an sensless swamp, of killing out name of God.

ardee—a guest on a PBS talkshow this a.m. said “If you’re looking for Mother Theresa, she isn’t in Afghanistan.” I think that’s the assumption we have to go with, whether we are talking to warlords or Taliban. Karzai’s brother grows opium and is in cahoots with the CIA, the Taliban grows opium and is not. Agree that we should remove most of our troops and try to make a deal with the Taliban, but once our troops are gone there’s no way anyone is going to do any infrastructure let alone nation-building. If the people of Afghanistan want a viable alternative to warlords and religious extremists, they’re going to have to do it without us. Think I posted on a different thread that the least we should do is help Afghanis who want real education and a better life for their children emigrate to the U.S. but my husband said that would only drain the country’s society of the only people who wanted to change it. On reflection, have to agree with him—also with Tom Friedman’s column in today’s NYTimes. Whatever we thought, whatever we wish, the changes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East are going to have to be crafted and implemented by the people who live there. We can help them once they decide what they want to do, but we can’t change their societies and circumstances for them.

The US should have finished off Al Qaeda when they had the chance ..... and then cut and run leaving the rest up to the Northern Alliance. 
    Using limited CIA and Special Forces in support of the Northern Alliance was a smart approach.  Beefing up with regular military after that was not-so-smart. 
  Critics like Joe Scarborough are now calling the use of “targeted drones” to zap Taliban and Al Qaeda suspects as potential war crimes - the gripe is that this is “indiscriminate bombing”.  So how can “targeted” and “indiscriminate” both be used in the same critique ?
Maybe Clinton had the right idea when he was tossing occasional cruise missiles in from long distance.

Where are those immortal words,“mission accomplished”?

Better yet, where are the prosecutions for lying us into an unwinnable war? Yes, I am aware that the invasion of Afghanistan was a popular , perhaps even a necessary ( that is not my opinion only a bone to those who may believe that) act. I would have taken the Taliban up on their offer to turn bin Laden over but water under the bridge and all that.

Lets talk about now. With the general population of Afghanistan, and Iraq, considering the uptick in violence there as well, more concerned with American troops on their soil than the presence of radicals among them, a military solution seems more remote each day.

With the Karsai govt about as corrupt as it gets, with his power and authority pretty limited to Kabul, we seem painted into a corner. Those who suggest more and more and more troops seem to have failed the test of history.

I suggest we remove all our troops, perhaps attempting a deal with the Taliban, not so far fetched actually, and then use civilian assistance to give the people of Afghanistan a viable alternative to radicals and war.

Of course no one is listening…...