24
   

GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 09:04 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
How about fighting a country that gave a base of operations to people who invaded our country and murdered thousands of our citizens?


Following that rationale, pretty much every country in the world should be attacking the USA.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 09:20 pm
@Brandon9000,
Wipe that brown off your nose and tongue, Brandon. You are an amoral piece of dung.

And the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation"

[see main article for link to audio]

Quote:
FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2009

Former FBI Translator: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11


Before you hear what Sibel Edmonds has to say, you should know a little about her background.

Edmonds is a former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required).

And some of Edmonds allegations' have already been confirmed by the British press.

Now, Edmonds is saying that Osama Bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11, and that that fact is being covered up because the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years.

Outrageous claim, right?

Actually, there are several lines of confirmation of Edmonds' claim.

According to one of the most reputable French papers, CIA agents met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11, when he was already wanted for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
Two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her "In two days, you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while.” US officials later told CNN that “in recent years they've been able to monitor some of bin Laden's telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded." Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.
In other words, American forces had many opportunities to capture Bin Laden, and yet failed to do so.

Indeed, even after 9/11, the U.S. military intentionally let Bin Laden evade capture. Outrageous? Don't believe it?

See for yourself:

The CIA commander in charge of the capture of Bin Laden during the invasion of Afghanistan said that the U.S. let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan
A retired Colonel and Fox News military analyst said:
"We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty " which is huge in the world of intelligence " that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers " Seal Team 6 " nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it ....Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden."

French soldiers insist that they easily could have captured or killed Bin Laden, but that the American commanders stopped them
This is how a government treats its own agents, not foreign terrorists.

For background, you may wish to note that the government not only listened in on Bin Laden's calls, they also heard the hijackers' plans from their own mouths.

And the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (confirmed here by the Co-Chair of the Joint Inquiry and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham; and see this Newsweek article).

And a key Al Qaeda trainer actually worked with the Green Berets and the CIA and was an FBI informant.

And the CIA may have helped many of the 9/11 hijackers get their visas to the U.S.

And the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation" (the audio is here).

And, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

Moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

And Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh says that the Bush administration funded terrorist groups (see confirming articles here and here).

What does all this mean about Bin Laden? Make up your own mind.


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/07/former-fbi-translator-bin-laden-worked.html

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 09:23 pm
@okie,
You're the equal of Brandon when it comes to being amoral, Okie.

And the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation" .
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Oct, 2009 09:38 pm
Odd that the FBI doesn't believe that Bin Laden is responsible for 9-11.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Quote:
Now, Edmonds is saying that Osama Bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11, and that that fact is being covered up because the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years.

[ibid]




Quote:

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

...

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 06:07 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

You are ducking the question of how many US deaths would be OK over the years fighting in Afghanistan. I think that puts you out of the discussion.

I'm not ducking it. I said it was misguided and refused to answer. Believe me, I could ask you any number of questions that you could probably answer, but that are so misguided that you wouldn't answer. For instance, if your wife or girlfriend was dying of an illness, how much money would you borrow, assuming you could borrow as much as you wanted but would thereafter be in debt, for treatment that would cure her? And it's not up to you to cover the fact that you don't want to try to respond to your opponents assertions by ruling him expelled from the discussion. I expel you from the discussion for your disgusting indifference to the attack on your country and murder of your countrymen.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 06:08 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
How about fighting a country that gave a base of operations to people who invaded our country and murdered thousands of our citizens?


Following that rationale, pretty much every country in the world should be attacking the USA.

Really? Tell me a specific example of the US targetting civilians for intentional extermination.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 07:24 am
@okie,
Listen, I do not remember my history lessons in school so I am not even going to attempt to argue the events after ww2 with what is happening now. Will let others such as Walter or Setanta take that on if they want.

I do know with everything I have read over the last few years that most if not all middle eastern people do not want our way life forced on them and so we would we defeating the purpose of winning the hearts and minds of the people to try and do it because it would not take as we have seen in Iraq. Iraqis basically set up their government with Islamic rule and have divided themselves into ethnic groups. The Shiite, the main leading party, are mostly aligned with Iran. I don't believe that was the game plan when Cheney and Bush decided to forget about Afghanistan and take a detour to Iraq expecting parades thrown in their honor for having domesticated them into "democracy."

Right now most of the trouble in centered in Pakistan where the Taliban went to after we left the country to go to Iraq. It seems to me we might focused on the wrong country.

Quote:
A Taliban suicide bomber killed eight people outside a key Pakistani airforce facility on Friday, with officials quick to deny suggestions the target was linked to the country's nuclear program.

The bomber detonated explosives strapped to his body at a checkpoint outside the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex in Kamra, some 75 kms (45 miles) northwest of the capital, Islamabad.

Hours later, a car bomb exploded outside a restaurant in the northwestern city of Peshawar, wounding 15 people, two of them seriously, officials said.



source
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 07:37 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Quote:
How about fighting a country that gave a base of operations to people who invaded our country and murdered thousands of our citizens?


Following that rationale, pretty much every country in the world should be attacking the USA.


Bravo!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 07:41 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Advocate wrote:

You are ducking the question of how many US deaths would be OK over the years fighting in Afghanistan. I think that puts you out of the discussion.

I'm not ducking it. I said it was misguided and refused to answer. Believe me, I could ask you any number of questions that you could probably answer, but that are so misguided that you wouldn't answer. For instance, if your wife or girlfriend was dying of an illness, how much money would you borrow, assuming you could borrow as much as you wanted but would thereafter be in debt, for treatment that would cure her? And it's not up to you to cover the fact that you don't want to try to respond to your opponents assertions by ruling him expelled from the discussion. I expel you from the discussion for your disgusting indifference to the attack on your country and murder of your countrymen.


My question is relevant, and yours is not. I see you are too craven to answer my question.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 10:09 am
@revel,
revel, I don't disagree with you totally, and I am not in favor of nation build every single country, however, I do not think we can take a situation and apply it totally across the board. I do think the terrorist problem is a paricularly unique and hard to solve problem, such that we should consider using other tactics and stategies to reduce the risks. I think, and I think Bush believed, that one of the ways to reduce this problem is to get at the root of the problem, which is the backward cultural situations in some parts of the world where the children are taught hatred for the west. This indoctrination of the young can be slowed down and stopped, and thus would reduce the possibilities of more things like 9/11 in the future. There are in fact some parts of the world that are still living in another century, and I won't say we can carry them kicking and dragging into this century, but I also do not think we should totally dismiss the idea out of hand that we cannot or should not attempt to help them.

It is very difficult to predict what will happen on the world stage. The world is a dangerous place, and there are countless despots and madmen that will take advantage of the vulnerabilities of mankind and its tendency toward violence and believing in a natural leader to bring utopia upon them. Look at Vietnam, supposedly we lost, but today Vietnam is I believe friendly toward us and tending away from communism. In fact, the contact they had with Americans a few decades ago has had a positive effect upon the younger generation there in terms of how they view us now. I believe the same thing could happen in the Middle East. Every human soul yearns for freedom, and if we stand for the right things, right will win out eventually, and our presence in the Middle East could bear positive fruit, but it could take a long time for it to happen. The problems there are deeply rooted and generational, and religious as well. Fanatical movements take time to change.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 08:15 pm
Quote:
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia " Defense ministers from NATO on Friday endorsed the ambitious counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, giving new impetus to his recommendation to pour more troops into the eight-year-old war.

General McChrystal, the senior American and allied commander in Afghanistan, made an unannounced appearance here on Friday to brief the defense ministers on his strategic review of a war in which the American-led campaign has lost momentum to a tenacious Taliban insurgency.

“What we did today was to discuss General McChrystal’s overall assessment, his overall approach, and I have noted a broad support from all ministers of this overall counterinsurgency approach,” said NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/world/europe/24nato.html?_r=1&hp

Obama is certainly paying for Bush's bad behaviour...Bush the one who disregarded his generals and pursued the Iraq war plan that Rummy dreamed up, to the grave harm of the effort as well as the nation. The current generation of officers will not stay quiet when the civilian leadership has their head up their ass, as was the case in 2001-2002.

Took long enough.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Oct, 2009 09:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
to the grave harm of the effort as well as the nation.


Screw the nation! You wouldn't be worried about the nation if you had within a shred of decency.

Why not get those assholes where they belong, in jail for innumerable war crimes.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 08:07 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Advocate wrote:

You are ducking the question of how many US deaths would be OK over the years fighting in Afghanistan. I think that puts you out of the discussion.

I'm not ducking it. I said it was misguided and refused to answer. Believe me, I could ask you any number of questions that you could probably answer, but that are so misguided that you wouldn't answer. For instance, if your wife or girlfriend was dying of an illness, how much money would you borrow, assuming you could borrow as much as you wanted but would thereafter be in debt, for treatment that would cure her? And it's not up to you to cover the fact that you don't want to try to respond to your opponents assertions by ruling him expelled from the discussion. I expel you from the discussion for your disgusting indifference to the attack on your country and murder of your countrymen.


My question is relevant, and yours is not. I see you are too craven to answer my question.

If you don't even believe that we should retaliate for acts of war committed against us, then the country would be much better off without you. No country that cannot even summon the resolve to persist in a just war that becomes difficult will play much future role in the world. All deaths are tragic for the people involved, however the number of military casualties suffered by us so far in this was is very, very small compared to the number suffered in many wars we've been involved in.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 09:01 am
@Brandon9000,
It is silly to say we have not retaliated against the Taliban, especially when you consider their relatively minor role in 9/11. It is now time to try to make peace (a dirty word to you guys on the right) and move on.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 12:06 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

It is silly to say we have not retaliated against the Taliban, especially when you consider their relatively minor role in 9/11. It is now time to try to make peace (a dirty word to you guys on the right) and move on.

We need to beat them, rather than retreat, because we have no endurance, and let them beat us. How do you make peace with someone who provided support, both before and afterwards, for a sneak attack on one of your cities which murdered thousands of your civilian citizens on purpose, when they haven't apologized, much less convincingly, and don't appear to be sorry? Peace is a great word, but not making peace with someone who helped bomb your cities and isn't sorry, just because you cannot remain committed to anything that turns out to be difficult.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Oct, 2009 12:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
Okay, I gather it is acceptable to you that we sacrifice, say, 25,000 or 50,000 troops to "win." But say we drive the the Tal back to Pakistan, I guess we will have to stay in Afghanistan forever because the Taliban will likely again return there to fight us. Moreover, this effort is weakening the country when we need the money for other stupid ventures, such as returning to the moon.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 09:07 am
Here is a good piece by Scott Rider on McChrystal's proposed surge.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091029_mcchrystal_doesnt_get_it_does_obama/
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Oct, 2009 12:02 pm
@Brandon9000,
Considering the grief, the horror, the destruction, the deaths, the inhumanity that you assholes have heaped upon untold countries around the world, you have a lot of gall suggesting that others should apologize.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 07:19 pm
Lest it be forgotten, I think everyone needs to remember that one of Obama's big campaign points was that Bush "took his eye off the ball" and went to Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan where the real problem was, where Osama Bin Laden was operating out of and where the people that supported him were, referring to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Obama's pledge was that he would concentrate on Afghanistan, send more troops, and do what was necessary to hunt down Osama Bin Laden. All the Democrats said Amen, that is right, Obama has it right, Bush has been wrong, and so on. The supporters of Obama all piled on and said how great and smart Obama was, he understood the problem, he gets it, and just wait until we have somebody so smart as president! Well folks, this is Obama's big chance to show if he is up to the task, is he or not, and will he do what he said, or does he actually believe what he said? Does he have a spine, and did he believe what he said, or did he merely say it because he thought it was a winning position to get elected?

I think it was the latter, and I think Obama considers the issue nothing more than a hot potato, and he really does not know what to do with it or about it. I doubt his heart is in it all, I don't think he cares, except to try to figure out some strategy that will profit him politically. National security, no, I don't think that is at the top of his list.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Nov, 2009 08:24 pm
@okie,
Quote:
National security, no, I don't think that is at the top of his list.


"national security", what a bunch of ******* hogwash. Jesus but you're an asshat, Okie.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 02:41:14