17
   

Afghanastan - Obama's war of choosing

 
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 11:09 am
@xris,
xris wrote:

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/094013_afghanpollbyregion.pdf

70% of afghans support the presence of nato/isaf military ...if you can find any reports that oppose these findings , id be interested.

You're ex-R.I.S., though very far removed from the Khyber Pass for many years now, and you think you know better that the commanding NATO general who had been in charge of that theater for over a year? Don't you read your own country's press, at least?
Quote:
General McChrystal's presentation to Nato defence ministers and Isaf representatives provided an uncompromising obstacle to Mr Obama's plan to bring troops home in time to give him a shot at a second term, according to senior military sources. The general was judged to be "off message" in his warning to ministers not to expect quick results and that they were facing a "resilient and growing insurgency".
[/i]
It came as mounting casualties added to US and UK discomfort. June has been the bloodiest month for coalition forces since the conflict began, with 88 killed. A soldier from 4th Regiment Royal Artillery died yesterday in hospital in Birmingham of wounds sustained in an explosion on 10 June. He had been on patrol with members of the Afghan National Army in Nahr-e Saraj North District, Helmand Province. He was the 308th British soldier killed since the start of the war nine years ago. The death toll is escalating, with 62 deaths this year – almost double the 32 that died in the same period last year.

Nato played down the chances of success. "I don't think anyone would say we're winning," said a Nato spokesman.

NB bold and italics added. Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-last-post-mcchrystals-bleak-outlook-2011730.html
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 11:34 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

What is CSIS ? Who funds it ? ...

It's a think tank, respected, as is the author of the report, Anthony Cordesman. He really was saying X-RIS's link claims - but that was a year and a half ago! He's changed his tune very considerably, especially after Gen. McChrystal's resignation was accepted, and he now laments his "...beautiful theories assaulted by ugly facts...." http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2010/06/18/in-afghanistan-beautiful-theories-assaulted-by-ugly-facts/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

Nothing like the lament of the dead / crippled NATO troops, or the taxpayers back home shelling out $7 billion / month for this insanity.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 01:04 pm
@High Seas,
So whats your point? are you questioning my link? are you telling me its wrong. Your post has nothing to do with my argument, has it?
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 01:07 pm
@High Seas,
He has changed his mind, who has the CSIS ? Can you give me the most current figures of those Afghans who do or dont support our continued occupation? are you disputing my reference ?
Pepijn Sweep
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 01:39 pm
@xris,
Bude, come surfing
xris
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 02:17 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Budes too far..Gwithian is closer.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 03:08 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:

He has changed his mind, .... are you disputing my reference ?

In ONE and a HALF years, CIRCUMSTANCES changed. So, therefore, Anthony Cordesman, having a brain (look it up, it's a useful tool to keep in functioning order) DID indeed decide to CHANGE his own MIND in accordance with the changing CIRCUMSTANCES. This is the last time I'm addressing you, X-RIS, with due deference to your former battle group, unless and until you get your brain checked out. If it's confused due to trauma from an explosion, I'm reliably told the NHS has pioneering techniques to diagnose and mitigate consequences of same. Thank you.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 03:34 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
unless and until you get your brain checked out. If it's confused due to trauma from an explosion,


What's your excuse, Lt. Col Flagg?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 03:49 pm
@JTT,
LOL - word reached me that you've just joined the Task Force Thor Route Clearance Patrol, 23rd Engineering Company, Airborne, in some professional capacity. Presumably teacher. It's hard to mis-spell "Thor". Or the remotely controlled robot, "Talon". But you will try Smile
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 06:25 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
LOL - ...


The cackling of a crazy lady, followed by the normal HS drivel.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Jul, 2010 08:19 pm
There are two organizations with the acronym CSIS: the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a bipartisan think tank in DC devoted to foreign policy, and, The Canadian Security Intelligence Services, Canada's national intelligence service based in Ottawa.

0 Replies
 
xris
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:13 am
@High Seas,
I think your the one that has a problem. How does your post and your reference counter the link I gave? Are you saying that this guy who changed his mind influence the complete Afghan population at the same time? I don't think you can give yourself a reason for your ignorance, it appears quite natural.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:25 pm
@xris,
You're the crass ignorant of the 2 of us, not I. Since you don't know the posters here yet, you should worry about agreeing with the demented on any subject, especially those specifically demented on all matters pertaining to the U.S. military. Anthony Cordesman, FYI, is a respected military expert, so before you disagree with him you better make sure you've explained how recent is your Afghanistan experience - if any. None is in evidence so far based on your posts on this thread. And you know nothing of mine. Your RIS training has sadly gone to waste. Goodbye.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:53 pm
@High Seas,
I wonder if I should even be bothered with your blinkered post....I'm not disagreeing with any one, I'm asking you , you damned arse ole why his opinion should make the whole of the Afghan population change its damned opinion..Don't assume anything about any one, or their military experience, or their contacts...My training would have made your arse drag on its boots sonny.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 12:58 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:

..Don't assume anything about any one, or their military experience, or their contacts...My training would have made your arse drag on its boots sonny.

I assume nothing - I check.

And I believe that about your original training, that's why I said it's gone to waste. I'm sorry I've no time to discuss anything else with you - am leaving tomorrow for an extended overseas assignment - and having noted you're long retired and disabled I want to wish you all the best. Bye.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 01:10 pm
@High Seas,
Then your information is false just like your silly self importance. If you really had any information on me you would know not to piss me off.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jul, 2010 04:31 pm
@High Seas,
Quote:
am leaving tomorrow for an extended overseas assignment


Bye bye Lt Col Flagg.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 08:35 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Is the US government refusing to turn over those terrorists for prosecution?


Absofuckinglutely they are! Venezuela and Cuba have asked for the extradition of those responsible for the Cubana Air bombing. Cuba has been asking the UN ever since 1959 to get the USA to stop committing terrorist actions against them. And the UN has been saying for almost as long, every year, stop these illegal terrorist activities.

The same with Nicaragua. These countries didn't retaliate for the numerous US terrorist actions. They, as law abiding countries, took the civilized approach, the lawful approach. They didn't concoct a plethora of lies to whip up their citizens to support more terrorism, to attack the US.


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2010 08:50 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Steve, you do know that Obama was in Afghanistan right? You do know that the Taliban refused to give him up, right?


Another myth perpetrated by the US media whose job it is to deceive the citizenry with government handouts.

Quote:
Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden
Some Contend U.S. Missed Its Chance

By David B.Ottaway and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 29, 2001; Page A01


Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.

Throughout the years, however, State Department officials refused to soften their demand that bin Laden face trial in the U.S. justice system. It also remained murky whether the Taliban envoys, representing at least one division of the fractious Islamic movement, could actually deliver on their promises.

The exchanges lie at the heart of a long and largely untold history of diplomatic efforts between the State Department and Afghanistan's ruling regime that paralleled covert CIA actions to take bin Laden. In the end, both diplomatic and covert efforts proved fruitless.

In interviews, U.S. participants and sources close to the Taliban discussed the exchanges in detail and debated whether the State Department should have been more flexible in its hard-line stance. Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm


So, rather than continue talks, you know, diplomacy, you know, something that might have prevented immense suffering and tens of thousands of lives, GWB forged ahead, convinced of his own delusions.


Quote:
Earlier this month, President Bush summarily rejected another Taliban offer to give up bin Laden to a neutral third country. "We know he's guilty. Turn him over," Bush said.


Funny, the FBI isn't now, and the US Justice Department wasn't then, at all sure that he's guilty.

Quote:


Osama bin Laden, among the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives": Why was he never indicted for his alleged role in 9/11?

by Michel Chossudovsky

Osama is classified among among The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.

However, on the Usama bin Laden page on the FBI website, there is no explicit statement to the effect that he might be wanted in connection to the Septmber 11, 2001 attacks.

He is wanted in relation to the 1998 African Embassy bombings.

"USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."

On first reading the web page seems to be out of date, a pre-9/11 page, which the FBI forgot to update.

The FBI, like most organizations, updates its website periodically, when new information, concerning a "wanted fugitive" becomes available.

On closer examination, the original posting, which dates to June 1999, was updated: in November 2001, at least three weeks after the US invaded Afghanistan. (Click here to go to FBI Usama page)

The decision to go to war was taken without a indictment by the US Justice department and corroborating statements by the FBI to the effect that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda was behind the attacks. It was taken without an indictment issued by the Justice Department.

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation conducted by the FBI..

The FBI confirmed in a recent statement (July 2006) that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on the Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (See the Muckracker Report, See also Enver Masud, FBI: Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11? The 'FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11', Wisdom Fund, June 2006). Rex Tom, FBI Director of Investigative Publictiy stated in this regard that

“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then 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 connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops

The war on Afghanistan started on October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11.

On September 20th, the Taliban government had offered, "to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington." (George Mombiot, The Guardian, 11 Nov 2003). This offer which was repeated by the Taliban government on October 1, 2001, six days before the beginning of the bombing:

"We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time." (Ibid)

To this date, the Justice department has not formally indicted and charged Osama bin Laden for the 911 attacks:

The FBI maintains a separate "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which includes bin Laden and 25 others who have been indicted in U.S. federal courts in connection with terror plots. But this second bin Laden listing also makes no mention of Sept. 11.

"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." (Washington Post, 28 August 2006)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3246






0 Replies
 
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 08:09:09