10
   

Former MI5 chief: Response to 9/11 was 'huge overreaction'

 
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Oct, 2008 10:20 pm
i think 'huge overreaction' is a massive understatement.

Bin Laden is a Saudi
The pilots who flew the planes were mostly Saudi
None of the pilots were Iraqi

So who did the US invade?

EErrrr...... oh yeah Iraq....


gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 01:59 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
it does not matter, foreign people will not trade with us if we can not be counted on to pay our debts. After our failure to pay would need to pay up front for each transaction, in someone else's coin, to get product.


We'd have to start manufacturing things for our own use again. Believe it or not, we are fully capable of that.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 02:22 am
@Endymion,
And I thought the issue was weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any, but I do not recall the events of 9/11 presented as a cause. Still, if they were, it's an awfully easy notion to shoot down, isn't it?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 03:11 am
@roger,
Quote:
And I thought the issue was weapons of mass destruction. There weren't any...


Yes there were. What happened was that demoKKKrats and euroweenies including a number like Jake Shellac who were taking money from Saddam Hussein at the time, made American soldiers sit on station in the sweltering heat for the better part of a year while Saddam Hussein had all the **** trucked out to Syria where it still is.

McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 04:25 am
@gungasnake,

Quote:
Saddam Hussein had all the **** trucked out to Syria where it still is.


The US were overflying the country the whole time. No photographs exist of any such activity. If there were any, they would be publicised.

So you're wrong again.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 04:42 am
@Endymion,
Quote:

i think 'huge overreaction' is a massive understatement.

Bin Laden is a Saudi
The pilots who flew the planes were mostly Saudi
None of the pilots were Iraqi

So who did the US invade?

EErrrr...... oh yeah Iraq....

W overthrew the Taliban in Afganistan.

In Iraq, we had a homicidal maniac
( a vindictive one )
with a grudge against us for Kuwait
and access to nuclear weapons:
this was an intolerable threat,
which no longer remains.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 04:45 am
@McTag,
Quote:

The US were overflying the country the whole time.

U have evidence of this ?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 06:34 am
Again in the particular case of anthrax it does not take hundreds of tons to create panic and chaos; the sum total used after 9-11 was a few tablespoons full at most. Ten pounds of the stuff is a life-time supply at that rate and all you can try to do is take the perpetrator out and Saddam Hussein had 50 body doubles walking around and never slept in the same place twice. The ONLY options were go in, or nuke the entire country.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 06:36 am
Quote:
Former MI5 chief: Response to 9/11 was 'huge overreaction'



One other question: How does a total blithering idiot get to be chief of MI5 these days?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 07:19 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:

One other question:
How does a total blithering idiot get to be chief of MI5 these days?

Maybe selected by other idiots ?
That 's how it usually works.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Oct, 2008 07:24 am
@McTag,
Quote:

Act of war it wasn't.

For a war to exist, whole countries have to be involved.

O, Really ?
U have proof of this ??




Quote:

They weren't. It was an act of terrorism.

So according to u,
an act of war cannot be an act of terrorism ?
Maybe Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Hong Hong
were not acts of war, if enuf people were TERRIFIED !
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 02:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Well, the Bush administration cited Saddam Hussein's WMD program as casus belli.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 03:17 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Exactly! And since no one has been able to prove the existance of those programs, either someone lied, or someone has a grossly defective intellegence program. I'm having trouble understanding why someone thinks they need to change history and call it an overraction to 9/11.
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 04:58 pm
"I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

George Bush From President's Address to the Nation 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060911-3.html


This war on terrorism is bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq


9/11 Linked To Iraq, In Politics if Not in Fact
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091102316.html


The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html


Still don't get it? Do yourselves a favour and watch Fahrenheit 9/11
Or watch it again -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 05:08 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:

Well, the Bush administration cited
Saddam Hussein's WMD program as casus belli.

Clearly, that is as to Iraq.
As to the Taliban, it was its harboring terrorists like Laden.

Let 's bear in mind
that absence of evidence,
is not evidence of absence.

When the DEA raids a crack den,
taking time to break down the door,
if the crack heads are fast enuf to flush the contraband,
that does not indicate that occupants of said crackden
were all drug-virgins.

Saddam probably shipped it all to Syria.
I don t mean to be rhetorically clever,
but in actual fact, W was too slow
to get the war started, and too slow to STOP IT n get out.
It has been only a huge foreign aid project
for several years, now, instead of a defensive war.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 05:11 pm
@Endymion,
Quote:
Do yourselves a favour and watch Fahrenheit 9/11


When you resort to movies for evidence you really have lost the plot.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 05:13 pm
@Endymion,
Quote:

"I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not
responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of
Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress,
and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's
regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take.
The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

This is all true,
but it does not explain
Y we are still there after Saddam has been killed.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 05:15 pm
@spendius,
RIGHT.

Maybe he can find a comic strip,
like Dick Tracy or Blondie to prove his point.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 05:19 pm
@roger,
Quote:

I'm having trouble understanding why someone thinks
they need to change history and call it an overraction to 9/11.

Please note that for my part,
when I agreed with that, I only referred
to my fellow citizens, who got too flustered on 9/11, et seq.





David
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Oct, 2008 06:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You two are so thick that being insulted by either of you is an honour -



 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/30/2022 at 05:43:04