He was already wanted for a terrorist act. Adding the LAX plot, 9/11, every roadside bomb in Afghanistan, etc, would just be redundant. They simply wrote "is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world," so they don't have to keep adding to the list. They already indicted him in the 90s so there's really no necessity to indict him again in order to get him extradited to the USA. He can be charged when they already have him in relation to his embassy bombing indictment. Anyways, perhaps this link will satisfy you: http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/index.cfm?page=Bin_Laden
This may surprise you, but it would be really hard for me to feel embarassed by an Internet stranger in a foreign country's non-response to a criticism I lodged against him. Perhaps my reaction is an abnormal one.
Oh wow, you used some big words and made absolutely no sense at all, are you proud of yourself? I bet this is a "Zing!" moment for you - like Herb from Two and a Half Men.
Hmm. Even when I was 16, I wouldn't have considered anything I wrote above to be a "big word," and unlike GeekHang I don't live in the country that invented English. Normally I would try to avoid ad hominems but since the text you quoted shows that he is willing to bring up his age for his benefit in an argument, I see no reason why someone shouldn't be permitted to use it against him, too. So, I will say that it explains his inability to argue (even if it doesn't explain his lack of comprehension of the language his country invented).
9-11 is not mentioned there either. Are you categorizing 9-11 as " just another terrorist attack"? 9-11 is still the headline, if they had proof they would have been rubbing it on everyone's face. You're going to be a lawyer, you should know better that in court of law you can't get convection for "another terrorist attacks" without putting specifics on the charge sheet backed up the evidence.
Do you speak for the FBI? If OBL was wanted in connection with the first WTC bombing, they do not need to put one other thing on the warrant. What, you thought the reading of the warrant is the presentation of ALL of the state's evidence? Is that seriously what you are trying to convince us of? Again, you don't speak for the FBI. In practically every high profile criminal trial held in the US, the details of the investigation are not released to the public for fear of tainting the jury. Though that may or may not be the case in this situation, there is certainly no obligation on the part of the FBI for them to present their case to the public prior to issuing a warrant. Rest assured, a federal judge has reviewed the evidence, the details of which neither you or I are aware of. There have certainly been enough announcements from top ranking US government officials, all the way up to the President, making it clear that OBL is wanted in connection to the 9-11 attacks. For you to go on and on making a claim that the FBI has no evidence, in contradiction to their own claims, is once again to claim knowledge you could not possibly have access to. You are either a spy or a liar and a blasphemer.
September 11 is mentioned there, if by "there" you are referring to the State Department link I posted (if not, I am mistaken in this reply). I even quoted where it is mentioned in my previous post, but here it is again: There are a number of reasons why they might not charge him which do not prove that they don't think he did it: -They don't know if he's still alive, so they don't want to get egg on their face by indicting a dead man and finding out later the indictment was useless. They would rather wage a "War on Terror" in general rather than hunt specifically for bin Laden so that there are multiple measures of success rather than one measure of success. That doesn't mean they don't think he did it; it means they aren't sure whether they can catch him or not so they don't want to make it the focus of the war. -They don't want to have to give away national security secrets by trying him for 9/11 since there is currently a war being fought over it. Right now, if they get him, they can try him for the embassy bombings, and if he's convicted, they just got what I presume is a death or at least life sentence in the United States against him (I would have to check the law), without having to reveal any sources used more recently after the 9/11 attacks. However, if they fail to convict, they can then charge him with the 9/11 attacks, and have another shot at convicting him. If they indict him now and catch him afterwards, they have to try him ASAP due to his right to a speedy trial, meaning they would have to give away intelligence secrets that they might otherwise not give if they just tried him on the embassy charges. -The politics of who gets to charge him haven't been decided yet. There will likely be a debate, if he is ever caught on the previous Interpol warrant, over whether the federal government or New York get to prosecute him. It's unnecessary to decide that right now since the United States already has a claim to him through another arrest warrant regarding the embassy bombings. There could be many other reasons about why they have not indicted him for this. If he was not already wanted in the Interpol system for another indictment, you would have a compelling case because one would wonder why the government was not pursuing someone who they claim was behind the attack. As it stands, the government is pursuing him, and there is no reason to believe that if he ever comes into their custody, they will not ultimately decide to try him for 9/11, be it federally or in New York.
After all I said on this thread, this is what Law-Dude managed to get from it: At what point did I say that Bush literally did it all? Just to make myself clear I meant that George Bush orchestrated it all. I used my age to benefit the argument? LMAO I just said that I'm 16 and I don't want to go to prison. Dude, please read the entire thread before posting so you don't read things out of context. I can't argue? *Laughs out loud*. Good luck being a lawyer.
You shouldn't fear going to jail for expressing that opinion. There are a bunch of people who believe the same thing in your country and none of them are threatened with jail for their beliefs. The comment about your age was really a compliment. If you were, lets say, over 24 and still held those beliefs which sadly lack for any evidence, I'd say you are a lunatic. At age 16, you are just young and uneducated, which is not at all uncommon. A word of advice. I would be cautious about expressing that opinion, or any other opinion that completely lacks for facts, in connection with any college entrance or job interview. If Tom Cruise were to openly talk about Xenu and the Alien volcano he believes in, he'd lose 90% of the remainder of his fan base. Its nothing personal, its just that lunacy doesn't sell well with sane people.
I guess you didn't read the full comment when I mentioned my age, that apocalypse guy said hack into the government database - I said I don't wanna go to prison because I'm only 16.
You have yet to say anything in response to what I have written in this thread other than an ad hominem. So, no, you cannot, or at least will not, argue--unless the new standard for argument is referring to television shows and accusing one's opponent of using "big words." (I still await an answer about which word in Post #44 you thought to be a "big word.") And yes, you used your age to benefit you in an argument. You used it as an excuse as to why you would not attempt to do something which would benefit your side of the argument by providing it with evidence in its favour, provided that your side is right. You used your age as the excuse. And, really, if you actually believed that your thoughts about 9/11 were more than a half-assed fantasy, you wouldn't think that you would "go to prison" for hacking the database, for surely the mountain of damning evidence you would find would make you a world hero for pointing out the true perpetrators of the atrocity. Seriously, if you actually believed that NATO was in a war that involved a conspiracy in at least one of its member governments, would you actually be just sitting around at a computer typing about it, maybe going to protests and waving signs (I don't know you but that's the maximum I can imagine you doing--maybe you don't even do that), and that's it? Certainly, for someone who believes that such a great evil occurred, you casually went off to school earlier in the thread. What great conviction you must have in your belief to be typing about what sounds like the most sinister government action in the last couple of hundred years in the English-speaking world, but have to interrupt it with a school break. Shouldn't you quit school and hide in a bunker in a forest somewhere? You never know when or where this conspiratorial government might strike next. It is, after all, if your version of the facts is true, willing to commit any atrocity anywhere.
I'm gonna say something that Apocalypse normally says: Cool story bro. Are you encouraging me to break to law? I thought you wanted to be a lawyer? Also, I would if I could, I'm sorry but I don't think that I'd be able to hack into their million dollar security systems using my Mac. Also, my mother wouldn't be very impressed.
I don't know how what Apocalypse might say has anything to do with me. I am not encouraging you to break the law. The point is that if you actually believed anything you said, you would hack into the database with all of the information. Of course, now you say you can't, and that you would if you could. So, then, the age excuse you used initially is not true. You still have not explained why, if you think that the government is evil enough to conspire to murder thousands of its own citizens, lie about it, and enter a war costing even more lives based on it, you aren't living in a bunker in the woods and abandoning civilization as you know it. Anyways, I still await a response about which word in Post #44 was "big" to you.