Vaa, seriously, what is this? What are you talking about when you say “big fish”? Where did that come from?
Are you OK? I’m really getting worried about you. Is everything alright Vaa?

go to the Hague and testify about what you saw, since others didn’t see what you saw.

face me directly and don’t hide behind my choice of wanting and not wanting to respond to Omon’s post. I’m under no obligation to respond to any post, if I don’t want to. I only respond when I deem it fit and not you, I Fought in Sierra Leone will decide for me.

Am I clear, I fought in Sierra Leone?

again you are struggling with this neutrality business. Just take your own time to reread your own post which you eloquently crafted, and pretend to be either for or against, President Taylor. Pretty tell me, how you wouldn’t question some of your own comments. just as a reminder, you said in one of your above lines where I think you graciously conceded of sounding like a fan of President Taylor, but you are not.

Bnker, quite frankly, this is to just tell you some of the difficulties we are faced with identifying you as being a neutral person. For vast majority of us who contribute to this site see President Taylor as been innocent. Therefore, anything that reflects biases and prejudices againt President Taylor will not go unchallenged and unnoticed; and it does not matter where and who it is coming from.

Now bnker, for some of us who have a very highly sophisticated intelligence and analytical skills which continue to stimulate our thought process with punctuality and a strong sense of achieving our desired impact through facts and evidence presented, will exploit any comments that suggest anything from the facts and the trial and especially, when such comment is against President Taylor. That is why however, some of us go after your comments that suggest such. Nevertheless, I hope you see where some of us are coming from.

Bnker, believe me, I DON’T KNOW TAYLOR. I DON’T KNOW ANY OF THESE GUYS INCLUDING PRESIDENT JOHNSON SIRLEAF. I was in the 11th grade 1990 at Monrovia College when the war came to Monrovia. I graduated from high school june 15, 1993 from Monrovia College. bnker, I did not hold gun in Liberia. Neither did I fight for any factions. However, this is my very first time telling the world that I’m a very highly trained military personnel. The very first time I ever held weapon was when I joined the US Military.

Notwithstanding, I personally felt and still feel that President Taylor was not treated fairly and that is one of my main reason of supporting him

Lastly bnker, this is totally of the records. Do not believe that people who see President Taylor differently from Fallah, Teage, John Thomson, and etc, are not educated. Don’t listen to comments from others saying we are cannibals, unpatriotic, killers, beneficiary of loots, lacking common sense, liers, rebel, etc. Bnker, believe me. some of us are more educated, articulate, and intelligent than some of those people you keep calling us names.
For me, I will accept what ever name they give me, because I know that I’m winning. Bnker, in no way that i’m saying you believe in those names calling.

Just to help you bnker, you have been unmasked by me when you falsely claimed unto a neutrality status when you are not (same page) in this ongoing trial several times. However, in my previous post date November 24, 2009 @9:53 PM, I listed the unmasking. So bnker, if you didn’t read that, I will strongly encourage you to go and read it, if you deem fit.

I am against the trial in SL. My statements are all associated with Liberia and deep within your heart of hearts I have referring to Liberia. I said on one of my threads, while some people think that CT did terrible things, yet others don’t give a hoot where he spends his life in jail. I want CT in jail, true but not for activities in SL—Liberia. You know what I find comical about your arguments, you look at only one side (your side) and refuse to present the other side of the debate. If you take course in debating, you will probably learn its good present the other side of the argument then your point. If you did that maybe your views might seem more rational and mature! I think you take these debate a bit too seriously, your emotions must be at the tips of your fingers, “touchy”. While I enjoy reading some of your comments and some seem responsible, I don’t take them personally. So when you question my fairness, it does not bother me at all. That’s the nature of the discussion, if they bother you (meaning anyone including me), then its probably best to stay clear. However, for expressing our personal views, you are at liberty.

So you asked me about the TRC recommendation and my view (several days ago), I told you what I thought, what’s your take on the TRC recommendation?

Back to the trial. You are right, CT is innocent until proven guilty, I have not said or insinuated his guilt. Neither, should I give you the pleasure of trying to explain myself to you. You may believe and render whatever conclusion about “bnker” and you are at liberty to do so. Some people are supportive of the SCSL, don’t these people have the right to speak out and express their views? Why do you think that your ideas should be the loudest or the only one heard? Frankly, that is not healthy. You are in Liberia, you see opposition, they are not being muted. I think responsible mature and tolerant people accept different views.

So keep the threads coming, OK. I enjoy them! After we are done yelling and laughing at each other, we shall meet in Monrovia and have lunch, OK. These debate are the premise of our democratic process.

I can care less if you are against the trial of this innocent man. However, I find it very hard to believe.
bnker, how can you be against the trial of this innocent man, and yet say, you want him to be in the “slammer” (JAIL) for crimes he did not commit? How can you be against the trial and yet say, his absence has brought peace to the Manor River Basin therefore, he should remain in jail? How can you be against this trial and yet say, you want to see a photo of this innocent man being in “shackles and handcuffs” on this website? How can you be against the trial of President Taylor but yet, provide a discredited document such as the “politics of the three” falsely linking this man to Al qaida? How can you be against this trial but you advocate for the total destruction of this man by the SCSL based on lies and deceptions?

bnker, you are extraordinarily incredible.

I like your posts. I think Liberians whether it was Taylor influenced or not have scared its neighbors. I personally think that CT was responsible for most of the carnage in SL, Ivory Coast and Guinea since all three countries have a common border with Liberia. Whether purposefully done or not, Liberia influenced the internal politics of these nations. Meaning, Liberians were involved with factions that were battling within those borders (referring to mercenaries, refugee fighters, as well as factional contributing elements—all warring groups).While rationale dictates my opinions; they are not facts and therefore have no basis in court proceedings. The other side of the argument could be that, other nations used Liberia’s porous borders to inflict causality on Liberia’s neighbors to implicate Taylor. I won’t subscribe to this reasoning, but it can be fought tooth and nail in arguing. I have my personal opinions about the rule and crimes committed by CT and all factions in Liberia. I continue to support efforts leading to legal proceedings for all not only CT, but factional heads. I am not a supporter of the current court proceedings in the Hague. Yet, I find it intriguing and I am impressed with the legal horizon of the defense, while I am disappointed over the showing of the prosecution. The shortfalls of the prosecution have been a trend throughout this trail. Again, I am not condoning atrocities committed in SL. I am convinced that those crimes need to be punished to the letter of international law. I think it’s the burden of the prosecution to provide impeachable evidence (since their witnesses where almost all disqualified and were inconsistent with the exception of the professional ones). I no longer see the trial as the people of SL vs. Charles McArthur “Ghankay” Taylor, but as a battle of legal minds wrestling to convince the world of CT guilt or innocence. Frankly, I want to see a good debate in court, one that will challenge all witnesses, Taylor included. Thus far, he seems to be the most consistent, articulate and brilliantly challenging the prosecution. Questions rephrased and twisted to lure him have been to a large extent detected by him. I know I sound like a fan, honestly, I am not. I have been called all, but “enemy of the state”….but the debate is emotionally charged so I don’t take them personally and I sure most don’t either.

I agree that Liberia’s stability and the sub region’s depends on foster harmonious relationships with our neighbors. Imagine, “Since 1999, 31 of Africa’s 159 conflicts were concentrated within five West African States; Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Ivory Coast and Nigeria” (Research still being worked on, 2009). Our regional stability depends on working together. Though apologies are an acknowledgement of guilt and nations don’t usually admit wrong doing, its best that leaders pledge new commitment to the sub region at large and our neighbors in particular.

Let’s keep the conversation coming! GOD BLESS LIBERIA!