| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2006 07:33:25 PM · #51 |
"What is the difference between starting a war in Pakistan or Iraq. At least with Pakistan the terrorist that you are hunting is hiding in that country."
Pakistan isn't in violation of the cease fire of 1991. Nor is it considered a rogue state.
Originally posted by "RayEthier":
Notwitstanding your experiences in providing security for the President and his family as a "Cadet"... I can assure you that there is no way in Hell that the President of the USA is ever allowed within any "Unsecured Area".
How do I know you ask, PM me and I will gladly tell you. |
EXACTLY ...
Where he was (at the school) would have been a secured and monitored zone...thus fairly safe. That is my point. The events of 9-11 necessitated a review of secure zones. Simply put, if someone tried to snipe the President at the elementary school he'd likely be whisked away to the White House. However, on 9-11 the security of the White House was in fact in question. Therefore, I am sure that moment of first incident there was a decision being made as to the best relocation point for the President.
I am sure that at the time he was in the classroom there was not a dozen men inside the classroom. Most likely a few in the classroom, a few in the hall outside, more on every entrance and even more about the premises. In case of a departure during a threat crisis I do not think it to be uncalled presumption that they'll bring more Secret Service to the hallway for the departure than under non threat. That said, my point was to exemplify security of the President and to explain why the President would not necessarily depart right that moment.
Originally posted by "keegbow":
No but your allies took a hit in Spain, London and Bali. All in the name of the war on terrorism.
Also how many US soldiers have been killed by insurgents (terrorist) since 9/11 |
Yes, and ironically, it was the same monitoring that the Left is vehemently demonizing the Bush Administration for which allowed Great Britain to foil a more recent attack.
Second, President Bush is responsible for protecting the United States...not Spain, London or Bali. Albeit I expected him to do all he can to aide our allies.
As for our U.S. soldiers killed....about 1,500. That said, better 1,500 soliders dead than the citizens they are sworn to defend.
A friend of mine posted that video and even I was toyed with by it for a while. Albeit, I felt a lot was mis-quoted and mis-represented much like Michael Moore's film. That friend later sent me a link which essentially debunked about 80% of what that film purports.
Originally posted by "jhonan":
What happened to the 'If you're not with us, you're against us' doctrine? |
Yeah, that is probably the first thing I'll flat out give you credit for. But that said, the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are openly for us. And I guess you could say we are accepting that as a gesture of good faith. Will we quite possibly be burned by it? good chance....
Originally posted by "jhonan":
He is more valuable to the US administration as long as he's on the run. He gives the 'war on terror' some kind of focal point. He's the bogey man, the reason for the 'Orange Alerts', the reason for the climate of fear. |
There is no shortage of bogeymans in this situation. Al-quaida, Hezbolleh, it's not even the groups but their potential actions. As for the climate of fear....I'd say the reason is about 2 hours east of my old house. It's a skyline that is missing something long familiar.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2006 07:48:09 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
A friend of mine posted that video and even I was toyed with by it for a while. Albeit, I felt a lot was mis-quoted and mis-represented much like Michael Moore's film. That friend later sent me a link which essentially debunked about 80% of what that film purports. |
Let's see your debunking of this. I'll bet you are blowing smoke. I don't know of any refutation of this. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:17:15 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
"What is the difference between starting a war in Pakistan or Iraq. At least with Pakistan the terrorist that you are hunting is hiding in that country."
Pakistan isn't in violation of the cease fire of 1991. Nor is it considered a rogue state. |
Who decideds who is a rogue state and who isn't?
Allowing the man resposible for 9/11 to operate in your country and to now provide a safe haven is this not the action of a rogue state?
Originally posted by "keegbow":
No but your allies took a hit in Spain, London and Bali. All in the name of the war on terrorism.
Also how many US soldiers have been killed by insurgents (terrorist) since 9/11 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Yes, and ironically, it was the same monitoring that the Left is vehemently demonizing the Bush Administration for which allowed Great Britain to foil a more recent attack.
Second, President Bush is responsible for protecting the United States...not Spain, London or Bali. Albeit I expected him to do all he can to aide our allies. |
This type of attitude probably explains why the coalition of the willing is falling apart.
I think all of the allies would be very skeptical to support the US in any future invasion of countries that the US decides is a rogue.
Originally posted by theSaj:
As for our U.S. soldiers killed....about 1,500. That said, better 1,500 soliders dead than the citizens they are sworn to defend. |
You can't claim there has been no acts of terrosim since 9/11.
Please tell the families of the 1500 soldiers it was better for them to die then anyone else.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:25:24 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by theSaj:
A friend of mine posted that video and even I was toyed with by it for a while. Albeit, I felt a lot was mis-quoted and mis-represented much like Michael Moore's film. That friend later sent me a link which essentially debunked about 80% of what that film purports. |
Let's see your debunking of this. I'll bet you are blowing smoke. I don't know of any refutation of this. |
You can find some links here....
//www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg6.html#Flights%2011%20and%2077%20confused |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:30:54 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by theSaj:
A friend of mine posted that video and even I was toyed with by it for a while. Albeit, I felt a lot was mis-quoted and mis-represented much like Michael Moore's film. That friend later sent me a link which essentially debunked about 80% of what that film purports. |
Let's see your debunking of this. I'll bet you are blowing smoke. I don't know of any refutation of this. |
You can find some links here....
//www.ccdominoes.com/lc/lcg6.html#Flights%2011%20and%2077%20confused |
And this would be Cheney's, Rumsfield's and Wolfowitz's organization "debunking" the facts. Guess everyone will have to consider the source. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:40:43 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by "keegbow":
Allowing the man resposible for 9/11 to operate in your country and to now provide a safe haven is this not the action of a rogue state? |
Not sure if I'd call it a rogue state but I sure as heck don't call them friend.
Originally posted by "keegbow":
This type of attitude probably explains why the coalition of the willing is falling apart. |
What, cause I said the President's duty is first and foremost to protecting the United States. Well IT IS!!!!
Just as the Prime Minister of Great Britain's duty is first to his constituents and then to the world as a whole.
Just as my duty is to my family then to my country....
Yeah, I agree, I think it's this type of attitude that probably explains why the coalition is falling apart. Because there are so many who have no concept of duty and responsibility. Look, if you want to prove to me that I am wrong...go feed the homeless and starve your family to death. Then explain to me that your duty is not to your family first.
Originally posted by "keegbow":
You can't claim there has been no acts of terrosim since 9/11. |
Never did...just regarding the United States proper. And of "official" incidents.
In fact, I'd actually wager to say that there have been numerous small acts of terrorism: the muslim college student who tried to run people over with the SUV, the muslim man who went on a rampage shooting Jews, the muslim student who tried to detonate a suicide bomb at a football game, and more recently the muslim man who used an SUV to kill and injure group of people. To me, these are in deed acts of terrorism or at the very least they are hate crimes. Of course, the left doesn't think of them as such. Just isolated incidents not at all indicitive of a problem.
Originally posted by "keegbow":
Please tell the families of the 1500 soldiers it was better for them to die then anyone else. |
"I will tell any mother and father that...just not in your crass words. I will tell them their son or daughter died doing their duty. My condolences to their loss and my gratitude for their gift. I, on behalf of my family, thank them for raising such a selfless and honorable son or daughter who in honor to their duty as a servicemen of our nation gave up their life in order to keep me and my love one's safe. There is nothing I can give you sir and madam for your lose except my sincerest thanks and respect."
Yes, I will tell any of the familes of the 1500 soldiers it was better for them to die than a citizen....for that is what the duty of our armed services is about.
Perhaps you've never served. Never sworn that oath. I have have...and it was with the understanding that in so doing that it was my duty to die before you sir. (And yes, even though you are an Australian - if you were here as a guest of my country it would have been my duty to keep you safe even at the cost of my own safety.) |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 08:41:30 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
And this would be Cheney's, Rumsfield's and Wolfowitz's organization "debunking" the facts. Guess everyone will have to consider the source. |
Go read ALL the links. They're from a multitude of different organizations. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 09:13:05 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "keegbow":
Allowing the man resposible for 9/11 to operate in your country and to now provide a safe haven is this not the action of a rogue state? |
Not sure if I'd call it a rogue state but I sure as heck don't call them friend. |
Let's compare some other 'rogue states' and the position the US has taken against them.
- Iraq allegedly had WMDs; The US invaded.
- Iran is allegedly pursuing a nuclear weapons research program; The US is putting them under pressure and calling for sanctions
- Afghanistan habored Bin Laden; The US invaded
- North Korea tests long range missiles and pursues a nuclear research program; The US makes strategic military moves against them (repositioning warships, missile defence tests etc.)
Pakistan;
- Openly have a nuclear weapons program
- Regularly test long-range missile technology
- Have a military dictator running the country
- Have militia groups launching cross-border attacks into Afghanistan
- Are harboring Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Queda leaders responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks
And the US does nothing.
Message edited by author 2006-09-11 21:14:58. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 09:15:58 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "keegbow":
Allowing the man resposible for 9/11 to operate in your country and to now provide a safe haven is this not the action of a rogue state? |
Not sure if I'd call it a rogue state but I sure as heck don't call them friend. |
Let's compare some other 'rogue states' and the position the US has taken against them.
- Iraq allegedly had WMDs; The US invaded.
- Iran is allegedly pursuing a weapons research program; The US is putting them under pressure and calling for sanctions
- Afghanistan habored Bin Laden; The US invaded
- North Korea tests long range missiles and pursues a nuclear research program; The US makes strategic military moves against them (repositioning warships, missile defence tests etc.)
Pakistan;
- Openly have a nuclear weapons program
- Regularly test long-range missile technology
- Have a military dictator running the country
- Have militia groups launching cross-border attacks into Afghanistan
- Are harboring Osama Bin Laden and the leaders responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks
And the US does nothing. |
Ain't Chess a b!t@#?
The difference is we are able to dialogue to a limited extent with Pakistan. But that does not make it all a bed of roses. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 09:24:26 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
The difference is we are able to dialogue to a limited extent with Pakistan. But that does not make it all a bed of roses. |
I wonder does "Could you hand over Osama Bin Laden please" form part of the dialogue?
My point is there have been numerous opportunities to capture Osama, both diplomatic and military. But for some reason he's still at large.
The US have senior Al-Queda figures in their custody who were captured in Pakistan and handed over (and I'm sure the CIA were involved in these operations) - So why give the impression that Osama has some sort of immunity?
It's as simple as this. If someone murdered a family in the US and fled to Pakistan he'd be extradited before you could blink. This guy murdered 3,000 people. And the US resorts to... 'limited dialogue' ?
There's something wrong with this picture. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 10:48:53 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Pakistan;
- Openly have a nuclear weapons program
- Regularly test long-range missile technology
- Have a military dictator running the country
- Have militia groups launching cross-border attacks into Afghanistan
- Are harboring Osama Bin Laden and the Al-Queda leaders responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks
And the US does nothing. |
1 They already HAVE the bomb, the US can't undo that. Do we alienate them, or make them our friend?
2 See #1m replace "bomb" with "long range missile technology"
3 So? China is essentially under the control of a dictator, yet they are one of the United State's largest trade partners. Dealing with non-democracies is nothing new.
4 Those areas are more like the Wild West than anything. The Central Government of Pakistan has little to no control over what goes on there.
5 They aren't harboring Bin Laden, he's allegedly hiding along the border with Afghanistan, where the Pakistani government has little control or influence and where bin Laden is still viewed by the locals as something of a hero. If the Pakistani Army were to march in there, they would get about as warm a greeting as the US did in Iraq |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 10:56:40 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
5 They aren't harboring Bin Laden, he's allegedly hiding along the border with Afghanistan, where the Pakistani government has little control or influence and where bin Laden is still viewed by the locals as something of a hero. If the Pakistani Army were to march in there, they would get about as warm a greeting as the US did in Iraq |
Just a funny thought - what if the guy shaved his facial hair, did some minor surgery, and is now living in the USA without anyone suspecting? (nobody would have guessed he'd be there, of all places to hide!) :p |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 10:58:14 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
5 They aren't harboring Bin Laden, he's allegedly hiding along the border with Afghanistan, where the Pakistani government has little control or influence and where bin Laden is still viewed by the locals as something of a hero. If the Pakistani Army were to march in there, they would get about as warm a greeting as the US did in Iraq |
Just a funny thought - what if the guy shaved his facial hair, did some minor surgery, and is now living in the USA without anyone suspecting? (nobody would have guessed he'd be there, of all places to hide!) :p |
The old "Hide in plain sight" trick.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2006 11:02:55 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The old "Hide in plain sight" trick. |
Yup - anyway, just the other day I was having a casual discussion with some friends about acts of terrorism, and how easy it is to perform them. To protect is always one step behind, to endanger is much much simpler and easier. Why am I saying this? well, just thought we should also give credit to those who try to keep us safe - tho sometimes their methods ticks us off. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 11:04:49 PM · #65 |
| Protecting us from the bees by stirring them up hasn't worked very well. |
|
|
|
09/11/2006 11:10:32 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
5 They aren't harboring Bin Laden, he's allegedly hiding along the border with Afghanistan, where the Pakistani government has little control or influence and where bin Laden is still viewed by the locals as something of a hero. If the Pakistani Army were to march in there, they would get about as warm a greeting as the US did in Iraq |
Just a funny thought - what if the guy shaved his facial hair, did some minor surgery, and is now living in the USA without anyone suspecting? (nobody would have guessed he'd be there, of all places to hide!) :p |
The old "Hide in plain sight" trick. |
Not to mention he's believed to be around 6' 5" tall... |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 02:25:04 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
5 They aren't harboring Bin Laden, he's allegedly hiding along the border with Afghanistan, where the Pakistani government has little control or influence and where bin Laden is still viewed by the locals as something of a hero. If the Pakistani Army were to march in there, they would get about as warm a greeting as the US did in Iraq |
Just a funny thought - what if the guy shaved his facial hair, did some minor surgery, and is now living in the USA without anyone suspecting? (nobody would have guessed he'd be there, of all places to hide!) :p |
The old "Hide in plain sight" trick. |
Not to mention he's believed to be around 6' 5" tall... |
Hmmmmm, I'm thinking power forward for the Knicks |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 06:50:51 AM · #68 |
The following article is interesting, having been written on 29 Sept 2001, commenting on the likely US response (from the perspective of an onlooking country). It is particularly interesting in the light of subsequent events.
//www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266289,00.html
In particular, I would like to highlight a couple of quotes:
Originally posted by Arundhati Roy, Guardian, 29 September 2001:
The trouble is that once America goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place. |
(emphasis added)
I think that this sums up my attitude towards the Iraq war: Afghanistan was not enough. I do not think that, absent 9/11, theSaj or anyone else would have been advocating wholesale invasion to achieve regime change - the reasoning is manipulated using hindsight. Tha changing face of the rationale for war plays testament to the augury evident here.
Originally posted by Arundhati Roy, Guardian, 29 September 2001:
America's grief at what happened has been immense and immensely public. It would be grotesque to expect it to calibrate or modulate its anguish. However, it will be a pity if, instead of using this as an opportunity to try to understand why September 11 happened, Americans use it as an opportunity to usurp the whole world's sorrow to mourn and avenge only their own. Because then it falls to the rest of us to ask the hard questions and say the harsh things. And for our pains, for our bad timing, we will be disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually silenced. |
Hard questions are still provoking a vehement response.
And because people have been referring to the involvement of Pakistan, there is a comment from 2001 on Pakistan's role as aide to the US in the changing climate (from the 1980s when the US supported the Afghanistan uprising to the 2000s when it opposes it):
Originally posted by Arundhati Roy, Guardian, 29 September 2001:
And what of America's trusted ally? Pakistan too has suffered enormously. The US government has not been shy of supporting military dictators who have blocked the idea of democracy from taking root in the country. Before the CIA arrived, there was a small rural market for opium in Pakistan. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of heroin addicts grew from zero to one-and-a-half million. Even before September 11, there were three million Afghan refugees living in tented camps along the border. Pakistan's economy is crumbling. Sectarian violence, globalisation's structural adjustment programmes and drug lords are tearing the country to pieces. Set up to fight the Soviets, the terrorist training centres and madrasahs, sown like dragon's teeth across the country, produced fundamentalists with tremendous popular appeal within Pakistan itself. The Taliban, which the Pakistan government has supported, funded and propped up for years, has material and strategic alliances with Pakistan's own political parties. |
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 06:57:35.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 07:17:12 AM · #69 |
| I'm sure that many interested in this topic would find a recent documentary, "Why We Fight" very interesting too. Not just about the current war in Iraq, but looking at the historical ties between politics and industry/economy. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 09:31:53 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Sad and troubling as it may be not all people hate the fact those people died. We have plenty of people in the U.S. who thought they and to a larger extent, the country deserved what they got on 9/11. This being the internet I don't assume anything about people I don't know. |
Ah, so the call to not be political turns out to be the most political, and most archly conservative, sentiment on this thread. Hmm... who are those "plenty of people" who think the 3,000 Americans "deserved" to die? Could it be... liberals? progressives? leftists?
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:14:52 AM · #71 |
In the recent 2 day airing of "The Path to 9-11" on ABC, one quote was attributed to Usama bin Laden "we must convert america to islam or destroy them" (or something akin to this). This is the very basis of the fundamentalists movement that is lost on those that advocate some measure of appeasement or tolerance.
They simply do not "get it", that they (the radicals) are coming. Regardless of what "you" do (short of converting to radical Islam), they are targeting you. No matter who you are, where you live or what your family does. They're "purpose" is to eliminate all non-belivers.
Either address the threat now or latter. We waited too long as it was.
Many in the world choose to criticize our "timing", due to personal interests and obligations, but none question whether it needs to be done.
This is a religious war first. Always has been. The link between Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam is the key to both the solution and the failure. Adherence to the base philosophies of each religion promote "peace" yet each affords the "fringe worshipers" enough elements to wage war. Hate towards another who worships the same "God" is founded on the misunderstanding that "your" method is the only method that God recognizes, therefore all other methods of worship and those that employ them, must be eliminated.
If it truly is a matter of them or me, then I would much rather it be them.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:15:23 AM · #72 |
Tate,
Thank you for starting this thread.
It's important that we continue to discuss and question the things that happened on that tragic day. There are many discrepancies and unanswered questions that point to something much more sinister than a handful of extremists with box cutters could do under the direction of a sick old man in Afghanistan.
If you really want to know the truth, go to this website and demand that our government answer the questions in this petition:
From Scholars for 9/11 Truth website:
"TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT,
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the Undersigned Scholars for 9/11 Truth Hereby Petitions for, and hereby demands, Release of the Following kinds of documents, video and films, and physical evidence to the public for study by experts and scholars investigating the events of 9/11:"
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:18:57 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by Flash:
In the recent 2 day airing of "The Path to 9-11" on ABC, one quote was attributed to Usama bin Laden "we must convert america to islam or destroy them" (or something akin to this). This is the very basis of the fundamentalists movement that is lost on those that advocate some measure of appeasement or tolerance. |
You start by quoting your recollection of a TV show and end by saying it's "us or them." No thank you.
|
|
|
|
09/12/2006 11:27:28 AM · #74 |
Here are some more things attributed to Osama Bin Laden in his "videotaped confession".
How in the world did our government expect us to believe that this imposter was Bin Laden?
Message edited by author 2006-09-12 11:28:25. |
|
|
|
09/12/2006 12:03:35 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by "cpanaioti":
Protecting us from the bees by stirring them up hasn't worked very well. |
Well, these are not bees but ticks. They don't need stirring up because they're already out for blood!
As for the video forgery. I have a friend, if you saw photos of him from 2001 and photos from a couple of years later you'd likely be surprised. The differences are far more staggering than between those videos.
So let me think, pre-2001 Osama is living the good life in Afghanistan. Probably packing on pounds since his days against the Soviets. The following years he's been transitory, in hiding, and also dealing with a kidney disease. So the odds that he'd in fact lose weight are pretty high.
*shrug*
Not saying it's not possible, but it is also plausible. But then again. Some say JFK wasn't really shot, it was just a look alike. And Elvis didn't die either... |
|
