How about no, because that's irrelevant to whether or not your rebuttal to counter arguements here was oversimplified.

The al qaeda is run by Bin laden.... who is a millionare.... he does not need the support of any country.... and ousting the Taliban has not stopped thier terrorism.... as such attcking the taliban did not stop them.... so why did we do it... the taliban may have allowed those persons to live within thier country but they did not support them... good old bin laden has more than enough money to support several terrorist factions all on his lonesome..... thanks to american oil money and CIA training......

Also the US had a hand in setting up the Taliban....

So your choice is "evasion."

False. Terrorists need more than money. They need places to stay, places to be trained. They need access to materiel, to intel. They need infrastructure. In short, to be really effective, they need a host nation.

But for the record, your position is that, if a government houses, supports, and directs terrorists, they can do so with impunity and not expect to be deposed, even after 3,000 US deaths? What IS casus belli in your world?

False. This bit of liberal cant has been refuted elsewhere. Short version: the US helped Afghanis oust the USSR in the 1980s. The Taliban came on the scene well after that, in the mid-90s.

And your choice is "personal attack."

Not once did he criticize what you were arguing, only your method of arguing it. You have done nothing to defend your method of arguing, and only have tried to get him to argue your initial premise, which he has refused to do.

Nonsense. He made a cryptic post, which I tried over and over to get him to specify. Since he wouldn't, I can't waste time on all that.

I could do, but if I don't agree with your main point, then my observations on the lacking of any argument in your rebuttals (e.g. Nonsence) is incomprehensible.

... and I make the cryptic posts?

You know, maybe if you weren't so convinced that everything someone says which isn't favourable to you is a massive left-wing conspiracy, you could actually improve.

So this thread went from pointing out links between the oil of Afghanistan/Iraq and Bush to...what?

dgg9 saying non-sequitur, nonsense, leftist and switch and bait a lot whilst using a dead language to look good.

I don't know why he comes here if he doesn't want to discuss things to be honest.

To a documentation of the fact that "links" are in the partisan eye of the beholder.

Well it could be that I'm doing it for my vanity. Or it could be true.

I do want to discuss, which is why it's amusing that no one addresses what I keep saying in post after post, then accuses me of not discussing. No one has yet even addressed my argument of why all this is just more recycled Internet hogwash, i.e., has all the hallmarks of conspiracy theories: the harping on trivial facts but the ignoring of the larger contradictory facts, the unwillingness to admit ALL the implications of buying into the conspiracy theory, the awkward and tendentious need to find malign but unlikely interpretations to unremarkable events, etc.