Taliban offered to hand over Osama - BEFORE 9/11....

9/11 was preventable.Bush did nothing.

  • Obviously - next dumbass question ?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If not the WTC another target would have been hit

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A free society cannot defend itself from this kind of attack

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • This is fake - nobody warned the White House

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Even if they had - we get 10 such warnings a day

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#1
This is a 9 minute clip.....it examines claims that the Clinton administration
(and their appointees in the Int community) passed Bush/Cheney clear, stark and unambiguous warnings relating to Al Quaeda

It's worth watching just for the quote from Paul Bremer - an insider, in 2001:

' What they will do is stagger along until there is a major incident and then say 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organised to deal with this ? '

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13lGuuebvfg

( I doubt DII will cope with it - use a stand alone)

If I read this right ( and I have in mind that in the wake of 9/11 commission report there is an element of blamestorming to this) then 3,000 people from all over the world died in Manhattan needlessly.

God rest them.


Don Cabra
 
#2
Goatman said:
This is a 9 minute clip.....it examines claims that the Clinton administration
(and their appointees in the Int community) passed Bush/Cheney clear, stark and unambiguous warnings relating to Al Quaeda

It's worth watching just for the quote from Paul Bremer - an insider, in 2001:

' What they will do is stagger along until there is a major incident and then say 'Oh my God, shouldn't we be organised to deal with this ? '

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13lGuuebvfg

( I doubt DII will cope with it - use a stand alone)

If I read this right ( and I have in mind that in the wake of 9/11 commission report there is an element of blamestorming to this) then 3,000 people from all over the world died in Manhattan needlessly.

God rest them.


Don Cabra
I believe that negotiations with Taliban are possible right now. Moreover that...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0502/dailyUpdate.html

US does not consider Taliban terrorists
Even as the Taliban attacks US, Canadian, and British forces, organization is left off terrorist list in 'political' decision.

When the US State Department issued its annual Country Reports on Terrorism last Friday, it listed numerous state-sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, and groups it considers foreign terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hizbullah. Conspiciously absent from the lists, however, was the Taliban.
 
#3
From a Nato press release issued yesterday: "Tuesday’s suicide attack in Lashkar Gah brings the total number of attacks this year to 56. These 56 suicide attacks have killed 131 Afghans, 27 Afghan security personnel and 13 international soldiers, and ended 56 lives that should have been better spent."

So what actually constitutes terrorism then?
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#4
Were you able to access YouTube from autumnal Mocba then Sergey ? Or just commenting on your perception of the Taliban 'Way ahead' ?

The clip does not dwell on the alleged Taliban overture in 2001....more on whether the signposts were clearly marked for Bush and his V-P and whether anyone in the White House bothered to take any notice.


It's worth reading some of the comments on the YouTube page:

Wow real journalism- I thought it was extinct.

scorp2007 (8 hours ago)
This video needs to be on every bloggers site in existance!

mmckee44 (8 hours ago)
Thank you Keith. This was excellent.
Olbermann-Stewart in "08?

judah (7 hours ago)
lol. nothing subtantive from the cons. somehow i'm not suprised the remaining republicans on the internet are all fvcking trolls.

ricbear (7 hours ago)
This is great! And you know NONE of the trolls here will talk about the FACTS Olbermann brings up - ALL they will do is dump insults.

frostymxer (6 hours ago)
There has to be a catch here. I think they are gonna let the Bush Regime go down with the 911 ship and play it off as the answer when in fact its not.

AngryBob666 (6 hours ago)
'Bout damn time somebody told the truth. Bush's web of lies is finally falling apart.

karldpeters (6 hours ago)
Damn, damn, damn!! For all their attempts to blame someone else, we now know it's because they think it's their own fault. Damn. Impeach those sons of bitches.

spacespace (4 hours ago)
Outstanding!! Let's make this go huge viral. . . the world needs to see this.

mmeettaann (4 hours ago)
The guy is Bush`s best friend,making him look incompetent instead of criminal.Everybody with an IQ above that of yeast knows by now that 911 was an inside job.

revivalizt (3 hours ago)
I hate liars .. why would they lie?? I'm so voting this for 5 STARS ..

PLEASE make this a FEATURED video guys.

oanatrif (3 hours ago)
Revivalizt, I second that opinion. Make this a FEATURED video on youtube!

mipian (3 hours ago)
I third it! The truth needs to get out there.

bugmen0tplease (2 hours ago)
George W. Bush - Worst President In American History
-----------------------------------------ends-----------------------

now, in a little while the USA wakes up....I suspect the GOP will urge it's supporters to post some more measured responses.....

As an interested non-involved observer of US politics since Lyndon Johnson's day, I cannot remember anyone who has divided the exceptional state to the same extent....Roll on the November mid-terms.....


Don Cabra
 
#5
micksmith said:
From a Nato press release issued yesterday: "Tuesday’s suicide attack in Lashkar Gah brings the total number of attacks this year to 56. These 56 suicide attacks have killed 131 Afghans, 27 Afghan security personnel and 13 international soldiers, and ended 56 lives that should have been better spent".

So what actually constitutes terrorism then?
There was a lot of suicide attacks during WW2. Soldiers with grenades detonated them just being under a tank. Many covered (by their bodies) a hole in bunkers to stop machine gun firing. Many Soviet pilots on damaged planes didn't bale out but instead commited a suicide directing their planes to enemy targets. There were suicide attacks, but can we call the soldiers as terrorists? I think that no. I have never heard that Japanese kamikadzes were regarded as terrorists.

So a suicide attack itself is not equal to a terror act. It depends on many factors.

I believe that any attack (even suicide one) against foreign solders on own soil can't be regarded as a terrorism.

Gatman, thank you for additioan info. I'll try to watch the clip at home where I have unlimited Internet access. Now I haven't much time (am writing a proposition to impove telemetry system on one power station).
 
#6
There was a lot of suicide attacks during WW2. Soldiers with grenades detonated them just being under a tank. Many covered (by their bodies) a hole in bunkers to stop machine gun firing. Many Soviet pilots on damaged planes didn't bale out but instead commited a suicide directing their planes to enemy targets. There were suicide attacks, but can we call the soldiers as terrorists? I think that no. I have never heard that Japanese kamikadzes were regarded as terrorists.

So a suicide attack itself is not equal to a terror act. It depends on many factors.

I believe that any attack (even suicide one) against foreign solders on own soil can't be regarded as a terrorism.
When are not in uniforms and they attack civilians . They are terrorist
 
#7
NEO_CON said:
There was a lot of suicide attacks during WW2. Soldiers with grenades detonated them just being under a tank. Many covered (by their bodies) a hole in bunkers to stop machine gun firing. Many Soviet pilots on damaged planes didn't bale out but instead commited a suicide directing their planes to enemy targets. There were suicide attacks, but can we call the soldiers as terrorists? I think that no. I have never heard that Japanese kamikadzes were regarded as terrorists.

So a suicide attack itself is not equal to a terror act. It depends on many factors.

I believe that any attack (even suicide one) against foreign solders on own soil can't be regarded as a terrorism.
When are not in uniforms and they attack civilians . They are terrorist
Uniforms? Btw, Afghans that attacked Soviet troops in 80's also didn't wear uniforms, but they were not called terrorists but rather 'freedom fighters' and they were indeed freedom fighters that had full rights to fight against enemy on their own soil using any possible measures including suicide attacks. And Afghans on their own soil must not to wear any stupid uniforms. They wear their traditional clothes of warriors. It along with a machine guns in their hands is their 'uniform'.

As for attacks against civilians then I'm unaware about corresponding example.
 
#8
If you mount an attack, suicide or otherwise, that kills innocent civilians in an attempt to intimidate them - in this case into not giving any support or backing to people sent to help reconstruct your country - you are a terrorist and no amount of verbal manouevring is going to change that.
 
#9
micksmith said:
If you mount an attack, suicide or otherwise, that kills innocent civilians in an attempt to intimidate them - in this case into not giving any support or backing to people sent to help reconstruct your country...
'Those that were sent' to my country without my invitation can be killed by me using any means moreover that 'those that were sent' killed a lot of civilians themselves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5201256.stm

A US-led bombing raid in southern Afghanistan killed 10 civilians, an Afghan government inquiry has found.
Edited to add. Writing 'me' I meant to demonstrate a logic of a typical 'freedom fighter'.
 
#10
micksmith said:
If you mount an attack, suicide or otherwise, that kills innocent civilians in an attempt to intimidate them - in this case into not giving any support or backing to people sent to help reconstruct your country - you are a terrorist and no amount of verbal manouevring is going to change that.
Terrorism is a tactic waged when conventional military action is not possible or desirable. It's not something inherently evil, it depends on why you're doing it.

For instance, using your definition the strategic bombing campaigns waged during WW2 were terrorism. Such raids killed many, many civilians for the express purpose of breaking the will of the home front to resist. (For the record, I believe it was the right thing to do - then.)

Another WW2 example, ever heard of the Auxunits ? These were stay behind units set up to wage a terrorist campaign against the Germans should they have invaded. The activities of Soviet partisans or the French maquis are other examples. Should the inhabitants of those occupied countries have refused to fight their occupiers using terrorist methods and tactics ?

Of course in such cases where we agree with the aims of the terrorists we call them freedom fighters. And therein lies the reason we consistently fail to stop people becoming terrorists, we refuse to acknowledge that they reject what we are trying to do for them and would rather shoot at us than accept it. We refuse to acknowledge that what we think of as "collateral damage" they see as "innocents murdered by foreign terrorists".
 
#11
Uniforms? Btw, Afghans that attacked Soviet troops in 80's also didn't wear uniforms, but they were not called terrorists but rather 'freedom fighters' and they were indeed freedom fighters that had full rights to fight against enemy on their own soil using any possible measures including suicide attacks. And Afghans on their own soil must not to wear any stupid uniforms. They wear their traditional clothes of warriors. It along with a machine guns in their hands is their 'uniform'.
I said civilians ,so if you don't have uniforms and you attack cilivans in order to frighten them into submission you are a terrorist. Its really very simple. If you don't wear uniforms but you limit your attack to military targets than you are guerrillas fighters. If you do both you are a terrorist . If you believe in what the guerrilla fighters are fighting for than they are freedom fighters if not they are guerrilla fighters if they limit their attacks to military targets.
 
#12
NEO_CON said:
Uniforms? Btw, Afghans that attacked Soviet troops in 80's also didn't wear uniforms, but they were not called terrorists but rather 'freedom fighters' and they were indeed freedom fighters that had full rights to fight against enemy on their own soil using any possible measures including suicide attacks. And Afghans on their own soil must not to wear any stupid uniforms. They wear their traditional clothes of warriors. It along with a machine guns in their hands is their 'uniform'.
I said civilians ,so if you don't have uniforms and you attack cilivans in order to frighten them into submission you are a terrorist. Its really very simple. If you don't wear uniforms but you limit your attack to military targets than you are guerrillas fighters. If you do both you are a terrorist . If you believe in what the guerrilla fighters are fighting for than they are freedom fighters if not they are guerrilla fighters if they limit their attacks to military targets.
Alright, stop trying to change the subject of the thread. You're a worshiper of this inept Daddy's boy and his cabal- so just tell us how you would respond to the assertions made in the vid.
 
#13
I wouldn't want to negotiate with the Taliban, to me they are too much like Nazis (this is not Neocon talk, this is how I see them). Their twisted ideology is a shame to the region, to islam, and humanity. The only deal I want to see is one where they disarm, stop forcing women to wear burkhas, and stop burning schools. For too many years we've been making deals with people like that. Too long the Taliban and the Baathists have been aided by the west. I long for the day when the earth is purged of fundamentalism and extremism.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#14
Chief_Joseph said:
I long for the day when the earth is purged of fundamentalism and extremism.
Concur.....however, may I direct you to Kipling's poem 'Them'.

or as I have seen it put in another place:

' It is not given to us to master the tides of the World....we can only struggle in the time wherein we are set, to uproot the evil in familiar fields...that those who come after may have clean earth to till. ''

Crabs - well said...this thread concerns WHETHER or NOT Mister Bush and Mister Cheney had early warning, from both the outgoing administration and their own security apparat, of a 'clear and present danger' from Al Quaeda on US soil ?

By all means digress (Sergey and Peter) but that is the central question.

Given that so much death has sprung from that day, 11th September 2001 is relevant to all of us.


Don Cabra
 
#15
NEO_CON said:
...if you don't have uniforms and you attack cilivans in order to frighten them into submission you are a terrorist.
Do you think that if you wear an uniform but attack civilians then you are not a terrorist in any case? Can American rapists be regarded as terrorists? They didn't wear uniforms during their alleged crime. But if they would wear uniforms then would it matter? As I understand, according to your logic it is sufficiet for Taliban to wear uniforms and that's all. They can attack anybody but (wearing uniforms) they would not be terrorists.

From my point of view an uniform is absolutely irrelevant, more important what you have done exactly.
 
#16
KGB_resident said:
NEO_CON said:
...if you don't have uniforms and you attack cilivans in order to frighten them into submission you are a terrorist.
Do you think that if you wear an uniform but attack civilians then you are not a terrorist in any case? Can American rapists be regarded as terrorists? They didn't wear uniforms during their alleged crime. But if they would wear uniforms then would it matter? As I understand, according to your logic it is sufficiet for Taliban to wear uniforms and that's all. They can attack anybody but (wearing uniforms) they would not be terrorists.

From my point of view an uniform is absolutely irrelevant, more important what you have done exactly.
How about russian rapists sergei?

I understand the point of the uniform, but you also continually talk about the "typical American soldier" as a racist, violent, rape prone thug. I'm a bit tired of those implications. Not long ago my friend (a US soldier stationed in Afghanistan) lost two friends to a bombing in Kabul. They were both civil affairs troops who were on their way to do humanitarian work. The bombing took their lives, and (as is often the case) several innocent people. US and British forces had to cordon off the area, and then scrape up the pieces of women and children who the bomber intended to put in the kill zone.

American troops and Iraq and Afghanistan have to put up with it every day. The enemy is relentless and brutal. I had a lengthy talk over lunch with my other buddy, who was in Iraq, who said that while they are winning hearts, but not minds. In their heart they admire and respect the Americans and British (and all the other coalition nations of course), but in their mind they know that they put their families at risk by working with them. This says more about the terrorists then it does about Coalition and ISAF troops.

I don't know if victory can be achieved at this point, but the thought of abandoning people to be at the mercy of terrorists makes me sick. Maybe I've talked to too many refugees, too many soldiers and marines for my own good. Maybe that compromises my objectivity. I don't know. All I know is that I'm sick of them all: the Taliban, Al Queda, Hezzbollah, the Baathists, the Janjaweed, the KKK, the WBC, the IRA, and all the other fecking racist sadistic tossbags out there.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
#18
Goatman said:
Your views do you credit Chief - what was your view of the video in question ?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=13lGuuebvfg
Sorry for that outburst, I've been un-usually wound-up and stressed lately. On the topic of the video, I have to say that it is certainly troubling.

However, it also demonstrates the danger of isolationism. This goes back farther than 9/11. There is a real danger. Disengaging the enemy helps no-one. We now need to change strategy to adapt to changing circumstances. However, I'm not qualified in this subject (or any other for that matter).
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top