US to boycott racism conference

[Laerod]

Sudan first. Well in Sudan Bin Laden established his mujahideen operations in Khartoum. The Sudan government learned of his location and talked with Saudia Arabia about his expulsion. Instead of handing him over he was allowed to flee to Afghanistan.

Bosnia and Herzegovina offered Bin Laden citizenship and made themselves a safe-haven for him. (Though he never exploited it.)

In 1998 Bin Laden operating Al-Qaeda out of Albania.

All three have either Taliban or Bin Laden connections.

You're going to need to source these claims for them to have merit.

[Hamiltonya]

Oh and the US doesn't deny it. In fact, there is a inquiry into the Pakistani government in order to find out why they didn't find him.

[Hamiltonya]

Sudan first. Well in Sudan Bin Laden established his mujahideen operations in Khartoum. The Sudan government learned of his location and talked with Saudia Arabia about his expulsion. Instead of handing him over he was allowed to flee to Afghanistan.

Bosnia and Herzegovina offered Bin Laden citizenship and made themselves a safe-haven for him. (Though he never exploited it.)

In 1998 Bin Laden operating Al-Qaeda out of Albania.

All three have either Taliban or Bin Laden connections.

You're going to need to source these claims for them to have merit.

Actually, I don't. These are common knowledge, all have made it on national news at one time or another.

[Caninope]

You're going to need to source these claims for them to have merit.

Actually, I don't. These are common knowledge, all have made it on national news at one time or another.

Then sourcing them should be no problem.

[Laerod]

Oh and the US doesn't deny it. In fact, there is a inquiry into the Pakistani government in order to find out why they didn't find him.

Clear as it gets:

The presence of bin Laden in a military backyard has raised doubts about Pakistan being a reliable partner in the war against terror. The U.S. administration has not accused Pakistan of complicity in hiding bin Laden but has said he must have had some sort of support network, which it wants to uncover.

Sauce

You're going to need to source these claims for them to have merit.

Actually, I don't. These are common knowledge, all have made it on national news at one time or another.

Common knowledge says you made them up on the spot. Prove me wrong if you want.

[Hamiltonya]

Lol Okay, if that's how you want me to provide sources for mine, provide sources for all of your information. Oh and they believe that the "support system" is within the Pakistani government, the same one going to New York.

[Hamiltonya]

http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp
http://europenews.dk/en/node/39946
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/mb/035.shtml

[Hamiltonya]

There's some of my sources. Where are yours?

[Hamiltonya]

Oh and your quote simply says the US doesn't ACCUSE Pakistan of shielding Bin Laden. That does not have any implication towards the US's belief that it's most likely they did.

[Hamiltonya]

You can post some more if you want but I have friends over now, so I'll reply tomorrow and I expect to see your sources as well.

[Kwasbeccastan]

I definitly did not say the Taliban and Bin Laden were the same. I said that Bin Laden was a key member of the Taliban. I never mentioned Al-Qaeda.

And he wasn't.

[Laerod]

Lol Okay, if that's how you want me to provide sources for mine, provide sources for all of your information.

Starting with what?

Oh and they believe that the "support system" is within the Pakistani government, the same one going to New York.

Yeah, but not the diplomatic corps.

[Kwasbeccastan]

Hamiltonya, you seem to be forgetting that at one time the United States had ties to the Taliban. That kind of makes your accusations fall flat. That is to say who care who had ties to whom once upon a time. Nation-states must be judged by the policies of their current administrations and their positions vis-a-vis the policies of their predecessors. Otherwise, on a long enough timeline any country worth a damn could be considered "evildoers".

[Hamiltonya]

Hamiltonya, you seem to be forgetting that at one time the United States had ties to the Taliban. That kind of makes your accusations fall flat. That is to say who care who had ties to whom once upon a time. Nation-states must be judged by the policies of their current administrations and their positions vis-a-vis the policies of their predecessors. Otherwise, on a long enough timeline any country worth a damn could be considered "evildoers".

That's exactly why I listed the 3 countries I did. None of these have had a change in government since the events I have listed. US support for the Mujaheddin was in order to stop Suddam Hussein, not promote terrorism, like the other cases.

[Caninope]

Hamiltonya, you seem to be forgetting that at one time the United States had ties to the Taliban. That kind of makes your accusations fall flat. That is to say who care who had ties to whom once upon a time. Nation-states must be judged by the policies of their current administrations and their positions vis-a-vis the policies of their predecessors. Otherwise, on a long enough timeline any country worth a damn could be considered "evildoers".

Wrong. The Mujaheddin, not the Taliban.

[Hamiltonya]

Lol Okay, if that's how you want me to provide sources for mine, provide sources for all of your information.

Starting with what?

Where did your quote come from?

Oh and they believe that the "support system" is within the Pakistani government, the same one going to New York.

but not the diplomatic corps.

Elaborate.

[Forsakia]

How distinct are the ethnicities of Western Europe really? I think Israel could still exist as a state of Jews rather than one that has a particular ethnicity or religion enshrined in its legal system.

Last I checked, it didn't.

From memory Israel's immigration laws treat Jews and non-Jews differently.

[Andaluciae]

The conferences of the post-Apartheid era haven't really been all that interesting, at least in the combating racism sort of way. There have been some interesting bits, like in 2009 when Ahmadinejad managed to single-handedly troll the entire western world,to the point where everybody either didn't attend, or bailed shortly after the conference had started. It was a classic example of a disaster.

In 2001, for instance, the African and Middle Eastern nations banded together to demand an apology and reparations for slavery from every country that profited from that vile institution. It seems like there's a lot of showboating at the racism conference, which is pretty much not for the best.

[Kwasbeccastan]

Hamiltonya, you seem to be forgetting that at one time the United States had ties to the Taliban. That kind of makes your accusations fall flat. That is to say who care who had ties to whom once upon a time. Nation-states must be judged by the policies of their current administrations and their positions vis-a-vis the policies of their predecessors. Otherwise, on a long enough timeline any country worth a damn could be considered "evildoers".

Wrong. The Mujaheddin, not the Taliban.

That's like saying I'm wrong because I said "President Obama" when referring to things he did as a Senator. You're technically correct but in real world application it's the same dudes. Or whomever among them is still alive.

[Kwasbeccastan]

Hamiltonya, you seem to be forgetting that at one time the United States had ties to the Taliban. That kind of makes your accusations fall flat. That is to say who care who had ties to whom once upon a time. Nation-states must be judged by the policies of their current administrations and their positions vis-a-vis the policies of their predecessors. Otherwise, on a long enough timeline any country worth a damn could be considered "evildoers".

That's exactly why I listed the 3 countries I did. None of these have had a change in government since the events I have listed. US support for the Mujaheddin was in order to stop Suddam Hussein, not promote terrorism, like the other cases.

I'm sure Saddam viewed it as terrorism.

[Laerod]

I definitly did not say the Taliban and Bin Laden were the same. I said that Bin Laden was a key member of the Taliban. I never mentioned Al-Qaeda.

You misspelled the and, but there it is:

Bin Laden was a key member of the Taliban. They are one in the same.

http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_l.asp

I presume this is to support your claims about him in Sudan? Doesn't support your claim that the Sudanese government was involved with him. The closest it comes is saying "his Sudanese hosts", which doesn't specify that this was the government.
The 9/11 Commission report, on the other hand, has this to say on Sudan's involvement with bin Laden:

By the fall of 1989, Bin Ladin had sufficient stature among Islamic extremists that a Sudanese political leader, Hassan al Turabi, urged him to transplant his whole organization to Sudan.

Hassan al Turabi is continuously at odds with the current government of Sudan.

In late 1995, when Bin Laden was still in Sudan, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi government the possibility of expelling Bin Laden. CIA paramilitary officer Billy Waugh tracked down Bin Ladin in the Sudan and prepared an operation to apprehend him, but was denied authorization. U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Laden, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship. Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Laden over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Laden. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding.

They cut him loose and kicked him out. Thus, Sudan was not involved in planning the 9/11 hijackings.

http://europenews.dk/en/node/39946

An accusation that I can't verify through reliable sources from a source with an anti-islamic agenda. You will have to do better than this.
No evidence that Bosnia was involved.

http://www.serbianna.com/columns/mb/035.shtml

The article won't open.

There's some of my sources. Where are yours?

Patience is a virtue. I had to make dinner.

[Baptovia]

The point of a conference is to share ideas, and try and get yours pushed through. Not attending is just dumb.

Obama is probably trying to reconcile with Netanyahu after his 1967 borders speech.

Doubtful. The conference has basically been hijacked by the "It's only racism when Israel does it" crowd. I recall the last one nearly included wording that would have made any criticism of Islam an act of racism. Attending a conference against racism that is being run by racists is the only smart thing to do and it's in line with the precedent set at Durban II.

[Caninope]

Wrong. The Mujaheddin, not the Taliban.

That's like saying I'm wrong because I said "President Obama" when referring to things he did as a Senator. You're technically correct but in real world application it's the same dudes. Or whomever among them is still alive.

It's different. The Taliban, on the whole, is made up of the Mujaheddin we DIDN'T fund.

[Laerod]

Starting with what?

Where did your quote come from?

Are you serious? You didn't see the link right underneath? Reuters.

Oh and they believe that the "support system" is within the Pakistani government, the same one going to New York.

but not the diplomatic corps.

Elaborate.

Elements of the Pakistani intelligence service and/or military are suspected of aiding bin Laden. Not the diplomatic corps that's in charge of representing Pakistan abroad. It's fairly safe to assume that anyone Pakistan is sending was not involved in hiding bin Laden. There is no evidence that the government, as in the country's leadership, was involved in hiding bin Laden and the Reuters article shows the US administration admits as much.

[Hamiltonya]

That's exactly why I listed the 3 countries I did. None of these have had a change in government since the events I have listed. US support for the Mujaheddin was in order to stop Suddam Hussein, not promote terrorism, like the other cases.

I'm sure Saddam viewed it as terrorism.

It doesn't really matter how Saddam viewed it, because the UN had already condemned him at this point. But, if you want to argue that point and protect a monster feel free but don't be angered when others take it as a reflection of your own morals and character. There difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is simply their cause, we get it. You want to appear above the situation, but in reality you look like a fool.