Did he admit that? Because the man on that video in which he allegedly admitted such had noticeably different facial characteristics than Bin Laden in previous videos. To me, the differences are very obvious.

Has anyone ever produced any direct, CREDIBLE evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11? I'm not saying the U.S. planned the attacks by the way - all I'm asking for is evidence that Bin Laden planned it and was the leader of the cell.

So we have the right to invade any nation state in our search for him? And we have the right to kill as many innocent civilians as necessary?

If the police killed 100 people every time they tried to get to one murder suspect, how long do you think they'd keep their jobs? Now, of course you're going to start crying and claim "but international war is different"...blah, blah, blah. It's not different to the families of the innocent people who are killed by U.S. bombs and U.S. soldiers. Of course, you could care less about these people. You must have your vengeance - and to hell with any innocent women or children who get in the way of your blood thirst.



We should have never been giving Mr. Bin Laden any help in the form of weapons. The U.S. created yet another Frankenstein's monster. The CIA created Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I've already given the details on that.

The Soviets could not have maintained an occupation there regardless. Any communist state is destined to collapse because of the inferior economic system. And war is a great stress on an economy. It was simply cold war paranoia on the part of the U.S. - and it was an incredibly stupid paranoia as a war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would have ended with both countries being destroyed.

It's not just Bin Laden. Millions of Muslims don't want us there. And one need not be elected to be seen as a leader with a voice.

And those leaders are corrupt and evil - as I describe in detail here. Their own people hate them. They have no legitimate authority either.

Your "ideas" are completely foolish - and anyone can hear them by listening to Rush Limbaugh on any day of the week. All that proves is that you're thinking like a pill head.

He does have animosity towards them. He just can't do anything about it because those leaders are TYRANTS and we are giving them billions of dollars to supress any dissent from their people.

I fully admit that the Arabs should try and pursue peaceful means. However, the leaders of our "allied countries" in the Middle East are even more apt to violence than the U.S. And the U.S. has said they want Bin Laden "dead or alive." It's not like he has the option of negotiating with those governments now. The U.S. has made its declaration that he is a terrorist - and any government who would negotiate with him at this point would be denounced as sympathizing with terrorists.

He took up a crusade because that is his religious belief. I don't agree with it - but he is citing specific reasons as to why he deems it a crusade. He did later offer a truce - again, with specific requests. And again, the U.S. ignores it and continues its involvement in the region.

You fault Bin Laden for not communicating with national leaders - yet he has tried to communicate - and was ignored.

And the Jews used religion - Zionism - to claim that land when the majority of Arabs in the region voted against the U.N. partition plan. They incited the majority against them - and their religious desire to have that land is what has sparked the conflict in the region.

On the contrary, you must try to mischaracterize my position because you cannot handle the truth. Both sides are wrong in this conflict. Bin Laden is not a hero. He is a criminal. But he is a criminal THAT THE U.S. CREATED. And the U.S. could easily end the conflict by leaving the region, but it will not do so - I believe for reasons of ego and arrogance - and a quest to flex an imperial muscle. What your side will NEVER admit is that the U.S. is not blameless in all of this.

That wasn't worth 1 cent.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer