China - Taiwan Developments

[capd]

A 40 year old stance by Reagan is relevant today?


When are you going to discuss the topic instead of repeating yourself on different posts? I've seen plenty of people on drugs. You act like a long term user with your enlightenment and operating on a different plane to us mere mortals.

As soon as you stop quoting all of my posts. So unnecessary. Especially after publicly stating that I am "on ignore".

That was not the question. So I'll ask again: Have you taken drugs?

0/13.

 

[Cosmik Debris]

That's my neck of the woods too. STRONG WOMEN!!

Fill yer boots:

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Why should China invade as it's already theirs?

Taiwan disagrees. They say China is theirs...

 

[Nicodeamus]

Since when were those US allies? They're not part of NATO.

I said that the US has a habit of turning their back on its allies when the politics change. NATO is not the only US ally., Israel and the Saudis are US allies and not part of NATO.

Rhodesia and South Vietnam is another good example.

 

[Temujin]

I think if China invades, they're going to find that the USA isn't quite like the Ukraine. And it's not going to end nicely for anyone.
The irony of China asking the USA not to go to a democratically run country...

Like the rest of us, they already know that the beta soy woke cult tiktok generation of the US is nothing like ukraine. It is, after all, their creation and run the algos to rot the west from within and have its weak minded citizens hate their own country, which has worked flawlessly... In a way, US has already been invaded and is losing badly, if came to boots on the ground, majority of 'fighting age' would melt like the beta soy snow flakes they are if called up to war... US has no chance against china unless they nuke nuke nuke

 

[Cosmik Debris]

They were prepared to hand him over and extradite him to a US ally, but the US refused to negotiate with him and went along with the war anyways. In fact that Taliban didn't want him there as he was a Saudi and foreign to the region.

Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover

The Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar agreed three years ago to hand over Osama bin Laden, but changed his mind after US cruise missile attacks, the former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence said yesterday.

www.theguardian.com

Not persuing the extradiction channel when the option was available makes the entire invasion criminal and there is more than enough evidence to suggest that it was an imperialist national building project. (As the US not even willing to take out Ben Laden when they had the chance to do so).

Did you bother with the headline?

Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover in 1998​

When was 9/11 again? It was in 2001 and the 60 nation coalition followed. And why didn't the Taliban hand him over after 9/11? And the handover was from the Taliban to the Saudis in 1998, not the USA Nico. From your source:

The Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar agreed three years ago to hand over Osama bin Laden, but changed his mind after US cruise missile attacks, the former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence said yesterday.

In an interview with the Jeddah-based Arab News and Saudi-owned MBC television, Prince Turki described two secret visits he made to Kandahar, the first in June 1998.

"King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah sent me to meet Mullah Omar to persuade him to hand Bin Laden over to the kingdom," the prince said.

Prince Turki, who was relieved of his intelligence post on August 31, had been closely involved with Afghan affairs since the 1979 Soviet invasion.

There were suggestions at the time of his removal that the US was unhappy about his relations with the Taliban and his failure to secure Bin Laden's extradition.

You always come with half truths Nico and never bother fact checking your sources nor the timeline. Next time read your source and check the historical timeline.

I bet you won't even answer this post as usual when your lies are exposed. But you will repeat the lie again later as you often do.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Did you bother with the headline?

Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover in 1998​

When was 9/11 again? It was in 2001 and the 60 nation coalition followed. And why didn't the Taliban hand him over after 9/11? And the handover was from the Taliban to the Saudis in 1998, not the USA Nico. From your source:

The Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar agreed three years ago to hand over Osama bin Laden, but changed his mind after US cruise missile attacks, the former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence said yesterday.

In an interview with the Jeddah-based Arab News and Saudi-owned MBC television, Prince Turki described two secret visits he made to Kandahar, the first in June 1998.

"King Fahd and Crown Prince Abdullah sent me to meet Mullah Omar to persuade him to hand Bin Laden over to the kingdom," the prince said.

Prince Turki, who was relieved of his intelligence post on August 31, had been closely involved with Afghan affairs since the 1979 Soviet invasion.

There were suggestions at the time of his removal that the US was unhappy about his relations with the Taliban and his failure to secure Bin Laden's extradition.

You always come with half truths Nico and never bother fact checking your sources nor the timeline. Next time read your source and check the historical timeline.

I bet you won't even answer this post as usual when your lies are exposed. But you will repeat the lie again later as you often do.

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.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". 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".

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

9.30pm update: * Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt * Second week of airstrikes starts * Taliban urges US to halt bombing

www.theguardian.com

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Especially after publicly stating that I am "on ignore".

I decide when you're on ignore, not you.

That was not the question. So I'll ask again: Have you taken drugs?

Yes. When medically prescribed.

 

[Nicodeamus]

We don't even know today if Ben Laden was responsible for 9/11 as most of the evidence was extracted under torture.

But Democratic and some Republican senators have called that account misleading, saying simulated drownings known as waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other such practices were cruel and ineffective.

The intelligence committee’s report, congressional aides and outside experts said, backs up that case after examining the treatment of several high-level terror detainees and the information they provided on bin Laden. The aides and people briefed on the report demanded anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the confidential documen

The most high-profile detainee linked to the bin Laden investigation was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused 9/11 mastermind who was waterboarded 183 times. Mohammed, intelligence officials have noted, confirmed after his 2003 capture that he knew an important Al-Qaeda courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed Al-Kuwait
i.t.iti.

Torture, waterboarding failed to extract any key evidence in hunt for Osama bin Laden: U.S. Senate report

The CIA has cited the evidence trail leading to bin Laden's Pakistani compound as vindication of cruel 'enhanced interrogation techniques' authorized after 9/11

nationalpost.com

 

[Cosmik Debris]

I said that the US has a habit of turning their back on its allies when the politics change. NATO is not the only US ally., Israel and the Saudis are US allies and not part of NATO.

Rhodesia and South Vietnam is another good example.

References for the Kurds and marsh Arabs being US allies please?

Lying again Nico? Fact check your sources this time. Don't just post, drop and run.

 

[Nicodeamus]

References for the Kurds and marsh Arabs being US allies please?

Lying again Nico? Fact check your sources this time. Don't just post, drop and run.

The Kurds fought ISIS, the Marsh Arabs were used in the insurgency against Sadam Hussein.


Don't you call that an ally?

 

[Cosmik Debris]

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.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". 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".

Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

9.30pm update: * Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt * Second week of airstrikes starts * Taliban urges US to halt bombing

www.theguardian.com

Once again you neglect the salient points Nico. From your source:

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.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."

See why the offer was rejected? The taliban were protecting the rest of Bin Laden's buddies.

Start reading to comprehend Nico...

 

[Cosmik Debris]

The Kurds fought ISIS, the Marsh Arabs were used in the insurgency against Sadam Hussein.


Don't you call that an ally?

Nope. Allegiance is formal treaty. Not handing over some weapons to useful people. References for that allegiance please.

I told you that you have no clue of the military. You clearly demonstrated it again...

 

[Nicodeamus]

The Kurds – a bitter history of betrayal

Donald Trump has given the green light for a Turkish invasion of Kurdish territory. He’s not the first US leader to turn his back on this ethnic group

www.theguardian.com

In 1990 Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait turned him back into an American enemy. A US-led force pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and the George Bush administration encouraged Iraq’s Shiites and Kurds to rise up against Hussein’s regime. Iraq’s southern uprising was crushed, but resistance in the north, followed by the imposition of a no-fly zone by western forces led by a UK initiative, allowed the creation of an autonomous Kurdish zone which became an autonomous republic. This ultimately failed as they got no US support and were routed when the Iraqi army regrouped.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Once again you neglect the salient points Nico. From your source:

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.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."

See why the offer was rejected? The taliban were protecting the rest of Bin Laden's buddies.

Start reading to comprehend Nico...

No they asked for the evidence. Which is reasonable.
Then later they said that they would hand him over, Bush didn't want to negotiate with "terrorists". He kept bombing.

 

[Nicodeamus]

President Bush rejected an offer from Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to a neutral third country yesterday as an eighth day of bombing made clear that military coercion, not diplomacy, remains the crux of U.S. policy toward the regime.

"They must have not heard: There's no negotiations," Bush told reporters on the White House South Lawn after returning from Camp David. That brusque dismissal came on a day when Attorney General John D. Ashcroft warned in television appearances that nearly 200 people with potential links to the Sept. 11 attacks -- some of whom he believes are probably terrorists themselves -- remain at large in the United States.

Administration officials also said they have no evidence linking the discovery of small amounts of anthrax in three states to bin Laden's al Qaeda network, or to terrorists of any variety. But Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said law enforcement authorities are acting on the assumption that anthrax-tainted letters were sent by someone with terrorist designs. "It certainly is an act of terrorism to send anthrax through the mail," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/10/15/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-on-bin-laden/bc0ec919-082b-40e6-91ca-55e5ca34a70a/

First offer: provide evidence
Second offer: we will hand him over to a neutral country.
US response: keep bombing and killing innocent civilians.

As for the ICC ever punishing those for the warcrimes that the US commited.

The announcement dealt a blow to victims, human rights advocates, and those who had placed in the ICC their last hope to see the crimes committed by U.S. personnel and officials prosecuted in a court of law. While many Afghans welcomed the reopening of a case that they hope will preserve the international community’s scrutiny of the newly installed Taliban government, they warned that the decision would threaten the credibility of a court that has long faced questions about its ability to take on the world’s most powerful countries.

“This just proves one more time to Afghans that international mechanisms do not value their life when foreigners are involved and international forces are involved,” Shaharzad Akbar, who chaired Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission until the Taliban took control of the country in August, told The Intercept. “This decision reinforces the perception that these institutions set up in the West and by the West are just instruments for the West’s political agenda

Afghan lives obviously matter less than the lives of those who killed them.

How the U.S. Derailed an Effort to Prosecute Its Crimes in Afghanistan

The International Criminal Court’s decision to “deprioritize” a probe into crimes by the U.S. and its allies came after years of U.S. obstruction.

theintercept.com

 

[Cosmik Debris]

We don't even know today if Ben Laden was responsible for 9/11 as most of the evidence was extracted under torture.

Torture, waterboarding failed to extract any key evidence in hunt for Osama bin Laden: U.S. Senate report

The CIA has cited the evidence trail leading to bin Laden's Pakistani compound as vindication of cruel 'enhanced interrogation techniques' authorized after 9/11

nationalpost.com

Deflection Nico. Plenty of evidence. You don't search for 10 years for someone that is not wanted. And he was taken out by a democrat government. Bush was republican. Why didn't Obama drop the case if there was no evidence?

And why are your sources that support your viewpoint always owned by fraudsters and conmen:

Chatham Asset Management, a New Jersey-based hedge fund, holds a significant equity stake in Postmedia and majority ownership of American Media Inc., which owns the National Enquirer. David Pecker, who owns American Media, Inc., joined the Postmedia board and then resigned from the board of Postmedia in 2018 due to his hush payments on behalf of his “friends,” including President Trump and Harvey Weinstein.

Note your source is 2014 and repeated in 2015?

National Post - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Nicodeamus]

Deflection Nico. Plenty of evidence. You don't search for 10 years for someone that is not wanted. And he was taken out by a democrat government. Bush was republican. Why didn't Obama drop the case if there was no evidence?

And why are your sources that support your viewpoint always owned by fraudsters and conmen:

Chatham Asset Management, a New Jersey-based hedge fund, holds a significant equity stake in Postmedia and majority ownership of American Media Inc., which owns the National Enquirer. David Pecker, who owns American Media, Inc., joined the Postmedia board and then resigned from the board of Postmedia in 2018 due to his hush payments on behalf of his “friends,” including President Trump and Harvey Weinstein.

Note your source is 2014 and repeated in 2015?

National Post - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

The national post is a conservative canadian newspaper. Similar to the Wallstreet Journal.

And no there is still no evidence today. Obama didn't drop it, because the whole US establishment was sold on the story.

The USs goal in Afghanistan was regime change. That became clear as soon as they got a foothold. Benladen was the convenient excuse to go in.

Even during the course of the war there was an opportunity to get him in Torra Bora, the establishment wasn't interested.

We Really Did Have a Chance at Bin Laden | Brookings

Opinion by Michael E. O'Hanlon, Tampa Tribune (10/31/04)

www.brookings.edu

 

[Cosmik Debris]

US response: keep bombing and killing innocent civilians.

The US didn't target civilians. Source for that please? The civilians were killed by the warlords of the Afghans.

The reason for the bombing also mentioned already in your source:

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."

The choice was the Taliban's. They chose their future.

Start reading my replies Nico.

 

[Nicodeamus]

The US didn't target civilians. Source for that please? The civilians were killed by the warlords of the Afghans.

The reason for the bombing also mentioned already in your source:

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."

The choice was the Taliban's. They chose their future.

Start reading my replies Nico.

They asked for evidence, after the bombings stopped the make a second offer to get him to a neutral country. It still continued.