Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 
Want to support this site? Click

Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-26 10:26am
Offline
Magister
Magister
User avatar

Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 25532
Block wrote:
Shroom Man 777 wrote:
I swear I heard or saw shit about that 9/11 guy meeting up with some Iraqi guy in the media propaganda freedomization democracy infodump would-you-like-to-know-more-ing blitz brigades before the second front of the Operation Middle Eastern & Muslim World Super-Freedomization Road Map to Peace was opened.

I THINK that may have been from Fox news, and quickly proven to be false by the slightly more reputable news agencies.



No, the "they totally met in Geneva to discuss strategy against the west" was one of many thinks launched by Darth Cheney.

From Bush's own statement regarding the Iraqi threat:

Quote:
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.


Made before the invasion.



Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-27 12:01pm
Offline
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
User avatar

Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Posts: 19927
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Simon_Jester wrote:
It's like, if I punch you, and you punch me back, it's OK. It makes sense, you shouldn't have to just stand there and let me beat on you for no reason.

But if I don't punch you, and then you lie and say I punched you and then punch me "back," it's not OK. Because then you're being a dick.


What if because the first instance was deemed OK, the party decides to take advantage of that and uses it in the second instance to induce dickery?



Image Image Image
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-27 12:38pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand

Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21956
Then the first instance was okay, and the second instance was dickery. The first instance is not retroactively wrong because of something a dick did later.

Unless, of course, the dick caused the first instance so he'd have an excuse for the second- but at that point we're diving into 9/11 trutherism, which is bullshit.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-29 04:45am
Offline
Jedi Council Member

Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1684
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Simon_Jester wrote:
Then why, after 9/11, did the Taliban not simply agree to cooperate with US forces in finding bin Laden?

Omar saying that bin Laden is not qualified to issue fatwas is completely irrelevant, a red herring. It doesn't matter whether Omar thought (or thinks) that bin Laden was qualified as a theologian. What matters is whether Omar's government was willing to offer bin Laden a safe harbor where he could attack other countries, free from reprisals or punishment. Which it did.


Shrub famously rejected offers by the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden.

There was never any chance for the Taliban to 'cooperate', they weren't even recognized as the official government. Shrub was going to invade, and that was it.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-29 04:51am
Offline
Emperor's Hand

Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21956
"Famously rejected..." the fame here coming from one man? One man who was once a US/Taliban go-between and is now irrelevant, and who has every reason to try to kick himself back into the limelight by ginning up a story?

Christ, if that's your standard of evidence, I've got the coordinates of a pile of Iraqi WMD locations to sell you.

I mean, there's the off chance it's true- but the standard of evidence you're applying is low, the 'conspiracy alarm' factor is high, and you've been so consistently injecting paranoia and bullshit into your arguments that I'm very skeptical.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-29 06:03pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
Uhm, Simon? Bush have said so himself. The Bush inner circle thought the offer was bullshit, with lots of give us stuff first then we'll give you Bin Ladin.
If we ignore the pre 911 offer as BS. Then as soon as things started going bad for A-stan, the taliban offered Bin Laden. But first the taliban wanted proof of Bin Laden's involvement, then when the bombs started dropping they wanted the bombing to stop first - then they would hand him over. The US refused - unconditional handing over was the only offer on the table.
etc
etc
Then, was it 2003?, when Iran wanted to trade Saad Bin Laden (son active in Al-Quada) for some allies of theirs caught in A-stan. That was also refused.
etc
etc
Similar things were said when Barrack took over, several offers that had been given to Bush and rejected, were repeated to Barrack who also rejected them.
etc

Its not that he/they wasn't offered, he got plenty of offers - (Clinton received some as well before him). Its that those offers was not seen as trustworthy, or that there would be no bargaining with "the other side". etc

So its very real that offers like the one in that article was made, whatever you think about that specific one. Its also very real that the Bush admin refused to negotiate on several occasions.
What is unknown though is if any of those offers were genuine, also unknown to which level the Bush admin got credible info on the genuiness of the offers (given the neglected intel over all), then unknown again is if the Bush admin's reluctance/refusal to negotiate with "the enemy" effected events to the worse.

I thought this was common knowledge with people who give a damn, so I'm confused about your reply. I'll see if I can find that french or maybe canadian documentary that had interviewed Rice on this.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-29 06:32pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand

Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21956
Spoonist wrote:
Uhm, Simon? Bush have said so himself. The Bush inner circle thought the offer was bullshit, with lots of give us stuff first then we'll give you Bin Ladin.
If we ignore the pre 911 offer as BS. Then as soon as things started going bad for A-stan, the taliban offered Bin Laden. But first the taliban wanted proof of Bin Laden's involvement, then when the bombs started dropping they wanted the bombing to stop first - then they would hand him over. The US refused - unconditional handing over was the only offer on the table.
etc
etc
Then, was it 2003?, when Iran wanted to trade Saad Bin Laden (son active in Al-Quada) for some allies of theirs caught in A-stan. That was also refused.
etc
etc
Similar things were said when Barrack took over, several offers that had been given to Bush and rejected, were repeated to Barrack who also rejected them.
etc

Its not that he/they wasn't offered, he got plenty of offers - (Clinton received some as well before him). Its that those offers was not seen as trustworthy, or that there would be no bargaining with "the other side". etc

So its very real that offers like the one in that article was made, whatever you think about that specific one. Its also very real that the Bush admin refused to negotiate on several occasions.
What is unknown though is if any of those offers were genuine, also unknown to which level the Bush admin got credible info on the genuiness of the offers (given the neglected intel over all), then unknown again is if the Bush admin's reluctance/refusal to negotiate with "the enemy" effected events to the worse.

I thought this was common knowledge with people who give a damn, so I'm confused about your reply. I'll see if I can find that french or maybe canadian documentary that had interviewed Rice on this.
I'm sorry, sometimes I find that I've accidentally been living under a rock for the past ten years.

That said, you did hit on the biggest issues. With a huge bounty on bin Laden's head and his death or capture being one of the highest (nominal) objectives of American foreign policy, it's no wonder that all sorts of people come out of the woodwork offering his head on a plate. But the incentive to lie is huge, and for organizations already in a commensal relationship with Al Qaeda, there's an obvious way to exploit this kind of situation:

Taliban: "Stop bombing and we'll give you bin Laden."
US: "Uh... OK."
Taliban: "Psst, Osama's well-known agent, we're gonna be moving a lot of extra revolutionary guardians into this particular cave at around, oh, 0300 hours next Tuesday. Just thought you should know."
Osama's well known agent: "SHITS!"
Osama bin Laden: "SHIT! RUUUN!"
Taliban, a week later: "Nope, nope, nothing here. Hey, US, we're sorry, he got away. But we think he went thataway; we'll take another go at him in a few days if you like. Just keep not bombing us, OK?"
US: "..."

Repeat until bin Laden figures out how to skip the country entirely. Meanwhile, the Taliban are frantically caching supplies for guerilla campaigns, trying to transfer assets overseas to places the US can't or won't lock the down, and so on. Not good.

This doesn't happen in more mundane criminal investigations, because the people offering to fink out the mob boss for you are probably already under arrest and in your power for other crimes, and because you can act on the information they give independently. And quickly.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-29 06:55pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
Uhm, again, the falling out between the taliban and al-quaida is well documented. It started before the clinton missile to the camps thingie. Its even hinted that the intel of those camps and Bin Laden's visit to them came directly from part of the taliban leadership. However openly they could not be seen as anti a brethren jihadii.

If the taliban actually knew where he was they would most definately have handed him over. But its unknown if they really knew the exact location. More likely that they knew the general location and that they would move in if the US would negotiate. But that is speculation.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-29 07:38pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand

Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21956
Again, I think the problem here is one of trust- the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more and no less.

The Taliban "needed to be seen" not actively betraying bin Laden, and couldn't get to him quickly or reliably (even after the falling out, I suspect bin Laden was fairly well informed about internal goings-on within the Taliban power structure; I'd try to be in his shoes). The US needed to see the Taliban actively betraying bin Laden, and wanted him fast and reliably.

Hence, a big credibility gap, and a gap in the compatibility of objectives. Throw in the generally loathesome character of the Taliban regime and the presence of an arguably just-as-legitimate rebel movement already operating in the country, and I think that turning down their more conditional offers was understandable.

As to subsequent offers, those become even more questionable- the Iranians say they can get bin Laden, but in hindsight and knowing where he was hiding at the time, how the hell would they have known he was in an ISI safehouse in Pakistan?

Idly, I wonder how many offers of information about bin Laden's whereabouts the US accepted- most of those would still be secrets. And how many of the offers later turned out to be false or irrelevant.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-29 08:39pm
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2009-04-18 10:53pm
Posts: 634
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
Sometimes it feels you could replace all American foreign policy with the following:

Quote:
Ego civis Civitatum Foederatarum Americae. Noli me exasperans aut patriam defendat. An sicut dicimus quod vos ero melior quidem. Resistitur inefficax.

I am a citizen of the United States. Do not provoke me or my country will defend me. Do as we say and you will be better for it. Resistance is futile.



ImageImageImageImageImageImage

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-30 08:07am
Offline
Jedi Council Member

Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1684
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Simon_Jester wrote:
Again, I think the problem here is one of trust- the enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more and no less.

The Taliban "needed to be seen" not actively betraying bin Laden, and couldn't get to him quickly or reliably (even after the falling out, I suspect bin Laden was fairly well informed about internal goings-on within the Taliban power structure; I'd try to be in his shoes). The US needed to see the Taliban actively betraying bin Laden, and wanted him fast and reliably.

Hence, a big credibility gap, and a gap in the compatibility of objectives. Throw in the generally loathesome character of the Taliban regime and the presence of an arguably just-as-legitimate rebel movement already operating in the country, and I think that turning down their more conditional offers was understandable.

As to subsequent offers, those become even more questionable- the Iranians say they can get bin Laden, but in hindsight and knowing where he was hiding at the time, how the hell would they have known he was in an ISI safehouse in Pakistan?

Idly, I wonder how many offers of information about bin Laden's whereabouts the US accepted- most of those would still be secrets. And how many of the offers later turned out to be false or irrelevant.


The simpler answer is that Shrub wanted to kick Islamic ass forwarding PNAC, and wouldn't take "Here's Bin Laden" for an answer. As it turned out, Bin Laden was more useful as a terrorist boogeyman on the loose for a decade, justifying all sorts of neocon schemes. A criminal dead or in custody would never serve as well. Afghanistan was the first of America's wars of choice in the new century, after which would follow Iraq and Libya, and perhaps some time this year, Iran.

As Spoonist mentioned, Bin Laden and Al Queda never got along with Mullah Omar and the Taliban, and Bin Laden was hard pressed to remain in the country. Its documented knowledge across the web from various sources that Mullah Omar did not want any part of any Bin Laden anti-American plots, and Shrub rejected any and all attempts to negotiate.

As for the whereabouts of Bin Laden, ignoring rumors of his death before May 2011, it has been reported that the United States had a ten-year-old deal with Pakistan permitting a unilateral raid on Pakistani soil against Bin Laden, after which Pakistan would protest on-cue, distancing themselves from the Americans. So, U.S. intel was probably never far behind Bin Laden, and had forseen Bin Laden turning up in Pakistan.

The Taliban never had any reason to distrust America until the neocons. America helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets, and the Taliban were one of many Mujahideen groups.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-30 02:07pm
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2009-04-18 10:53pm
Posts: 634
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
General Brock, I want to mention a few things to you before we go much further. I apologize for not having a direct link and going off memory, but according to LIFE magazine's featured edition on the Death of Bin Laden, the CIA was operating with very sketchy information from a region where fast upload times were very, very difficult to maintain. This is a very poor region of the world (Afghanistan) and technology is very, very limited. I believe the CIA was operating continuously for years, even with US troops in the area, with only a 20-30% reliability that anything was going on, most of it being out of date. There were a few instances where they were sending in troops to known Al Qaeda hot-spots only to find out they'd moved on just hours before. I think they were operating with only a 55% estimate that Bin Laden was even at the Pakistani compound when they made the raid.

Now what I do have is an article that asks the big question: Was Bin Laden truly in control?
Nearly two weeks after the daring U.S. raid that caught Osama bin Laden by lethal surprise at his compound in Pakistan, it remains unclear how much direct control he had over al-Qaida's operations, according to U.S. officials and terror experts.
That, in turn, has raised questions about the accuracy of the intelligence community's previous assessments of bin Laden as well as uncertainties over how the terror group he founded will evolve now that he is gone.
Based on a vast trove of information removed from the walled-off compound in Abbottabad, including a personal journal, U.S. intelligence officials say that, contrary to previous indications, bin Laden was not merely a figurehead removed from terror planning or someone who had largely lost his grip on al-Qaida. Instead, there were clear signs that he maintained strategic, operational, and tactical control of al-Qaida.
"There were communications from other senior leaders going back to him, asking him for advice and ideas on who to use" for operations, said a U.S. official who is part of a national-security team reviewing the recovered material. Without being specific, the official added: "He needed to approve certain operatives for certain things. Senior leaders needed to come to him for permission to do certain things."
Even so, U.S. officials could not immediately point to evidence that any of the plots bin Laden mulled over in his compound actually became operational. And that raised questions about whether he was planning and directing specific acts of terror that his subordinates were carrying out -- which was loosely the process that led to the 9/11 attacks -- or whether he had become a kind of chairman of the board, several steps removed.
"We don't know yet the degree to which he was operational in the sense of day-to-day control versus operational in the sense of broad strategic oversight of operation," said a former senior intelligence official. "If I were still working there, I would probably say to them, 'Show me the details. What do you mean?' "
Current government officials dispute that earlier intelligence assessments on bin Laden were off the mark.
"CIA analysts have assessed for years that bin Laden was involved in operational planning, timing, and target selection for al-Qaida plots," the U.S. official said. "The CIA also assessed that bin Laden has, throughout the years, focused on different aspects of the group's operations at different times. Although he was physically isolated from the group's foot soldiers, he was able to guide their plotting."

continued...


The thing I do wonder is, just as the reporter for the above article, was if Bin Laden was truly a threat? Or was he just the figure head of an organization that was probably doing whatever it wanted just mostly in the name of a single group? Bin Laden seems like someone who was a convenient target that could easily be placed in the crosshairs and shown to the world, "THIS IS THE THREAT YOU SHOULD BE SCARED OF!"

Regardless, Brock, what I'm curious to know is if you maintain that the terrorism plots like 9/11 were instigated by the US government, or if they just made a convenient scape-goat for plans the Bush administration was already drafting, and just used to get the ball rolling?



ImageImageImageImageImageImage

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-30 03:40pm
Offline
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger

Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Destructionator XIII wrote:
Here's how I would have done the bin Laden thing, or anyone else really. I would have asked the Pakistanis, nicely, to put him on a plane to New York City. If they refuse, well, that's their right. We'll have to make a sweeter offer or just deal with it.

If they say yes though, when he lands, a few NYPD cops will arrest him for conspiracy to commit murder and probably murder too, I think that could stick.


So what happens when Pakistan and the Taliban say no and refuse to cough up OBL or attach so many preconditions to coughing him up that it's effectively impossible to get him?

JOINT RESOLUTION

Declaring that a state of war exists between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas groups within Pakistan and Afghanistan have committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it....

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That the state of war between the United States and governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.


Somewhere near F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming

Image



"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-30 04:48pm
Offline
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger

Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Destructionator XIII wrote:
Obviously, we'll nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot them in the dark. We wouldn't want to go too overboard with that ridiculous turn the other cheek thing.


The Empire of Japan killed 2,400 military personnel and 57 civilians at Pearl Harbor.

In response we burned down pretty much every major and medium sized city in Japan, and made a good start on the lower level cities and A-bombed them not once, but twice.

We ended up killing 323,495 Japanese Civilians and dehousing millions more from their homes.

So no, the USG does not turn the cheek.



"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-30 06:10pm
Offline
Sith Acolyte
User avatar

Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Posts: 5125
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
General Brock wrote:
The Taliban never had any reason to distrust America until the neocons. America helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets, and the Taliban were one of many Mujahideen groups.

You seem to forget, the US helped the Taliban the most when Reagan- A CONSERVATIVE- was in office.



Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-30 10:47pm
Offline
The Patrician
User avatar

Joined: 2002-07-04 01:18am
Posts: 10302
Location: 32ULV
What's this? People don't know that the Taliban didn't exist until 1994?! Yeah... People who made up the Taliban may have been mujahideen, but the group as an organization didn't exist until after the Afghani civil war began after the Soviets pulled out.



"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-31 04:00pm
Offline
Jedi Council Member
User avatar

Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
Simon_Jester wrote:
As to subsequent offers, those become even more questionable- the Iranians say they can get bin Laden, but in hindsight and knowing where he was hiding at the time, how the hell would they have known he was in an ISI safehouse in Pakistan?
Uhm... It wasn't Osama, it was Saad and yes they did have him and his circle. Just like I said upthread.

Then of course Iran wouldn't have been close to the Taliban, they supported and supplied the northern alliance up until the US bombings. It was one of the reasons why the US "vetoed" some political positions for certain people - they were seen as too close with Iran. Regardless of how useful they had been during the campain.

Now why do you feel the need to downplay american reluctance to negotiate with ideological anti-counterparts? It has hurt the US on several occasions and it is most probable that a lack of diplomacy was one factor leading up to Cole and 911.

@Baffalo
Yes, but even as a figurehead the importance of his capture/killing remains high. Its even highly likely that he had very low influence on the choices made leading up to 911 since that cell was not "his" people. That doesn't remove the symbol value that he had for recruitment etc and as long as he remained free that was a sign of strength for AQ.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-01-31 04:08pm
Offline
Emperor's Hand

Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21956
What I want to downplay... I don't feel like it is downplaying. What I want to make a point of is the motives.

The US's ideological rivals in this conflict are often nebulous, marginal organizations. Making deals with them carries risk, and some of them are very hard to hold accountable if they try to break the deal.

Badly handled diplomacy can come out of that environment very easily. When the other side's motives are complicated and obscure (to the point where even people with years of scholarship can totally misunderstand them), and when they don't have a great reputation for keeping their word or sticking to the niceties of international law, you get this kind of thing.

If the US weren't so damn big, other countries would probably be nearly as reluctant to accept our offers by now- because so often we interpret those agreements in ways they would have preferred to avoid.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-02-01 08:05am
Offline
Glamorous Commie
User avatar

Joined: 2003-02-26 12:39pm
Posts: 17470
Location: 差不多先生
Beowulf wrote:
What's this? People don't know that the Taliban didn't exist until 1994?! Yeah... People who made up the Taliban may have been mujahideen, but the group as an organization didn't exist until after the Afghani civil war began after the Soviets pulled out.

Considering the role of Mullah Omar, one could very well argue that the US sponsored both the leadership of the future Taliban movement and their rank-and-file among the Mujaheds. The uprising against the pro-Soviet government had a heavy islamist slant due to the secular measures introduced by the DRA government (joint education, attempts to ban burqas and honor killings).



Misereor

A short story of humanity's first contact

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-02-03 07:03am
Offline
Jedi Council Member

Joined: 2005-03-16 04:52pm
Posts: 1684
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada
Baffalo wrote:
Regardless, Brock, what I'm curious to know is if you maintain that the terrorism plots like 9/11 were instigated by the US government, or if they just made a convenient scape-goat for plans the Bush administration was already drafting, and just used to get the ball rolling?


I really can't tell. At the time, I assumed some people within the intel community knew but only expected aircraft to be hijacked like they were in the 1970s. It has been theorized that rogue elements in the U.S. government and Israeli Mossad helped Arab terrorists perform well above their then-proven capability. Or, it may have just happened that Bin Laden got lucky with a plot that otherwise should not have succeeded when the actual cells that carried it out proved halfways competent.

Bin Laden supplied money and ideas, but otherwise does not appear to have been deeply involved on the ground. Since the 911 plot unfolded over a long period, it is likely that even had Bin Laden been arrested or killed a year before 911, it would have happened anyway since the plot was already in motion with the instigators training and preparing without enough people noticing to set off serious alarm bells in the intelligence community.

After the Soviet pullout, the CIA continued to keep tabs on the situation to the point where the CIA as well as the Pakistani ISI are credited with creation and support of the Taliban by some commentators. So, elements within the U.S. government were not without resources in Afghanistan and on Bin Laden himself.

There are also a couple of conspiracy theorists, Bill Cooper and Alex Jones, who are said to have predicted 911; however, the so-called 'predictions' do not appear to be much more than speculation and coincidence based on what they could document was possible, but not yet proven.

The net effect was to reduce confidence in the traditional American intelligence and policing via the CIA and FBI, which are subject to some public oversight. The Department of Homeland Security concentrates that power, and more, in a less unaccountable Executive branch. It also lent the neoconservatives more an aura of untouchability that encouraged public apathy more than activism against their policies. In the end, the public can only act on what definitely happens.

The general sense that it was deliberate negligence is probably the most accurate. Some intel people saw something developing that worked for them, and let events run their course. Abetment on the level of the BATF's 'Fast and Furious' false flag may be difficult to prove conclusively at this time.

While some day it may come out, like FDR provoking Pearl Harbour,, that 911 was allowed or even staged, that's really for historians to call from the facts since full accountability is not likely to happen this generation.

In a sense, its like those old murder mystery stories, where the sleuth deduces the the culprit - who then laughs and says "So what?" and is backed by the rest of the parlour, instead of surrendering and removing all doubts with a confession to let justice take its course.

Root causes of malaise need to be addressed or people will just be chasing symptoms as the body dies. Moving over time to return a political will to accountability and transparency, ensuring that more reasonably good people are employed at all levels of government, preventing maneuvers in the shadows by removing shadows, is what needs to be done or any 911 speculation and findings simply won't matter.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-02-03 11:08am
Offline
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: 2009-04-18 10:53pm
Posts: 634
Location: Ruston, Louisiana
Conspiracies are just that. Conspiracies. They are made up by groups with an agenda and who gloss over the facts to arrive at the conclusion they were already prepared to accept, rather than adjust their theory in light of new evidence. I've seen numerous conspiracies debunked by simple photographs, so I remain skeptical of many without enough circumstantial evidence that their theory is not only plausible, but actually likely to be the case.

Why do I say this? Because while you may be right that there was a conspiracy to allow foreign agents onto US soil with the intention of kicking off the 911 plot, until I see actual, plausible existence, then it goes into my specially labelled bin called 'horseshit', which happens to include a nice cross-cut shreader and also handles part of my identity protection.

You are correct that deliberate negligence is to blame. The CIA's powers are not limited to operations beyond US soil, nor are all the FBI's powers. These are agencies that are tasked with protecting US interests both domestic and foreign via investigation and surveillance. However, since they must justify their annual budgets, they must prove they are worthy of those budgets, and so they tend to be very secretive in regards to sharing information with other agencies. This means that when one side has the piece, they're not likely to tell the others, "I got this piece what do you have?". It paints an incomplete picture. And honestly? Most terrorist cells are going to be operating alone, in secret, making intelligence gathering difficult. So yes, negligence and a mental attitude of "This is mine, go away" has only hurt the intelligence community.

Quote:
The Empire of Japan killed 2,400 military personnel and 57 civilians at Pearl Harbor.

In response we burned down pretty much every major and medium sized city in Japan, and made a good start on the lower level cities and A-bombed them not once, but twice.

We ended up killing 323,495 Japanese Civilians and dehousing millions more from their homes.

So no, the USG does not turn the cheek.


You're assuming the Japanese considered everyone on the mainland civilians when they were actually considered part of the army, even if a last-ditch army made up by sheer numbers. They had people in their yards sharpening sticks and swords in an attempt to prepare for the invasion. Large factories were built in the center of residential areas to make it easier for civilians to get there and build more weapons of war. The military was prepared to fight until the entire Japanese people were completely destroyed rather than accept the dishonor of surrender, and had taught entire generations of people that this was the way of things. That this was a fight to the bitter end to defend their homes against the barbaric invaders.

Yes, firebombing the cities was bad. Yes, bombing civilians in general is bad. But when the enemy will not stop, will never stop, you have to finally say, "Do whatever it takes."

Quote:
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:
In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[46] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[47] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[48] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

Considering they had 500,000 purple hearts manufactured just for one campaign, and this is only for US casualties, I think in the end dropping atomic weapons was the better choice.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and put forward that you're wondering why we went all the way. You can thank Germany for this one. After WWI, the German people were angry and bitter after being made to disarm and surrender, facing huge fines for the war, etc. It was decided that since we'd been attacked by the Japanese and we'd declared war against Germany that we would not stop until we were in direct control of both countries. The reason for doing so is obvious. You take their heartland, force them to submit, and then you rebuild them. You do this and you teach the next generation that yes, yes we could have left you in bombed out craters, but instead we're going to help you rebuild your infrastructure and farms and everything else. What comes out at the other end is a country that may harbor a bit of resentment, but they also know that you've rebuilt them from the ground up.



ImageImageImageImageImageImage

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-02-03 11:24am
Offline
Emperor's Hand

Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 21956
Baffalo wrote:
Quote:
The Empire of Japan killed 2,400 military personnel and 57 civilians at Pearl Harbor.

In response we burned down pretty much every major and medium sized city in Japan, and made a good start on the lower level cities and A-bombed them not once, but twice.

We ended up killing 323,495 Japanese Civilians and dehousing millions more from their homes.

So no, the USG does not turn the cheek.
You're assuming the Japanese considered everyone on the mainland civilians when they were actually considered part of the army, even if a last-ditch army made up by sheer numbers...
Baffalo, you are quoting Shep. I'm pretty sure he knows all that, and approves the decision...

I think his point is that there is simply no tradition in US history of "turning the other cheek" in response to a surprise attack. For that matter, I can't think of a single armed and prosperous nation in history that ever did turn the other cheek, instead of responding violently.

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-02-03 11:34am
Offline
CUNTS FOR EYES!
User avatar

Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Posts: 8704
Location: The Great, Green Pacific Northwest! It's Raining...
It's not like the Japanese just hit Pearl Harbor and we suddenly went at them full bore. They also invaded and occupied Guam, the Philippines and Wake island. Pearl was just the opening salvo of a dedicated and relentless attack by the Japanese Empire against America. The whole "sneak attack" thing was mainly used for propaganda until we started drinking our own koolaid on the matter. Hell, you can't really cite 9/11 as all that much of a sneak attack considering we'd been hit by Al Quaeda multiple times in the years preceding it on both civilian and military targets.



Image
The Liberal Hate Machine
Kill them all!
-The Governor

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-02-03 11:46am
Offline
Sith Devotee
User avatar

Joined: 2005-05-12 07:56pm
Posts: 2822
Location: Neptune Violon Tide!
I'm not sure why "traditionally, the US raped, pillaged, and murdered civilians in its 20th century wars conducted against non-white populations (and against Germans in WWII)" is compelling as an argument for continuing to do this. I guess that when it comes to the lives of people, tradition overrides any sort of moderation.



Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!


I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?

- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums

Top
 Profile  
 Post subject: Re: Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA PostPosted: 2012-02-03 05:33pm
Offline
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger

Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Bakustra wrote:
I'm not sure why "traditionally, the US raped, pillaged, and murdered civilians in its 20th century wars conducted against non-white populations (and against Germans in WWII)" is compelling as an argument for continuing to do this. I guess that when it comes to the lives of people, tradition overrides any sort of moderation.


The US tradition of indiscriminate force goes back quite a ways, to the 1860s in particular; and there's also a pattern that you can discern. At first, we try to be nice and seek a compromise solution. Then we get tired of it, and just freedomize everyone.

Not everyone knows that W.T. Sherman actually came down on the side of the indians early on in his career as COMGENUSARMY. It wasn't until much later that he said in essence "to hell with this." and adopted his famous aphorism.



"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bedlam, Serafina, Tiriol and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group