OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

Well, Lash, since you persist in the nonsense of saying - in the teeth of all evidence - that I, and anyone else who dares suggest any American wrongdoing - is attempting to accuse every man and woman guarding the facility, your broad brushing is clear and manifest.

Your position beggars belief and reason.

Since it is such a fixed nonsense in your mind, clearly no further attempt to debate it with you is worth the effort expended.

0 Replies

You've missed the entire point....or likely you didn't miss it--but are spinning wildly to avoid it---much like one would lobby to have a post removed, which caught them in error.

The charges which are being investigated--and gaining traction-- are the ones involving testimony from guards and military personnel.

You cannot take the word of detainees against their guards as the sole evidence for conviction.

You must find corroborating testimony.

Unless one believes the entire military staff to be liars and torturers--they would be confident where wrongdoing existed, it would be uncovered.

Why not investigate the individual?

0 Replies

Oh - if perchance, by own doorstep you meant the detention of illegal immigrants/asylum seekers in Oz - and you are actually interested - you made a big point of it a while back - the doorstep IS - finally - being cleaned!!!!

To the great joy of those of us who have found our government's actions in detaining so many of these people - and meting out the appalling treatment many have received - (there are a few threads about it in the Australia forum) the **** has hit the fan big time, and the conservative government is in massive disarray about the many miscarriages of justice now being identified, and the policy generally.

There is a backbench revolt - bless the conservatives with a conscience - and fear for their seats in the next election - and I dare to hope that the whole filthy mess is about to be cleared up - at least to some extent.

Best damn news I have heard in years.

0 Replies

That is not the doorstep of which I speak, but no matter....

0 Replies

Quote:

I'd rather warn than report.

I'd rather someone do the same for me.

I'd never report you or anyone else. You can say anything you want, Lash. Such is the nature of free speech. There are enough people around to rebutt. I haven't seen anything from you that should have been deleted.

I referred to them as detainees when I was addressing the issue. And, I stand behind the logic that a detainee's word alone can not be enough evidence to convict their guards.

Why the bloodlust to hang service personnel as a group, rather than investigate the guilty party and accuse them?

Show me the examples of this "bloodlust to hang service personnel as a group", please Lash.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

You've missed the entire point....or likely you didn't miss it--but are spinning wildly to avoid it---much like one would lobby to have a post removed, which caught them in error.

The charges which are being investigated--and gaining traction-- are the ones involving testimony from guards and military personnel.

You cannot take the word of detainees against their guards as the sole evidence for conviction.

You must find corroborating testimony.

Unless one believes the entire military staff to be liars and torturers--they would be confident where wrongdoing existed, it would be uncovered.

Why not investigate the individual?

I don't remember where anyone said that they would "take the word of detainees against their guards as the sole evidence for conviction". It's a ways from a conviction.

But when groups, like newspapers or the ICRC {?}, whose job it is to investigate come up with credible allegations, what does a sensible person do but proceed. This is exactly how prosecutors act.

Newspapers cannot name individuals because the military is extremely tight-lipped. Nor would it be wise, at this point, to name individuals. Would you say that the military/administration is intent on finding out the truth, on laying it all out there for the public to see?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
Lash wrote:
Face up to who committing atrocities?

Us.
We.
Us.
Nosotros
We.
Us'ens
Ourselves
US

you and me and maybe Bobby McGee.

Joe(Who else is there with whom we would be dismayed?)Nation

PS I've requested several geologists to look over the posts here. They report that while some posts are solid, some are just thick.

I have never committed an atrocity.

If you have, kindly leave me out of the plea bargain.

There are a multitude of US service personnel who have never committed an atrocity. Stop saying they have. Let individuals be charged for what they have done. I protest the broad brush treatment on innocent men and women.

This is the plainest example. Elsewhere, Setanta either inferred or claimed that Bush and Rumsfeld should be held responsible for the individual acts of crime perpetrated by service personnel. This--or casting blanket accusations against the entire military as a whole for the behavior of a few is what I protest.

I think it's illogical.

Somewhere in these pages, dlowan and I disagreed on this point. I said each case should be prosecuted individually--and she deemed this...what did she say...delusional.

0 Replies

The delusion lies in your persistence in saying the untruth that people have accused all American service people of atrocities.

0 Replies

When you reject accusing an individual and cast aspersions on 'blocs' of service personnel--and prefer to cast "the Army" or the the US as the culprit, you do broad brush the entire service and the country.

Why can't you people admit when your country does something wrong? I've seen that question by more than a couple of you.

That is a collective accusation--but it was not a collective action.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

When you reject accusing an individual and cast aspersions on 'blocs' of service personnel--and prefer to cast "the Army" or the the US as the culprit, you do broad brush the entire service and the country.

Why can't you people admit when your country does something wrong? I've seen that question by more than a couple of you.

That is a collective accusation--but it was not a collective action.

I think I finally get it. I feel connected to the actions of my country, for good or for ill, I feel that if I have a stake in the action, I have a connection to the actions taken. You don't. You think that if there is any action taken that you might not have taken yourself you are free to disconnect yourself from that action. What a delightfully irresponsible sense of reality. How freeing. You connect with only those things that might reflect well upon yourself and should there be some diversions from the righteous path, you can demure by saying it was not a collective action.

Joe(Remind me to be as pathetic in my next life.)Nation

0 Replies

If you feel associated with every criminal that roams this earth-- for whatever reason-- I don't understand your alliance, but you are entitled to it.

I, however, am in no way responsible for crimes I don't commit or condone.

Your country didn't commit atrocities at Abu Graib or at Gitmo.

It is charged that some individuals did.

Don't smear the innocent with the guilty.

0 Replies

Bush says US is in Iraq because of attacks on US

Sat Jun 18, 1:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush defended the war in Iraq, telling Americans the United States was forced into war because of the September 11 terror strikes.

Bush also resisted calls for him to set a timetable for the return of thousands of US troops deployed in Iraq, saying Iraqis must be able to defend their own country before US soldiers can be pulled out.

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Bush began a public relations offensive to defend the war as his approval rating has dropped well below 50 percent with Americans expressing skepticism about the invasion.

The centerpiece of the campaign will be a speech on June 28, exactly one year after the US-led coalition officially handed over sovereignty to a hand-picked Iraqi provisional government.

Read the Rest HERE

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

Bush says US is in Iraq because of attacks on US

Sat Jun 18, 1:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush defended the war in Iraq, telling Americans the United States was forced into war because of the September 11 terror strikes.

Bush also resisted calls for him to set a timetable for the return of thousands of US troops deployed in Iraq, saying Iraqis must be able to defend their own country before US soldiers can be pulled out.

"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.

Bush began a public relations offensive to defend the war as his approval rating has dropped well below 50 percent with Americans expressing skepticism about the invasion.

The centerpiece of the campaign will be a speech on June 28, exactly one year after the US-led coalition officially handed over sovereignty to a hand-picked Iraqi provisional government.

Read the Rest HERE

That's right, we are in Iraq as a direct result of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Does that mean Iraq had anything at all to do with the 9/11 terror attacks? Nope.

Would we have invaded Iraq had the 9/11 terror attacks not occured? Nope.

0 Replies

Hahahahahahah!

Thanks for the laugh, McG.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

That's right, we are in Iraq as a direct result of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Does that mean Iraq had anything at all to do with the 9/11 terror attacks? Nope.

Would we have invaded Iraq had the 9/11 terror attacks not occured? Nope.

The honesty is refreshing in sentences one and two. Sentence three is either an outright lie, or evidence of an incredibly naive view of this administration and its PNAC-heavy personnel roster.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
That's right, we are in Iraq as a direct result of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Does that mean Iraq had anything at all to do with the 9/11 terror attacks? Nope.

Would we have invaded Iraq had the 9/11 terror attacks not occured? Nope.

The honesty is refreshing in sentences one and two. Sentence three is either an outright lie, or evidence of an incredibly naive view of this administration and its PNAC-heavy personnel roster.

Can you prove that though Setanta? Clinton had plans to invade Iraq, doesn't mean we were going to invade, just that we were prepared to if we had to.

I am very familiar with PNAC and agree with most of it. Without the events of 9/11, there was no catalyst to implement the invasion of Iraq.

0 Replies

McGentrix- It appears that Setanta is incredibly ignorant of Clinton's Anti-Iraq stance.

Setanta does not appear to have read, or has forgotten, what Clinton said in his speech to the American people justifying his preemptive strike against Iraq in Dec. 1998(preemptive as opposed to Bush's request for authority from the Congress) in which Clinton said:

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War>"

and

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The BEST WAY TO END THAT THREAT ONCE AND FOR ALL IS WITH A NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT>"

McGentrix- I think it is sad that Setanta, who appears to know so much abour so many things, does not remember or, perhaps, does not wish to remember, Clinton's speech.

0 Replies

It appears that YOU don't get it.

There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

(Well, except for Bush using it as an excuse to invade.)

OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know