Iran Cracks US Stealth Spy Drone’s Secrets, Shows Proof

[Zinegata]

Yes, I'm sure the Taliban wanted to be crushed under the empire's iron heel. They probably wanted to have their cake and eat it too, but sadly for them, the War on Terror wasn't even a little bit about justice, so we weren't willing to meet them in the middle where everyone may have won. It was and is about revenge. We wanted to kill and torture Muslims to make them pay for what their brothers did that day, and weren't going to let things like evidence, law, or peace get in the way.

Actually, it's pretty obvious that the Taliban thought they could get away with it; which is why they made is sound reasonable yet it completely and utterly falls apart upon closer inspection to anyone but a complete and utter moron like you.

Again, the Taliban had terrorist training camps. Did the Taliban address this issue at all? Nope. Because there are idiots like you who think it's just about Bin Laden.

Again, note how they wanted Bin Laden tried in a Shariah law court, as opposed to a proper International Court like the Hague. Saying the world is gonna get a fair trial from a court that is so jilted by religious intolerance and bias is bullshit.

And again, only a complete idiot would believe these are signs of good faith.

I'm sorry, but I thought this was America, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the accused have rights, even if their counsel says stupid things.

This is what is so sad about 9/11. We let the terrorists win and still didn't learn anything from it.

No, what is so sad is that after 11 years retards like you are still spouting the exact same lies.

The Taliban can't demand evidence and then turn around and make sensational (and untrue) claims that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and that 4,000 Jews had warning about the plot. That only demonstrates that your standards of evidence are in fact fucknuts; and this is the sort of standard of evidence we can expect from their courts.

Which isn't surprising because the Taliban are again a bunch of shitheads who giggle at blowing up World Heritage Sites and stoning women to death.

Moreover, it's not "America" who asked Bin Laden turned over. It was the United Nations, and they demanded he be turned over since 1999 by a unanimous resolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... ution_1267

So again, this fiction about the US not having any right to demand Bin Laden be turned over is just that - fiction. It was invented by a bunch of religious intolerant fuckheads, believed only by idiots, and propagated only by idiots.

[MKSheppard]

Yes, I'm sure the Taliban wanted to be crushed under the empire's iron heel. They probably wanted to have their cake and eat it too, but sadly for them, the War on Terror wasn't even a little bit about justice, so we weren't willing to meet them in the middle where everyone may have won. It was and is about revenge. We wanted to kill and torture Muslims to make them pay for what their brothers did that day, and weren't going to let things like evidence, law, or peace get in the way.

You know, if what you claimed was true; then on 9/12/2001, B-2A 82-1068 Spirit of New York would have opened the festivities with a grand tour of Afghanistan with a brace of party favors designated B-83 or B-61.

There certainly was a national mood for something like that, as witnessed by this old meme that was circulating shortly after 9/11:

[Zinegata]

9/11 was in 2001.

No, you're getting it ass backwards.

The United Nations had been demanding Bin Laden's transfer to custody since 1999.

So anyone who says it was all about "bloodlust" in 2001 is ignoring the fact that Bin Laden was already a wanted criminal before then. And not just by the United States, but by a unanimous United Nations Security Council vote. Are you gonna accuse fucking Gabon of wanting Osama's blood two years before 9/11?

Also, you're a fucking moron who says "economic sanctions are evil", while at the same time ignoring that "allowing terrorists to train in your country" is evil.

In fact, what you fail to acknowledge is that if the Taliban had in fact handed over Bin Laden and shut down the terrorist camps in 1999, there would be no sanctions. There would be no starving children. There would be no 9/11. There would be no countless people killed in multiple wars. They are directly responsible for all these deaths, because again they're a bunch of intolerant religious fuckheads who blow up World Heritage Sites for shits and giggles.

But given that you have proven double standards, none of this is surprising. You're just a brainless recording repeating "America is evil. WAAAH".

[Zinegata]

Which obviously had nothing to do with the actions on September 11, 2001, which is what we specifically used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.

A prior allegation also does not prove that he had anything to do with 9/11.

Uh, dude. Check the resolution again. Notice "terrorist training camps" in the resolution bit? Notice the terrorist training camps bit in the 2001 resolution? The two things are linked. if you cannot admit this, then you are an idiot.

If Bin Laden had been handed over in '99 there wouldn't be 3,000 dead on 9/11.

So is brainwashing poor kids and putting them in a uniform to kill people. There's very little difference between a terrorist, a freedom fighter, and an occupying soldier. They all do bad things.

Oh, so instead of actually admitting that terrorist camps are bad you go "WAAAAH, the military is evil!". Do you realize how completely irrelevant that is?

Every nation except... actually there are no almost no exceptions. Every country in the world has a military. Even Switzerland.

The difference is that not all of them are training to hijack planes full of innocent people to crash into buildings.

Except of course you're a retard and you literally just put the Taliban on the same level as the Swiss Army.

If we change our behavior, we can start to change the hate.... which can actually end terrorism rather than just delay or move it.

The root problem behind terrorism is hate.

The solution to hate is not more killing. Violence begets more violence.

The solution is love, peace, and understanding.

LOL. Well, at least you're advocating pacifism, which I can respect.

But you're not gonna achieve that by blatantly lying about the Taliban's culpability. The Taliban and Al Qaeda aren't pacifists or some innocent victims. They did, in fact, plot to commit mass murder and no amount of bullshit moral equivalency games is gonna change that. They need a dose of "change" and realize they should stop hating too. Handing over Bin Laden in 1999 could have been a step to do that. They didn't take that step.

Because again, they're seriously a bunch of intolerant fucknut religious fanatics.

[Aaron MkII]

The thing is scale. AQ has no ability to wage war other then bombings and 9/11 type stuff. Where as the military has the ability to kill hundreds of innocents a day just through normal operations.

One is a deliberate type of evil, the other is a more casual/blaise type.

[HMS Conqueror]

There have been repeated threats in Western media that military action may be taken against their nuclear facilities, and Israel HAS taken such action in the past (such as bombing Iraq's reactor)... OH noes taking precautionary measures against attack by forces who have threatened them = teh evil!

Iraq did have a nuclear weapons programme.

Fuel enriched to ~5-20% is necessary for powerplants.

PWR uses 3.5% enriched uranium. CANDU uses natural (unenriched) uranium. If Iran simply bought CANDUs and exported the waste, the whole issue goes away. But that assumes their only goal is to make civil powerplants.

They have refused international offers to provide them with fuel and reactors that cannot be used to produce bombs, and to dispose of the waste (something that would otherwise cost them a lot of money) afterwards.

Why should they have to be reliant on the good graces of others years into the future other than "we westerners don't trust dem brown people"?

Because we don't trust them, and we have 15 aircraft carriers. Why should a civilian not be able to own a nuclear bomb, and instead be reliant on the government for military protection?

They have developed ballistic missiles whose primary purpose for every other country that has developed them is the delivery of nuclear weapons. They have acted in the way that every legitimate nuclear power has acted when they developed their own bombs.

So primary purpose = only purpose? What kind of retarded logic is that? Not to mention many nations have owned and operated many ballistic missiles without seeking nuclear warheads for them. A perfect example was the V-2 which was developed and put into operation before nuclear weapons even existed.

Nazi Germany had a bomb project running alongside V-2.

This of course forgets the fact that ballistic missile programs have legitimate dual-tech purposes such as say a space program, you know, like the one Iran has...

rofl

Space is the secondary use; often it has been an explict cover for bomb delivery research, eg. in India, Japan and Korea.

They have furthermore hidden and hardened their facilities, which the legitimate nuclear powers have not needed to do.

Cause when someone threatens to break into your house and steal your TV you totally don't buy a security system or make any preparations... Also which 'legitimate nuclear power' has a neighbour that openly threatens military action against their program and has done so to others in the past?

More like when the cops threaten to come and take your collection of home made bombs you bury them in the back yard. It's so unfair, all you wanted was to have a load of bombs in your house without those pesky white people and their "laws" interfering! Boo hoo!

[Aaron MkII]

But CANDU's?


Our illustratious PM has been shooting off his mouth about Iran being a threat. So I understand their desire not to be beholden to any of us.

[Aaron MkII]

That said, I would totally be behind that plan, if Harper wasn't an assclown.

[HMS Conqueror]

But CANDU's?


Our illustratious PM has been shooting off his mouth about Iran being a threat. So I understand their desire not to be beholden to any of us.

If they bought CANDU they wouldn't be a threat!

The point is their actions do not match their words, and they have an obvious incentive to lie.

[Aaron MkII]

See at this point we probably wouldn't sell them any, because of our PM'S desire to get involved in shit that is none of our business. And so goes the viscous circle.

[Zinegata]

The thing is scale. AQ has no ability to wage war other then bombings and 9/11 type stuff. Where as the military has the ability to kill hundreds of innocents a day just through normal operations.

One is a deliberate type of evil, the other is a more casual/blaise type.

True, but I'm pointing out that if you're a real pacifist, you have to decry all kinds of violence. You can't cherry pick between big or small.

Again, the contention is that the Taliban sincerely wanted peace because they "offered to hand over Bin Laden". I refuted this by showing this was not true. It was actually just nothing more than a Taliban propaganda effort to try and paint themselves as peace-loving pacifists harboring an innocent man, when they in fact run a monstrous regime based on religious intolerance, murdering innocent people in foreign countries in the name of a Holy War, and that the United Nations had already ordered them to hand over Bin Laden and to shut down the terrorist camps based on existing evidence in 1999.

I'm not arguing about the US military's actions. And I'm not denying they can be on a different scale. But what I'm arguing against is this lie that the Taliban wanted peace in 2001. They didn't want peace, it was just a propaganda effort.

Finally, and I'm jumping the gun here: Whether that justifies military action or not is a different matter which I will not touch because that's a murkier area - But again from a pacifistic perspective, Bin Laden and the Taliban definitely needed a lot of "change". They needed more "peace and love" and less hate. They had to stop blowing people up. They didn't. Instead they tried to lie and claim they were a peace-loving nation harboring an innocent man.

[Phantasee]

They couldn't buy CANDU's because our government has convinced itself Iran is a thread, you idiot. They don't get a choice to buy them. How are they wrong to try a different route when we've closed the door on them?

[Zinegata]

That's basically my point... if it is OK for us to have militaries, it ought to be OK for Afghanistan to have one too, even if they do the specifics a little differently than we do.

Simple equality.

Switzerland's army does not go outside of its borders to shoot anyone, so again your comparison of AQ to the "any" military is simply insane. But again, what's emerging is that you don't actually believe in peace and love, do you?

The point here is the United States didn't actually prove that before acting!

No, the point is that the Taliban weren't sincere in their desire for peace.

Again, I'm not talking about whether or not military action was justified. All I'm talking about is how credible the Taliban offer to hand over Bin Laden was. And for the last time: It was nothing more than a propaganda ploy by a regime of intolerant fucknuts to make them seem like a bunch of peace-loving people keeping an innocent man safe, when they were in fact a bunch of psycopaths who believe in things like "Holy War" and actually went out to kill innocent people for shits and giggles.

In short, ff you believe the Taliban were sincerely peace-loving people trying to avoid conflict, you're a fool.

And what's really emerging is that you're not really a pacifist. You're just another anti-American hiding behind pacifism to justify your own blatant double standards. If America kills someone, it's evil. If the AQ does it, then it's "Self-defense just like the military". Even though AQ and the Taliban explicitly say that it's in the name of Holy War and religious intolerance.

Which is a shame, because peace and love for all men is a good thing, but it keeps getting hijacked by people who have other agendas. You're no believer in love and peace.

[atg]

Iraq did have a nuclear weapons programme.

So?
Israel claims that Iraq has a nuclear program, bombs facilities. Israel claims Iran has a nuclear bomb program threatens to bomb their facilites...
Iranian leadership would be insane not to take any precautions of civilian nuclear facilities.

PWR uses 3.5% enriched uranium. CANDU uses natural (unenriched) uranium. If Iran simply bought CANDUs and exported the waste, the whole issue goes away. But that assumes their only goal is to make civil powerplants.

Others have pointed out why thats a political no-go. However another point to consider is that CANDU style reactors IIRC have higher up-front costs which maybe Iran and others don't want to pay?
CANDU reactors also produce tritium. A substance used in Hydrogen/boosted nuclear weapons. I'd wager that even if Iran tried to get CANDU's someone in the West would start screaming that Iran was aiming for h-bombs...

Also as pointed out research/medical reactors need up to 20% enrichment anyway.

Because we don't trust them, and we have 15 aircraft carriers.

So might makes right?

The USSR didn't trust the USA during the Cold War, guess that means they had the perfect legal right to bomb American nuclear facilites?

Nazi Germany had a bomb project running alongside V-2.

IIRC the German ballistic missile program was started around 1936... whilst the nuclear program wasn't started until 1939... guess the rocket designers could see the future?

More like when the cops threaten to come and take your collection of home made bombs you bury them in the back yard. It's so unfair, all you wanted was to have a load of bombs in your house without those pesky white people and their "laws" interfering! Boo hoo!

For your analogy to be correct Iran would have to have an active nuclear weapons program or nuclear weapons. Prove it.
Also thanks for confirming you think Israel/USA have the right to be the world police.

[Zinegata]

Peace would mean they win: the attack stops and their regime survives. Why wouldn't they want that?

We are not talking about rational people here. Again, this is a regime that believes in Shariah Law. They think homosexuals should be put to death. They think that you get virgins if you blow up some innocent people in the train.

This is why you get the insanity of "demanding evidence against Osama", and then at the same time accusing the Jews of bombing the World Trade Center. They are not rational people.

When someone hates you, you can't change that by making one-sided demands, pushing them around, cutting off their food, or killing them.

Firstly, again, we're talking about people who think homosexuals should be put to death as a matter of religious law - even before the sanctions.

What have homosexual people ever done to the Taliban? What kind of concessions should they give to the Taliban? Should homosexuals apologize to the Taliban for being homosexuals? Should homosexuals kill themselves because the Taliban says "Our holy laws say your very existence is a crime and you must die"?

Again, it's blatantly apparent that you are blind to any evil except American evil; making you a false pacifist. You don't believe in peace and love at all. You're just using it as an excuse to fuel your own blatant double standards.

Pacificism only works if you decry all violence.

[Zinegata]

al Qaeda are defending their brothers from foreign imperialism, including counter-attacks on strategic targets (with bonus revenge). Wouldn't any military in the world do the same?

Blatant lies, which again shows you don't believe in peace and love. All you're saying is that it's okay for Al Qaeda to commit violence.

And no, the Swiss Army doesn't go out of their country and shoot up people who wronged them.

That's no excuse for us to refuse to show evidence for our accusations (to "humor them" as I said in a previous post).

Again, no. The UN had already mandated his arrest since 1999. Your bullshit argument that evidence must be presented is meaningless given he has an existing warrant issued not just by America, but by the United Nations.

They're not. Doesn't mean we can't strive to that standard.

Sorry, but that doesn't excuse your apologism for Al Qaeda. If you believe in pacifism, everyone must be held to the same standards.

This has nothing to do with the American situation. They don't hate us because we're gay

No, but I'm demonstrating that the Taliban are not a sane and rational regime.

So again, let me repeat, because you evaded the question: Can the Taliban be considered a sane regime given that they subscribe to religious law, which believes homosexuality is a crime that can carry the death penalty?

Yes or no. Answer the question. Are they a sane and rational regime, or not?

[Zinegata]

Are you kidding me? When countries are invaded, they and/or their allies almost always strike back.

You're failing to realize that the lie is.

The lie is the idea that Al Qaeda was defending their Muslim brothers. They weren't. Their stated goal was to spread their Shariah Law intolerance to all over the Muslim World. They were delusional conquerors. They weren't fighting for anyone, they were trying to conquer the Mideast and playing propaganda games.

That is why AQ's participation in the Arab Spring (which is arguably the event that truly "freed" the Arab world from an anti-imperialism perspective) was nearly nil. Giving the people of the Middle East a truly indpendent liberal democracy was not part of their goals.

AQ weren't defending anyone, much less their Muslim brothers. They were trying to conquer them; needing to get rid of existing pro-western governments that have dominated the Mideast was just one of the goals on the path to their ultimate goal of Shariah Powah.

If you're saying though that America used the opportunity of 9/11 to push some pre-existing agenda... well, I can probably agree with that.

Yeah, because Gabon totally had a secret pre-existing agenda in 1999 too. Neo-Con shenanigans aside, the UN was already calling for Bin Laden's head in '99. Asking for due process when an existing warrant is already out is silly.

Yes, of course. That's why I called you a racist with an anti-religious bias when you suggested otherwise.

Okay. Destructionator XIII believes that religious intolerance is perfectly acceptable and rational. You believe that killing homosexuals as part of religious law is also perfectly acceptable and rational. As long as it's not "us".

And that if you disagree, you're a racist and an anti-religion SDNer, because you have no right to judge "them".

That's pretty sick dude.

BTW, here's some religious law for you. Take a gander at Exodus 20:13 or Matthew 7:12 some day.

Oh sure, there's some intolerant stuff in there too. That's the point of NOT applying them as part of your legal code - they have no place in a rational or sane government.

[Zinegata]

The stated motives for 9/11 were burning towers in Lebanon, sanctions against Iraq, support for Israel, and American troops in Saudi Arabia.

So, you're so smart and see through US Government press releases, but don't see through the AQ agenda? LOL.

No, no, no. If we wanted bin Laden due to the '99 warrant, why did we wait until late 2001 to go get him?

No, you idiot. You're demanding evidence. I said asking for evidence was irrelevant because based on the existing evidence the United Nations had already issued a warrant for other terrorism charge.

I'll just mark this as "concession accepted" because you're seriously just lying now.

No, that's not what I said. The fallacy you're making is saying that holding one belief means they can't make any rational decisions.

Yes it was. I asked you: Do you believe that the regime is sane and rational when they pursue policies based on religious law?

You said "Yes". You then called me a racist.

Now you're what you actually meant is that the Taliban were sane SOMETIMES.

Wrong. Again...

Why does being homophobic or religious mean they can't make rational military or diplomatic decisions?

Because when they were making the diplomatic moves, they were still making unsubstantiated accusations that 9/11 was a Jewish plot. And that 4,000 Jews had advanced warning and didn't go to work that day. Which is nothing more than anti-Jewish religious intolerance on their part.

Again, is that a sane counter-accusation? Nope. Is it based on any real evidence? Nope. Is it rational? Nope.

And again, this accusation was made in the midst of their supposed peace moves.

Nothing they did indicates any sanity. It was an insane regime of intolerant fucknuts from start to finish.

[fordlltwm]

No, you idiot. You're demanding evidence. I said asking for evidence was irrelevant because based on the existing evidence the United Nations had already issued a warrant for other terrorism charge.

So a UN warrant allows you to invade a country and instigate regime change to find one man? Seems a little over the top to execute a single warrant.

[Ryan Thunder]

You can not want to be bombed and still be unacceptably irrational.

[SpaceMarine93]

They're not developing nuclear weapons.

A search warrant would need probable cause, and there's no credible evidence of it. Even the IAEA report people point to only says it is probable that they could if they wanted to and some technology might have dual use... but it shows no active effort toward a weapon since 2003 (a program that was controversial inside Iran).

Note that the Supreme Leader of Iran banned any nuclear weapons program, believing that the weapons are tools for killing innocent people, which is a sin in Islam.

BTW, there is a country in the Middle East that has not signed the NPT, does not allow inspectors in, and has a pile of nuclear weapons.... this country also routinely commits human rights violations, including genocide, assassinations, restricting freedom of movement, maintaining a naval blockade on another peoples, and commits outright invasions and occupations of its neighbors.

But, this country faces very little push back from the United States, and indeed has our backing for almost everything they do.

What's up with this?

It's called realpolitik. Despite people still being naive enough to believe in maintaining moral high ground and upholding human rights, at the end of the day only this mattered in international politics.

The US won't care if the Iranians are being truthful in not developing nuclear weapons. They won't care if Iran is not a real threat. So long as their interests in the Middle East showed even the SLIGHTEST possibility of being threatened they would do everything to oppose Iran and grind it down. If innocents gets in the way, well, tough luck.

It's all about power. POWER. It's unfair, but it's how the world works.

And even if you insist on maintaining moral high-ground, Israel would still get away with it; people might despise the actions of the CURRENT Israel government, but if they have to choose between the borderline-fascist state of Israel and a theocratic-false democracy of Iran they would choose Israel.

(And you honestly think that the Supreme Leader of Iran's ban on nuclear weapons development would last? Religious leaders often had a reputation throughout history of going back on their own words and beliefs out of necessity and power. Mark my words, it won't last)

[Simon_Jester]

You can not want to be bombed and still be unacceptably irrational.

Even if someone deserved to be bombed*, they would still not want to be bombed. And they might say whatever they thought would help them avoid being blown up.

Hell, if I thought someone was going to drop a bomb on me, I'd probably sing like a bird trying to talk them out of it, whether what I was saying made sense or not, and whether I deserved it or not. Almost anyone will do whatever they can to avoid death. Not wanting to die doesn't make you a better person than you were before the question came up.

*I won't try to tell a pacifist that's possible, not this moment- but suppose they did.

They're not developing nuclear weapons.

A search warrant would need probable cause, and there's no credible evidence of it. Even the IAEA report people point to only says it is probable that they could if they wanted to and some technology might have dual use... but it shows no active effort toward a weapon since 2003 (a program that was controversial inside Iran).

Note that the Supreme Leader of Iran banned any nuclear weapons program, believing that the weapons are tools for killing innocent people, which is a sin in Islam.

BTW, there is a country in the Middle East that has not signed the NPT, does not allow inspectors in, and has a pile of nuclear weapons.... this country also routinely commits human rights violations, including genocide, assassinations, restricting freedom of movement, maintaining a naval blockade on another peoples, and commits outright invasions and occupations of its neighbors.

But, this country faces very little push back from the United States, and indeed has our backing for almost everything they do.

What's up with this?

It's called realpolitik. Despite people still being naive enough to believe in maintaining moral high ground and upholding human rights, at the end of the day only this mattered in international politics. It's unfair, but it's how the world works.

The US won't care if the Iranians are being truthful in not developing nuclear weapons. They won't care if Iran is not a real threat. So long as their interests in the Middle East showed the SLIGHTEST possibility of being threatened they would do everything to oppose Iran and grind it down.

Its all about power. POWER.

And even if you insist on maintaining moral high-ground, Israel would still get away with it; people might despise the actions of the CURRENT Israel government, but if they have to choose between the borderline-fascist state of Israel and a theocratic-false democracy of Iran they would choose Israel.

(And you honestly think that the Supreme Leader of Iran's ban on nuclear weapons development would last? Religious leaders often had a reputation throughout history of going back on their own words and beliefs out of necessity and power. Mark my words, it won't last)

Oh, scary, ALL CAPS.

Okay, let's see if you've grown up about this stuff a bit more: can you explain the exact meaning of the word Realpolitik?

Can you explain how the phrase "not worth the cost" fits into realpolitik? How it fits in with "will do everything it can to grind Iran down?"

[Ryan Thunder]

Given the options: a) die, b) flee, or c) give up that one guy, saving face with the evidence request, and carry on more or less intact.... (c) seems like the winning option.

The bolded part is why we couldn't do something like that. Make sense?

SpaceMarine, would you please do yourself a favour and try not to act like some kind of caricature of an angry young teenager who has no idea what he's talking about but desperately wants people to think that he does? Because seriously, that was just painful to read.

[Simon_Jester]

What do they do next? Well, assume they want to have their cake and eat it too. They'll maybe try bullshitting; help him escape and say "lol he got away not my fault".

Well, we could counter that by saying "if you don't deliver, whether it is your fault or not, the bombing is back on".

They don't want to die, we've made it clear that we won't take bullshit.... so, surely, they'd want to do something now.

But then bin Laden would have gotten away already and we'd be bombing the crap out of them just to prove that we don't take bullshit. Which would be kind of a waste, compared to actually chasing bin Laden.

And besides, if we stick to your basic model of warfare and justice and injustice... you'd probably now be telling us how wrong it is to attack people out of vengefulness and vindictiveness when the guy you're chasing already got away.

The reason "ultimatums" exist in diplomacy (but are rare) is because sometimes you already know how things are going to turn out if the other fellow decides to stick to their usual methods- and if you can't convince them to change their behavior by talking, then you're going to have to resort to force of arms sooner or later.

Randomly delaying the attack when you know the only thing the other guy is going to do is baffle you with bullshit while trying to find a way out... it really isn't a good idea. It doesn't necessarily present a realistic chance of avoiding war, and it can change the situation in ways that make the war even shittier than it would be otherwise.

To wax Trekkie, you can be all talky and bald and tea-earl-grey-hot, and that is cool. But sometimes you gotta be willing to convince the Ferengi you've got some iron in you, because otherwise they'll just keep photon torpedoing your ass every time you have something they want.

To me this is one of those "turnabout is fair play" things, of course. It applies to everyone. But it's still true when someone big ends up in that situation.

Of course, the big problem from their perspective is the United States wanted to have their cake and eat it too... too. And America is so mighty that when we're set on having something, we're gonna have it.

This left the Taliban with the option they are playing now: scatter and draw this fight out for the long haul.

Honestly, I think if the Taliban had really tried, in an honest way, to haul bin Laden out, then they had a pretty good chance of being left alone, jackasses though they were. There wasn't a big economic motive to invade Afghanistan, and the US has tolerated other fundie hellholes and will no doubt continue to do so.

But that really wasn't in the cards- although if the Taliban of the time were people able to consider things with detachment, I think they'd have taken the chance.

[Nephtys]

Back to the ACTUAL topic...

"I am giving you four codes so the Americans understand just how far we have gone in penetrating the drone's secrets," he says, speaking on Iranian TV on 22 April.

"In October 2010, the aircraft was sent to California for some technical issues, where it was repaired and after flight tests, it was taken to Kandahar (in Afghanistan) in November 2010, when a series of technical problems still prevailed," Hajizadeh says. "In December 2010, it was sent to an airport near Los Angeles for repair of its equipment and sensors, and flight tests. The drone was then sent back to Kandahar."

...those aren't 'codes'. That's the fucking maintenance log they probably taped on the inside of a panel. 'Penetrating' these secrets involves getting a guy who can read English lining up '10-2010' with 'Flight Test' and 'California Site'.