| Politics Forum Index » General Politics Forum » THE KNOW IT ALL LIBBYS, Just CANNOT ANSWER THIS... |
|
Page 1 of 24 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ViperSpit... |
 Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN, and WHY AREN'T the TROOPS COMING HOME.
APPARENTLY, B.O. said in his "TIMEFRAME" campaign PROMISE that it would be 6
MONTHS.
SEVEN MONTHS LATER, WE'RE STILL THERE ............
HEH HEH,
Spit |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phlip... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
No he ain't.
Quote: war on terrorism never ends.
The war on _some_ terrorism never ends.
When we or our allies do it, it's okay. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phlip... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Try 16 months not 6, and Iraq not Afghanistan.
We will be in Afghanistan either forever, or as long as the Soviet
Union was there. If you catch my drift.
In the blame game, lots of early fault lies with Jimmy Carter (and his
CIA). When the Soviets made a grab for both oil and a warm-water port,
Jimmy heroically opposed them, in true Cold War style, by interfering
with Afghans to start breeding a proxy army.
His meddling led to Afghans killing all their own moderates - people
who "collaborated" with the Soviets. And that, naturally, left the
country full of extremists... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James Of Tucson... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 1, 9:09 pm, Phlip <phlip2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Try 16 months not 6, and Iraq not Afghanistan.
We will be in Afghanistan either forever, or as long as the Soviet
Union was there. If you catch my drift.
Afghanistan doesn't have a functional government that people are going
to rise up to defend. There simply isn't much opportunity for
anything like "patriotism" to develop. The indigenous culture of
Afghanistan has been successfully repressed for so long that it is
nonexistent, so there's not going to be an emergence of native
patriotism either.
As for foreign interests, they basically amount to control of the
opium trade (which is a red herring that sensible people who lead
rational governments really don't get as excited about as some would
have us believe) and they want to keep the warring factions in the
region from crossing certain borders. That's it. That's not enough
to justify an endless war. There isn't anything like a "victory
condition" that can be applied to Afghanistan. What would that be?
"The last desperate tribal faction either becomes legitimately
prosperous or else dies?" This is not going to happen, and trying to
make it happen by military means will only make them more desperate.
People with nothing to lose... have nothing to lose.
They shouldn't have blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas OR the Twin Towers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phlip... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Various libruls wrote:
Quote: They shouldn't have blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas OR the Twin Towers.
They may have attacked those peaceful Buddhas, but they sure did NOT
attack the USA on 9/11.
No Afghans were among the hijackers...
Quote: Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence
that anyone in Afghanistan had anything to do
with the crimes of 9/11.
Osama bin Laden publicly announced credit for all the other terror
operations that he was then proven to have directed.
He never took credit for 9/11. Maybe he actually changed his modus
operandi, or maybe it surprised him. Or maybe he felt someone higher
than him in the hierarchy deserved the credit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 2, 10:39 am, Phlip <phlip2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Various libruls wrote:
They shouldn't have blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas OR the Twin Towers.
They may have attacked those peaceful Buddhas, but they sure did NOT
attack the USA on 9/11.
No Afghans were among the hijackers...
Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence
that anyone in Afghanistan had anything to do
with the crimes of 9/11.
Osama bin Laden publicly announced credit for all the other terror
operations that he was then proven to have directed.
He never took credit for 9/11. Maybe he actually changed his modus
operandi, or maybe it surprised him. Or maybe he felt someone higher
than him in the hierarchy deserved the credit.
..
..
Re: He never took credit for 9/11.
What? Five YEARS ago Bin Laden took responsibility for 9-11 in
October of 2004. Read the statements he made about it at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm
In which bin Laden stated:
(1) "While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it
occurred to me to punish the
unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United
States so that it would feel some
of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and
women... "
and
(2) "We had agreed with the chief amir [leader - of the 11 September
hijackers] Mohammed Atta
that he should accomplish all the operations within 20 minutes before
Bush and his administration
could take notice."
And further note that Fox News offered the same story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
We initially went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden, but Bushie Boy
decided he wasn't that important anymore.
RO |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Iarnrod... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 2, 9:26 am, * US * wrote:
Quote: Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence
that anyone in Afghanistan had anything to do
with the crimes of 9/11.
You mean other than UBL's own admission? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Transition Zone... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
* US * wrote:
Quote: Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence
that anyone in Afghanistan had anything to do
with the crimes of 9/11.
All big investment has to do is lure wistle-blowers all on board one
plane/building and then
down the whole thing.
Now, let CNN and MSNBC investors try to refute that !! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Transition Zone... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Iarnrod wrote:
Quote: * US * wrote:
Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence
that anyone in Afghanistan had anything to do
with the crimes of 9/11.
You mean other than UBL's own admission ?
What other groups rushed to "admit" involvement? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Iarnrod... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:10 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 2, 10:42 am, Transition Zone <mogu... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: Iarnrod wrote:
* US * wrote:
Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence
that anyone in Afghanistan had anything to do
>with the crimes of 9/11.
You mean other than UBL's own admission ?
What other groups rushed to "admit" involvement?
Exactly. None did except UBL. He's proud he did it and he would cut
off your head if you claimed to his face that he didn't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence
that anyone in Afghanistan had anything to do
with the crimes of 9/11. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 5147 Dead, 280 since 1/20/09... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:39:31 -0700, Phlip wrote:
Quote: Various libruls wrote:
They shouldn't have blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas OR the Twin Towers.
They may have attacked those peaceful Buddhas, but they sure did NOT
attack the USA on 9/11.
No Afghans were among the hijackers...
Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence that anyone in
Afghanistan had anything to do with the crimes of 9/11.
Osama bin Laden publicly announced credit for all the other terror
operations that he was then proven to have directed.
He never took credit for 9/11. Maybe he actually changed his modus
operandi, or maybe it surprised him. Or maybe he felt someone higher
than him in the hierarchy deserved the credit.
Like Saudi Prince Abdul, perhaps. I've always wondered at how must Saudi
Arabian involvement was in it. It would explain the curiously muted and
ineffectual administration response.
--
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| KStahl... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
* US * wrote:
Quote: Remember, there's absolutely no real evidence
that anyone in Afghanistan had anything to do
with the crimes of 9/11.
Why didn't someone tell that to Bush before he decided to commit
genocide on our own soldiers? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phlip... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: As for foreign interests, they basically amount to control of the
opium trade (which is a red herring that sensible people who lead
rational governments really don't get as excited about as some would
have us believe)
Opium - drug prohibition - is the heart of the matter. Without the
incredible profits of prohibition, terrorists would have to work for a
living.
Legalize the opium (and use medical cannabis to prevent physical
addictions), and the war on terror disappears in a puff of ... smoke!
And gov'ts "look the other way" because that's part of the profit
chain. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phlip... |
| Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: Re: He never took credit for 9/11.
(1) "While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it
occurred to me to punish the
unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United
States so that it would feel some
of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and
women... "
and
(2) "We had agreed with the chief amir [leader - of the 11 September
hijackers] Mohammed Atta
that he should accomplish all the operations within 20 minutes before
Bush and his administration
could take notice."
I may be misremembering, but can you compare those tangential remarks
to the _formal_ press releases or whatever that he released after
operations like his embassy bombings?
(If the question becomes "what did OBL know and when did he know it",
the heat is on in some circles to make sure he's never taken alive,
huh?)
But note I don't personally consider OBL's statements proof of
anything one way or the other... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
