Really? Well surprisingly for me then, that helps my argument. And yes, you're correct, I haven't haven't taken a good look at the oil situation in reference to the implecations of the invasion for awhile which is unfortunate.
Of course I like playing with words, it's elementary within a analytical context.
Why do we need to assume that he didn't deny it? I don't ever believed that it was concretely proven that he denied it in the first place, and my whole emphasis within the whole range of posts of this subject related to his specific direct or/and indirect acceptance of the allegations.
Your question? I've answered it in plenty of forms, do you not read my posts?
"Cant they just leave a paper saying "We, Al-Qaeda, are responsible"..?? And if they want to make it obvious that it was them, we did Bin Laden deny involvment??"
- "I've already justified that bin Laden did not in general deny involvement, you seemed to have just ignored my point."
"My question is: why go to such trouble when you can come out as simply say 'We did it"."
- "Implecatively, and in general, they are the same for most situations because for the circumstances of that subset, not denying the subject will have a negative affect on their credibility. If it was not bin Laden and he didn't wan't to be known as the culprit, he would of denied it. But he didn't deny it, and according to you, he didn't accept responsibility. But then, why would he not just deny it in a resolutive eloquent way? It seems obvious that he wan't it known in some expressive magnitude, that he was affliated with the planning in some critical fashion.
But this is effectively irrelevant, as my quote was referring to your overlooking of the fact that I had already argued on that bin Laden had effectively implied he was directly involved, since you were quoted as saying that he did deny involvement, after my quote on his non-denials.
So why did they go to all the trouble? I have no idea. But it's fact that they have directly stated that many post 911 attacks on US interests and their subsequent relations were of their planning, and have never afterwards denied their involvement with the 911 attacks. Their ill-priority on denying the involvements with the attacks is the primary point. If they didn't do it, they would fight it out with passion to make it known to the world that they didn't do it. But they seem to just cruise along, with minimal effort in this department."
Please, for the mother of God repeat yourself again with "My original question, for which you HAVEN'T answered yet.."
Coming out and accepting responsibility is a more reasonable way? How can you generalize that for all circumstances? Depending on their intentions, leaving hints may be more appropriate for them. Don't generalize conclusions for the methods of others.
What is wrong with the usage of 'ifs'? Implied dilemmas are a common occurrence in arguments, and is effective in context. You were just talking about 'lets assume this' a few quotes back. That in essence represents an 'if'. I don't see how condoning your own actions will aid your argument.
How does being indecisive about the perpetraitors' motifs disqualify the designation of their identity? This logic is invalid, and the two separate elements implecations are independent.
My point was straight-to-the-point, and in response to your post. Hence if I was not to the point, your precursor posts were also irrelevant. And if my comprehension was incorrect, then you should reclarify your posts with better grammar, spelling and make it more eloquent.
"More to the point, I said that there was no reason in int law coz in fact there isnt. If there is, plz show me."
I.e, what?
Justify it in reference to international law? It was illegal, of course.
Now justify for me, the legality of Iraq's invasion of Iran, before you proclaim the US as the nastiest ultimate wrong-doer, or something perhaps.
.. and?
My bad.
If bin Laden did that, without the bombing, then that would not be terrorism. And I don't create my own definition of terrorism, unlike yourself, the standard definition defines my usages. Not the inverse.
Why not 20 years later? Iraq invaded Iran, and then Kuwait in 90. Bush Sr. was actually very close to the full invasion of Iraq, however he stopped just at the point of halting the incursion, because he very well knew the risks of the post war implecations. Bush Jr, obviously took that risk.
How does my bias become evident, when I've clearly expressed elements of anti-Bush facts? I dismissed your 'personal gains' argument, with an argument of my own. That does not justify bias. If I just said, 'No, that cannot be true, Bush wouldn't do that.. (pause)' and then support it with ragtag irrelevant 'evidence', then you would be fair to conclude a bias. Use bias designation in context, thanks.
Puppet regime? How is that a personal gain for Bush? It would be a strategic element for Western nations/alliances such as Britain, Australia, US etc. Bush doesn't personally gain from this. Maybe he might get a real estate discount for a holiday house in Iraq now or something.. WOW such personal gain.
Bush obviously is aware of the anti-US sentiment within Arab countries, such as Pakistan and Iraq and as such, he should most probably never be able to exercise effective exploitations of his 'puppet regimes' because they are infact, not so puppetish because of these reasons.
Oil, I've already argued upon. Also shelley pointed out that the cost implecations of post-war should actually disadvantage such. Now as an UNbiased person, I won't be assuming this, just because it helps my argument, but I will be looking into it.
Israel faced minimal threats from Saddam, and Bush realized this obviously since he managed to lie to the world about the WMD right?
Of course the US will profit from reconstruction contracts. Contrast that with the eventual net cost of the war though.
Overall, Bush would have to be a complete idiot to invade Iraq just for some gains for the nation.
He used up huge financial, military and bureaucratic resources for the war. Financially, I haven't checked the cost of the war for awhile, so it would be unreasonable for me to pin up the cost. Militarily, thanks to Iraq, the US had to recently engage it's biggest global shift of forces for many decades. Again, this is a tire on the military, on bureaucratic resources and on the coffers.
He risks the election fate, and the election fates of his alliance counterparts.
He risks the increase of anti-US feeling around the world, which is obviously true now. Many, if not most of the population of even alliance nations are anti-war, anti-Bush.
And so on..
Now that was sufficient justification in my subjective opinion, and I can't see how you could conclude me as biased in that respect. I think perhaps you are trigger happy with the bias word.
It's part of most ideologies to in general perform activities for benefit. However there is a difference when you note whether or not it was for 'personal gain'. 'Personal gain' can encompass many aspects. Assuming Bush invaded Iraq solely for the purpose of taking out the regime, and spreading democracy in the region, in which it directly doesn't benefit economically, that could still be subjectively interpreted as personal gain. You've got to be careful when you use the phrase, because fundamentally the subset 'personal gain' of 'benefit' can be subjectively manipulated so that they are equal, and then you'll have trouble.
