US to boycott racism conference

[Hamiltonya]

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:

Really, you're going to correct spelling? That shows you can't find anything better.

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

That could be misinterpreted but what I mean was supporting a terrorist or terrorist organization is one and the same. You took it out of context. Go back and look at the discussion at that time.

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.

It's implied. You're just nitpicking now because you can't find any true evidence. You definitely quote a later part of the source that says it was the government. The part about them expelling him to Saudia Arabia. Yeah, that part.

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.

Your source is wikipedia. It's unreliable. Plus your quote says current government of Sudan. Not the government at the time Bin Laden was there.

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

I never said Sudan was directly involved with the 9/11 hijackings, but they did support the man who would later plan the hijackings.

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.

Your source was wikipedia. You will have to do better than that.

No evidence that Bosnia was involved.

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

The article won't open.

I can repost it. Just google something along the lines of bosnia and herzegovina Bin Laden passport. You'll find a source.

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

Patience is a virtue. I had to make dinner.

Okay, well you still haven't provided sources.

[Hamiltonya]

Where did your quote come from?

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

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.

I'm going to use your own argument. How do I know that source doesn't have a pro-islamic agenda? You'll have to do better than this. I'm not arguing that the individuals going to New York are personally involved. That would be idiotic. Some countries going to New York will be the same ones involved with terrorism which lead to the 9/11 attacks. These are countries that share anti-Semitic views. If history repeats itself, they will take over the racism conference and we don't want a, practically, pro-Islam conference occurring during 9/11 in the same city it happened in.

[Laerod]

Okay, well you still haven't provided sources.

Everything you asked me for. The quote from Reuters is the only thing you demanded something for and it's right there in the post where the quote is. I've sourced just about everything in the post you just quoted as well.

To claim I haven't provided sources is to lie.

[Laerod]

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

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.

I'm going to use your own argument. How do I know that source doesn't have a pro-islamic agenda?

By realizing that Reuters is a well-renowned news agency that is one of the primary providers of news to news outlets all over the world and stakes its reputation on being able to provide reliable information free of bias or skewed portrayal of facts.

You'll have to do better than this.

Than Reuters? No, no I don't.

I'm not arguing that the individuals going to New York are personally involved. That would be idiotic. Some countries going to New York will be the same ones involved with terrorism which lead to the 9/11 attacks.

If you stretch the definition of "involved with" really, really far. Fact of the matter is, you couldn't provide a reliable source that linked any country to Osama bin Laden during the planning of or after the September 11th attacks. Ergo, the claim that countries involved with terrorism which lead to the 9/11 attacks is idiotic. Sudan is the only country that seems to have supported him officially, but they cut him loose when he started to target Arab leaders. This happened long before 9/11 and you can't claim that Sudan is actually responsible for it.

These are countries that share anti-Semitic views. If history repeats itself, they will take over the racism conference and we don't want a, practically, pro-Islam conference occurring during 9/11 in the same city it happened in.

What? There's nothing inherently wrong with a pro-Islam conference in New York city what-so-ever, when-so-ever.

[Hamiltonya]

Okay, well you still haven't provided sources.

Everything you asked me for. The quote from Reuters is the only thing you demanded something for and it's right there in the post where the quote is. I've sourced just about everything in the post you just quoted as well.

To claim I haven't provided sources is to lie.

Wikipedia doesn't count as a source. It's unreliable, anyone can change it, and it's not very well moderated.

[Chrobalta]

Apartheid is totally cool if it gets Washington's seal of approval.

[Hamiltonya]

I'm going to use your own argument. How do I know that source doesn't have a pro-islamic agenda?

By realizing that Reuters is a well-renowned news agency that is one of the primary providers of news to news outlets all over the world and stakes its reputation on being able to provide reliable information free of bias or skewed portrayal of facts.

I'm not talking about the Reuters link. I'm talking about the ones you backed with wikipedia.

You'll have to do better than this.

Than Reuters? No, no I don't.

Yes, yes you do. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

I'm not arguing that the individuals going to New York are personally involved. That would be idiotic. Some countries going to New York will be the same ones involved with terrorism which lead to the 9/11 attacks.

If you stretch the definition of "involved with" really, really far. Fact of the matter is, you couldn't provide a reliable source that linked any country to Osama bin Laden during the planning of or after the September 11th attacks. Ergo, the claim that countries involved with terrorism which lead to the 9/11 attacks is idiotic. Sudan is the only country that seems to have supported him officially, but they cut him loose when he started to target Arab leaders. This happened long before 9/11 and you can't claim that Sudan is actually responsible for it.

Oh my lord, Second time now, If I have to tell you a third then I will start calling you retarded or insane. I never stated that Sudan was directly related. You're nitpicking again. By involved with you know quite well I mean nations whose current administrations have supported terrorism.

These are countries that share anti-Semitic views. If history repeats itself, they will take over the racism conference and we don't want a, practically, pro-Islam conference occurring during 9/11 in the same city it happened in.

What? There's nothing inherently wrong with a pro-Islam conference in New York city what-so-ever, when-so-ever.

There is if this conference is lead by terrorist-supporting countries, attacking Israel.(verbally, I'll tell you now so you won't nitpick again.)

[Laerod]

Everything you asked me for. The quote from Reuters is the only thing you demanded something for and it's right there in the post where the quote is. I've sourced just about everything in the post you just quoted as well.

To claim I haven't provided sources is to lie.

Wikipedia doesn't count as a source. It's unreliable, anyone can change it, and it's not very well moderated.

Wikipedia most definitely counts as a source. It's reliability wavers, but if something is wrong, you can disprove it by showing that the sources used to make the statements are unreliable. Needless to say, this is a bit of a strawman. The only thing I sourced directly from Wiki was who Hassan al Turabi is. The 9/11 commision report quotes come directly out of the 9/11 commission report. And if you want to dispute that al Turabi isn't what wiki says he is (or as I claimed, at odds with the government of Sudan), find a reliable source that says so.

[Hamiltonya]

Wikipedia doesn't count as a source. It's unreliable, anyone can change it, and it's not very well moderated.

Wikipedia most definitely counts as a source. It's reliability wavers, but if something is wrong, you can disprove it by showing that the sources used to make the statements are unreliable. Needless to say, this is a bit of a strawman. The only thing I sourced directly from Wiki was who Hassan al Turabi is. The 9/11 commision report quotes come directly out of the 9/11 commission report. And if you want to dispute that al Turabi isn't what wiki says he is (or as I claimed, at odds with the government of Sudan), find a reliable source that says so.

It's not my job to provide your source. Like you made me provide sources I won't yours. You agree that Wikipedia's reliability fails, so provide me with a different source.

[Mushet]

Yeah, I think the US is right to boycott the conference. It sounds like a bunch of whiney Arab countries attempting to find an excuse to attack Israel. It's clearly a waste of the US's time. Plus, racism is a state of mind and can't be banned. It's like telling someone you can't have your opinion and that's starting to sound a little dictator scary. Racism isn't what you should try to stop, it's discrimination. Who cares if someone thinks that people are lesser because of the color of their skin? As long as they don't act upon that belief, I personally, wouldn't care.

I say we just ductape all the racists of different races together, they'll eventually overcome their differences or die, a win either way, and it'll help prove my theory that ductape can solve all problems

[Hamiltonya]

Yeah, I think the US is right to boycott the conference. It sounds like a bunch of whiney Arab countries attempting to find an excuse to attack Israel. It's clearly a waste of the US's time. Plus, racism is a state of mind and can't be banned. It's like telling someone you can't have your opinion and that's starting to sound a little dictator scary. Racism isn't what you should try to stop, it's discrimination. Who cares if someone thinks that people are lesser because of the color of their skin? As long as they don't act upon that belief, I personally, wouldn't care.

I say we just ductape all the racists of different races together, they'll eventually overcome their differences or die, a win either way, and it'll help prove my theory that ductape can solve all problems

Hahaha, yes please.

[Laerod]

Working through this again due to me missing it because of your quote-fail:

You misspelled the and, but there it is:

Really, you're going to correct spelling? That shows you can't find anything better.

No, it shows you can't spell. I wasn't actually using that as an argument against you.

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

That could be misinterpreted but what I mean was supporting a terrorist or terrorist organization is one and the same. You took it out of context. Go back and look at the discussion at that time.

Fucking ridiculous. I came to a very reasonable interpretation of what you said based on the context.

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.

It's implied. You're just nitpicking now because you can't find any true evidence. You definitely quote a later part of the source that says it was the government. The part about them expelling him to Saudia Arabia. Yeah, that part.

You're the one that needs to explicitely prove your claims.

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.

Your source is wikipedia. It's unreliable. Plus your quote says current government of Sudan. Not the government at the time Bin Laden was there.

Wow. I suppose this is as good an admission of ignorance on the subject as I'll get from you.
1. The quoted passage is from the 9/11 report, not Wikipedia.
2. The statement about Hassan al Turabi is the only thing I'm sourcing from wiki, which is a sufficiently reliable source unless you can show me the article has been manipulated.
3. The quote mentions the current government of Sudan, as headed by Omar Bashir. Who has been in power since 1989. Which is when bin Laden was there. Critical research failure on your behalf.
4. I'm not even sure why you would have wanted to make that point. If the government was different from the one when bin Laden was there, it completely sinks your claim that the government of Sudan was involved in terrorism linked to him.

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

I never said Sudan was directly involved with the 9/11 hijackings, but they did support the man who would later plan the hijackings.

They kicked him out and stopped working with him well before he worked on that. They have nothing to do with the hijackings.

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.

Your source was wikipedia. You will have to do better than that.

You will need to learn how to disprove a wiki article before you can pull that line.

No evidence that Bosnia was involved.

The article won't open.

I can repost it. Just google something along the lines of bosnia and herzegovina Bin Laden passport. You'll find a source.

Took a while, but it opened. It's hilarious. Was that supposed to support your claim that Albania harbored him? It's about Kosovo.

[Aurora-Nova]

I'm pretty sure the US, and its Canadian lapdog with it, did this the last time such a conference was held. Doesn't surprise me. As an anti-Zionist, however, it does piss me off. Zionism is racist in nature, and crying 'antisemitism' every time someone criticizes it does nothing but create a situation where real acts of antisemitism are hidden behind the façade the Israel lobby has created around the issue of Zionism.

[Laerod]

Wikipedia most definitely counts as a source. It's reliability wavers, but if something is wrong, you can disprove it by showing that the sources used to make the statements are unreliable. Needless to say, this is a bit of a strawman. The only thing I sourced directly from Wiki was who Hassan al Turabi is. The 9/11 commision report quotes come directly out of the 9/11 commission report. And if you want to dispute that al Turabi isn't what wiki says he is (or as I claimed, at odds with the government of Sudan), find a reliable source that says so.

It's not my job to provide your source. Like you made me provide sources I won't yours. You agree that Wikipedia's reliability fails, so provide me with a different source.

Wrong:

Wikipedia survives research test
The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows.

The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy.

If you want to cry foul, show that the statements in the article about him being arrested by the Bashir government are wrong.

[Mediterreania]

Once again, Israeli interests trump America.

[Kreanoltha]

Wow, I never thought I'd agree with Obama on anything. Go Obama! Anyway these sorts of conferences never accomplish anything. All they do is waits taxpayer money and make some nice headlines for yellow-journalism factories.

[Ragnarsdomr]

Once again, Israeli interests trump America.

Because, y'know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is totally verifiable fact. I mean, last week, I looked out my window and there were seventeen Jewish elders plotting just in my backyard!

[Mediterreania]

Once again, Israeli interests trump America.

Because, y'know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is totally verifiable fact. I mean, last week, I looked out my window and there were seventeen Jewish elders plotting just in my backyard!

Because, y'know, Israel has never done anything racist, and y'know, if we don't agree with someone we should just close our eyes and yell "lalala, I can't hear you!"

[Ragnarsdomr]

Because, y'know, Israel has never done anything racist, and y'know, if we don't agree with someone we should just close our eyes and yell "lalala, I can't hear you!"

Maybe they should be upfront and call it the 'Conference to End Israel', then, if that's the point. Otherwise, it might be nice to talk about more than just how evil the Jews are, and how the Holocaust never happened.

[Mediterreania]

Because, y'know, Israel has never done anything racist, and y'know, if we don't agree with someone we should just close our eyes and yell "lalala, I can't hear you!"

Maybe they should be upfront and call it the 'Conference to End Israel', then, if that's the point. Otherwise, it might be nice to talk about more than just how evil the Jews are, and how the Holocaust never happened.

Zionism =/= Judiasm.

Second of all, no one is denying that the Holocaust happened.

[Mediterreania]

Because, y'know, Israel has never done anything racist, and y'know, if we don't agree with someone we should just close our eyes and yell "lalala, I can't hear you!"

Maybe they should be upfront and call it the 'Conference to End Israel', then, if that's the point. Otherwise, it might be nice to talk about more than just how evil the Jews are, and how the Holocaust never happened.

My problem is not with Judiasm, but with the state of Israel.

Ehud Olmert's "formula for the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem."
-Source

[Kreanoltha]

Because, y'know, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is totally verifiable fact. I mean, last week, I looked out my window and there were seventeen Jewish elders plotting just in my backyard!

Because, y'know, Israel has never done anything racist, and y'know, if we don't agree with someone we should just close our eyes and yell "lalala, I can't hear you!"

Yeah, and the US never has either. In fact there was no US before the 1960s. Seriously though, sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils. Israel is the best thing we have going in that region. At least they aren't advocating genocide.

[Kreanoltha]

Maybe they should be upfront and call it the 'Conference to End Israel', then, if that's the point. Otherwise, it might be nice to talk about more than just how evil the Jews are, and how the Holocaust never happened.

My problem is not with Judiasm, but with the state of Israel.

Ehud Olmert's "formula for the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem."
-Source

Two things. There is no reason for Israel to withdraw. As stipulation of the treaty that ended the Six Day War, Israel gained that territory. We, more so than any-other nation I should think, should know what it is to gain territory through conquest.

Also, dividing Jerusalem is bullshit. Remember how well a divided Berlin worked? These guys hate each other even more than East and West Germans did.

[The Black Plains]

Every prior conference has had two agendas:
A: Punish Israel.
B: Punish America.

The world's nations have become so petty in their hatred of America, it's almost funny.

[The Black Plains]

Maybe they should be upfront and call it the 'Conference to End Israel', then, if that's the point. Otherwise, it might be nice to talk about more than just how evil the Jews are, and how the Holocaust never happened.

My problem is not with Judiasm, but with the state of Israel.

Ehud Olmert's "formula for the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximize the number of Jews; to minimize the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem."
-Source

Because those last conditions are BULLSHIT.