"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
"GLOBALIST" wrote in message news:email@example.com...
On Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:55:49 PM UTC-6, Lawrence T. Akutagawa wrote:
/snip - follow the thread/
Post by Lawrence T. Akutagawa
So how is it that being an accessory to 911 absolve the Taliban?
"Taliban-controlled Afghanistan—with previously established connections
between the groups, administered with a shared militancy, and largely
isolated from American political influence and military power—provided a
perfect location for al-Qaeda to relocate its headquarters. Al-Qaeda enjoyed
the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their
Ministry of Defense, although only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United
Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of
While in Afghanistan, the Taliban government tasked al-Qaeda with the
training of Brigade 055, an elite part of the Taliban's army from
Or do we have to fall back on our mindreading powers to understand how it is
that you deem "that the Taliban did not have a damned thing to do with 911"?
And exactly, how pray tell, was John Walker Lindh (one does presume - you
not explicitly identifying him - that Lindh is the "he" you reference)
"happened to be in the wrong place"? After all, Lindh had ample
opportunity not to take arms against the US forces. Specifically, he was in
position to help the US authorities at Qala-i-Jangi and did not. In fact,
rather than admit that he is a US citizen, he claimed to be Irish.
You say, "In my mind it was never established "why" he was considered a
criminal in the first place." Tell us, are you really of the opinion that
someone of US citizenship captured bearing arms against United States forces
in a foreign land is not prima facie a criminal - if not a traitor - against
the United States? Note Linh's own words to the court as per the referenced
Wikipedia article -
"I plead guilty", he said. "I provided my services as a soldier to the
Taliban last year from about August to December. In the course of doing so,
I carried a rifle and two grenades. I did so knowingly and willingly
knowing that it was illegal." "
So how exactly is Lindh a victim of circumstance as you allege? Or do we
again have to put on our mindreading hat to figure out your meaning?
So you naively believe "an admission of guilt" by any defendent, means
he was guilty of the charges. Plea-bargaining at it's best. You are the
judge and jury, in about 10 years
he will be out of jail. He has placated his accusers, who wanted revenge
and so 11+ years we are still punishing Afghanistan, knowing full well that
belonging to the Taliban has nothing to do with al-Quida.
The Taliban are in internal problem and , as usual, we felt the need to
butt in and tell them what we thought they should do. Are all the Irish
Catholic in Northern Ireland , enemies of England?
No one can even surmise where the al-Quida are as we speak. Africa?
Pakistan? Syria? None of those nations want them there.
I support Lindh and his parents and have since day one, realizing
that all our government had in mind after 911 was to show the Americans
that we were going to punish the first person that walked by. REVENGE
....but against who?
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al so
they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
post so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to
do...and have in the past done]
Well...yes. Plain and simple - if you are not guilty, why plea guilty?
After all, the burden in this country is on the prosecution to prove the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on
the defendant to prove himself innocent.
So how is it that you deem that "belonging to the Taliban has nothing to do
with Al-Qaeda"? Where o where are your references/quotes/citations? All
you have provided us with is that mouth and your expectation that your
readers exercise their mindreading prowess.
Are you really of the belief that John Walker Lindh did not bear arms
against US forces? Do you really believe that Lindh helped the US forces at
Qala-i-Jangi ? Again - except for that mouth of yours and your expectation
that we be able to read your mind - where are your
references/quotes/citations to support such beliefs?
I've provide citations to maintain that first - the Taliban is an accessory
to 911 and second - that Linh is indeed a criminal...if not a traitor...in
carrying arms against US forces. Where are your citations to support your
maintaining that the Taliban is innocent of 911 and that Linh is no more
than a victim? Do we really have to reach for our mindreading hats?
"GLOBALIST" - Have you crawled under your rock AGAIN? So where exactly are
the cites/links that support your contention that "the Taliban did not have
a damned thing to do with 911" and that Linh is a victim and not a
criminal - that he did not bear arms against US forces? I've provided links
my contention that the Taliban is an accessory to 911 and that he did bear
arms against US forces. Where are yours? Does all your supporting material
really exist only in that head of yours such that we indeed have to read
your mind for those "facts" which underlie your beliefs?