posted
LOL! i was waiting for those examples! So predictable. If you think America could drop "the bomb" on that Islamic wasteland called Afghanistan (with no history of industrialisation or democracy like Germany and Japan) and proceed to build "democratic" structures then you are even more ignorant, stupid and delusional than I thought! LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
There will be no need to use your atomic bomb; stop reading something into it that isn't there. If you don't know what I mean then ask. Why would you think I was talking about the atomic bomb simply because I mentioned World War II? Do Tokyo in March 1945, Hamburg and Dresden in 1943 ring a bell? Hint: it got really hot at nightime. Do you recall any political restraints at that time I'm talking about? If you think I was being inclusive by your thinking I would use the atomic bomb then go lie down and take a much needed rest; clear your head.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter if its atomic bomb or scorched earth as in Dresden. Point is, the real test of victory in WW2 only came when America was able to successfully occupy and restructure those countries to suit their interests. This happened of course for a variety of reasons nonetheless it was the real victory that military might alone could not bring.
Fast forward to today, just as in Japan and Germany America "won" the war in Iraq and Afghanistan: the Taliban was over thrown and so too Saddam's regime. However they have not been able, for variety of reasons, to pacify the country (even Iraq is still on edge) and reshape it to their likeness as in Germany and Japan. Obama could make it "hot at night and day" with yet more bombings (which by the way, like in Dresden, resulted hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan lives, so your "no political restraints" argument is rubbished) however if the people are not willing to accept defeat and cooperate with your plans then you will have...well whatever is happening today in Afghanistan. I know its hard for the uneducated lower rank soldiers (and old vets) to understand but victory does not depend on a really really big gun alone. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''It doesn't matter if its atomic bomb or scorched earth as in Dresden. Point is, the real test of victory in WW2 only came when America was able to successfully occupy and restructure those countries to suit their interests. This happened of course for a variety of reasons nonetheless it was the real victory that military might alone could not bring.''
No, the real test of victory in that WWII era came about as a direct result of the total war waging capacity. That capacity brought about the political decisions. Besides, it wasn't only America's interests involved but all the powers directly.
The Iraq war was misguided. Afghanistan is another story. I don't believe the U.S.'s policy for that country is occupation; nothing there to want politically and materially {except to say Pakistan is a nuisance). All Mullah Omar had to do was give up Ben; they didn't; they suffered, and are suffering today because of political decisions.
Now that America has faltered in that country they ought to pack it up because political decisions to not wage total way from the air and use hit and run tactics on the guys that live in and on mountains has brought about a failure. In other words total war ''punishes'' people when those whom possess it will use it to their advantage. That's why politicians and military people don't see eye to eye on some matters; generally military people are the kind who understand what it means to wage a war and some politicians have more of a sociological/compassionate bent. That prevents total war from being waged.
Obama could make it "hot at night and day" with yet more bombings (which by the way, like in Dresden, resulted hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan lives, so your "no political restraints" argument is rubbished)...''
Obama is a politician, he hasn't ordered more bombings; he is guided by political machinations from many angles; he isn't the total war type; he's too liberal and may think people need hugs and kisses, just like other politicians... and actually some military people too now that I think about it. Besides the civilian populations ih Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo were deliberately targeted, not so in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the other hand the intelligence information coming from men who hide behind their womens' skirts undoubtedly produced erroneous information to those who guided the bombs on their precision path and the result was many civilian deaths. Who's at fault now, the pilot or the bomb; or the ones in the sentence before this one.
You should be aware by now bombs can produce desirable results from your enemies. Ask some of the Iraqis who tired of the onslaught by the Sunnis and Al Qaeda.
''...however if the people are not willing to accept defeat and cooperate with your plans then you will have...well whatever is happening today in Afghanistan.''
I believe the only ones that won't accept anything are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and they don't represent millions of Afghanistanis. And when I say total war, in this case, it will be against those thugs not the civilian population.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, the real test of victory in that WWII era came about as a direct result of the total war waging capacity. That capacity brought about the political decisions. Besides, it wasn't only America's interests involved but all the powers directly.
Poor you. The bombings defeated the regimes not the people. If the Germans and Japanese hadn't decided to side with Americans, instead of Russians, then there would have been a protracted insurgency (there was one initially in Germany) just like e see in Afghanistan an even Iraq. All the bombings in the world wouldn't translate to victory. They don't want your country occupation get that in your uneducated head. Well not "YOUR" country since you're just a black slave, they dont want a white/western country occupying them. The rest of your post is pointless babble because the military don't operate in a vacuum: like WW2 the aim is to defeat a regime you don't like and reshape the country in your interests. Waging a "total war" of annihilation in Afghanistan makes no sense (even from military stand point) if you are fingering that country as a "base for terrorism". Even if you kill all Afghans like a stupid ignorant gung ho then Pakistanis as well as other Muslims from across the world would come in. Total war would be worse as a military strategy.
quote: he isn't the total war type; he's too liberal and may think people need hugs and kisses, just like other politicians...
Rubbish, civilian deaths in Afghanistan have not decreased since he took over, besides the "total anti-liberal" Bush before him bombed the hell out of Afghanistan for eight years, mission accomplished?
quote: Besides the civilian populations ih Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo were deliberately targeted, not so in Afghanistan and Iraq.
WAHAHAHHA If you believe this BS line then no wonder you believe in Jewish holocaust fairly tales. LOL
quote: On the other hand the intelligence information coming from men who hide behind their womens' skirts undoubtedly produced erroneous information to those who guided the bombs on their precision path and the result was many civilian deaths.
Your rubbish argument again. LOL Don't you think US and Co. killed enough women to get those "hiding" under their skirts Grumman? LOL
quote: Ask some of the Iraqis who tired of the onslaught by the Sunnis and Al Qaeda.
More insane babble. Iraq now is relatively stable because US paid off Sunnis, no analysis points to car bombs as the reason for it.
quote: I believe the only ones that won't accept anything are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and they don't represent millions of Afghanistanis. And when I say total war, in this case, it will be against those thugs not the civilian population.
And herein lays your delusion. Not unusual among ignorant Americans thinking eveyone wants to be like them. Like I said, lower ranks in the military are as ignorant as they come. LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''The bombings defeated the regimes not the people.''
No argument on that; that's why the war was fought... fast.
''If the Germans and Japanese hadn't decided to side with Americans, instead of Russians, then there would have been a protracted insurgency (there was one initially in Germany) just like e see in Afghanistan an even Iraq.''
Is this some of your revised ''what if'' history that an author or two conjures up to sell books. If it is then you're hooked.
They don't want your country occupation get that in your uneducated head.''
I agree here on '' no occupation'' so where are you getting this from. Not from my comments you ain't. You are one erratic dude.
''The rest of your post is pointless babble because the military don't operate in a vacuum: like WW2 the aim is to defeat a regime you don't like and reshape the country in your interests.''
No, the aim in WWII wasn't to defeat a regime you don't like and shape it to what you see fit. The aim was to defeat hitler's regime and his thugs so people could live in peace in Germany and elsewhere. Show me where Germans had to be re-shaped, according to your thinking, that they wouldn't have done it on their own once hitler and his thugs were out of power. Other than the Marshall Plan giving financial assistance to get that country back on its feet what information can you offer that will say the Germans would still have pursued an aggressive stance, even after getting their asses thoroughly kicked?
''Rubbish, civilian deaths in Afghanistan have not decreased since he took over, besides the "total anti-liberal" Bush before him bombed the hell out of Afghanistan for eight years, mission accomplished?''
So you are saying Obama has the military indiscriminately bomb innocent civilians? I don't believe George Bush did it either, nor the military, as a whole fighting outfit. Civilian deaths are the direct result of faulty intelligence provided by some Taliban and maybe even Al-Qaeda fighters, a lot of whom hide behind their womens' skirt to win a battle. Yet you blame the falling bombs on the Americans. (Yes I know, bombs kill people.) You can't blame the Taliban at all? Not even just a little? I told you that above but you refuse to believe me because you don't know which way to turn to gain the upper hand in this agument. I see you unraveling.
And I'm noticing you continue to confuse total war against the taliban or the insurgents in Iraq as total war against the civilian population. Do you think we are still talking about Germany here?
I said, Besides the civilian populations ih Hamburg, Dresden and Tokyo were deliberately targeted, not so in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Your response:
''WAHAHAHHA If you believe this BS line then no wonder you believe in Jewish holocaust fairly tales. LOL''
In light of what you are confronted with you offer that. Now I don't mind you offering rebuttals, and even other points you may feel relevant to your issue, but it has to stay within context. If you don't know how to do this then we can talk about something else.
''Your rubbish argument again. LOL Don't you think US and Co. killed enough women to get those "hiding" under their skirts Grumman? LOL''
I take it you don't see you are in agreement with me in that comment? Damn buoy.
I said this:
''Ask some of the Iraqis who tired of the onslaught by the Sunnis and Al Qaeda.''
You say: ''More insane babble. Iraq now is relatively stable because US paid off Sunnis, no analysis points to car bombs as the reason for it.''
...and the indiscriminate car-bombing and murders by Al-Qaeda and other Sunnis, in the early stages, had nothing to do with the Sunnis accepting money from the U.S. to help fight the ''others''? Are you serious about yourself.
''And herein lays your delusion. Not unusual among ignorant Americans thinking eveyone wants to be like them.''
You should be alerted by now that ''strictly military'' and how it should be used to accomplish something is the issue, not a social ''wannabe'' you suggest. Bogle hasn't yet understood how he still mismanages his comprehension.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The aim was to defeat hitler's regime and his thugs
Then genius, how else would you prevent another Nazi regime – which was elected and popular – from coming to power again if not by occupation and restructuring the country in your interests? Which is exactly what America did.
quote: Show me where Germans had to be re-shaped, according to your thinking, that they wouldn't have done it on their own once hitler and his thugs were out of power.
Well for one, he was elected and popular, even among other Europeans, don't let me go for flattering comments about him by world figures including Churchill, we all know your WW2 knowledge is shaky. LOL!
quote:Germans would still have pursued an aggressive stance
Strawman as the aggressors in WW2 weren't the Germans, no evidence they wanted to "conquer" the world as allied propaganda says, a local conflict was turned into a global crisis for political reasons. Sorry, your friends did not die for "democracy" and "world peace" but for a restructuring of European imperial interests.
quote: I don't believe George Bush did it either,
Of course you cannot believe that, how else would you justify your "sacrifice" in WW2 (the "good war") and blind faith in America as the "good guy" in global conflicts. Waking up does present an existential crisis for negros like you, so you have to keep up the bad faith to avoid angst.
quote: Civilian deaths are the direct result of faulty intelligence provided by some Taliban and maybe even Al-Qaeda fighters, a lot of whom hide behind their womens' skirt to win a battle.
Again another example of bad faith! Even if we entertain your stupidity Grumman this means that your master's advanced civilization with its high-tech military and intelligence units are in reality nothing but a bunch of gullible dumbassess! LOL But I know this is just another of your bad faith, you know damn well civilian deaths are result of Americans not giving a dam about densely populated areas and infrastructure so long as they get "the guy". Hundreds of thousands cannot be just a result of "faulty" intelligence Grumman even you are not that stupid, then again...
quote: And I'm noticing you continue to confuse total war against the taliban or the insurgents in Iraq as total war against the civilian population. Do you think we are still talking about Germany here?
Then genius, if, as you say, the problem is just a small minority of "thugs" not the civilian population then your option of a total war a la Dresden and Tokyo looks even more insane!!! LOL!!! Why refer to WW2-style scorch earth policy if that's not what you propose in this conflict? Is it because you don't know which way to turn to gain the upper hand in this argument? Your emotional, simplistic, bigoted and contradictory mumbo jumbo "analysis" of the situation only demonstrates why you did not move from simple lower rank soldier in the military Grumman.
Fact is, following the example set by the Russians, for the better part of eight years the America democracy waged a "total war" in Afghanistan longer than WW2 destroying Taliban political infrastructure, Afghan schools, mosques and hundreds of thousands of civilians yet it still has not brought "victory". So your argument about an absence of a "total war" campaign as being the reason for failure is inaccurate. Yes total war ''punishes'' people but that doesn't mean they will accept occupation when you safely fly back to base. The human spirit is resilient especially when fighting to defend home, if Vietnam has not taught you Americans that then there is no hope for you.
quote: You should be alerted by now that ''strictly military'' and how it should be used to accomplish something is the issue,
You may not be paying attention but even military analysts talk about the importance of a political solution to the Afghan problem, so your dichotomy between military and politics is false as is your insistence that total war automatically leads to victory. I don't know of any analyst, whether on the ground or from some air conditioned news room in America, that thinks the problem in Afghanistan is simply a "minority" of religious crazies. Or that the reason total victory cannot be achieved is due to the fact that men are hiding behind woman's skirts and mosques. This sort of thinking is as a result of your brain on Faux News Grumman. It has nothing to do with some "special insight" due to military training. Fact is they all, politicians and military, talk about a political solution as an imperative to resolving the conflict. You're so blinded your lower rank military miseducation you don't even take time to LISTEN to the discussions do you? You think they are all educated liberals eh? LOL This only underscores my point that uneducated military lower ranks do not understand complex issues, especially in far of regions.
quote:...and the indiscriminate car-bombing and murders by Al-Qaeda and other Sunnis,
LOL So they do "indiscriminate killings" but US does not!? You are really a sucker for America Grummna! WWHAHAHHA
quote: had nothing to do with the Sunnis accepting money from the U.S. to help fight the ''others''?
US paid off the bombers stupid. Those others were al queda who made up small fraction of insurgency. Effectively US hired more guns on its side to keep stability that its awesome fire power could not do!!!!Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Information was mistakenly erased so I'll deal with this.
''You may not be paying attention but even military analysts talk about the importance of a political solution to the Afghan problem, so your dichotomy between military and politics is false as is your insistence that total war automatically leads to victory.''
I do believe I already explained that all military people aren't the same; so sure, they would look to a political solution because of politics. And it is because of politics that that there can be no military solution.
''I don't know of any analyst, whether on the ground or from some air conditioned news room in America, that thinks the problem in Afghanistan is simply a "minority" of religious crazies.;;
Then what is it if it isn't religion inspired. Are you suggesting this is the same scenario as the Afghans fighting the Russians for ten years? Once the Americans leave what do you think will happen. Will all those ''westernized'' Afghans, who were ''easternized'' when Russia was there, suddenly take to the robe and grow beards again. Well they will because the Taliban will surely see to it. Is it okay for the Taliban to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens? Well they will because power flows through the barrel of a gun. Should the U.S stay andd fight these guys? No. Well why? Because the military has political restaints. I told you that a long time ago.
''You're so blinded your lower rank military miseducation you don't even take time to LISTEN to the discussions do you?''
What is there to listen to if one is persuaded to the military solution.
''You think they are all educated liberals eh? LOL This only underscores my point that uneducated military lower ranks do not understand complex issues, especially in far of regions.''
If a military man seeks military solutions why would you even think he has to listen to political ones? And guess what he does have to listen to political solutions much to some of their dismay. This ain't hard Bogle.
I'll get back to your frequent misunderstanding and mischaracterization in this particular topic later.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: they would look to a political solution because of politics. And it is because of politics that that there can be no military solution.
No silly, they look to a political solution because military one is limited and exhausted. They have to reevaluate their previous strategy, this is what rational people do. Uneducated lower ranks would propose more of the same: wage a "total war" targeting Taliban hideouts, controlled villages, schools, mosques and not caring too much about the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in the process. Eight years of this idiocy, you ignorantly call a 'military solution', convinced them that the situation is more complex.
quote: Then what is it if it isn't religion inspired.
It is also about national, tribal loyalty, not wanting to be occupied by foreign powers. Westernized Afghans versus those who want to identify with Islam. It not just about virgins in heaven, you Faux News sucker. But then again you're not the brightest of vets Grumman, I mean even with the installation of their puppet regime in Kabul with fake elections and all (text book US imperialism) you still don't think the U.S.'s policy for that country is occupation. LOL
quote:Are you suggesting this is the same scenario as the Afghans fighting the Russians for ten years?
More or less. And the result will be the same. Also, Soviets too unleashed hell militarily, and had to leave.
quote:Once the Americans leave what do you think will happen. Will all those ''westernized'' Afghans, who were ''easternized'' when Russia was there, suddenly take to the robe and grow beards again. Well they will because the Taliban will surely see to it. Is it okay for the Taliban to impose their religious beliefs on their fellow citizens?
I don't care what or how people organize their societies half way around the world, and please dont tell me they are a threat to world peace so we need to care as that is more Faux News theme BS. And save the exaggerated atrocity stories about Taliban abuse of women etc that so text book. As for people imposing their beliefs on others, well, we can get philosophical and ask if our beliefs are a result of free will or conditioned, for instance, why did, and some still do, believe that Islamism, especially represented by types like Taliban, is a threat to world peace or 'freedom'? Because of 'evidence', or preconceived notion of the 'other' fed us daily by media and taken advantage of by politicians? Also, your slavish interpretations of standard version of WW2 history was of your own 'free will' or years of conditioning? LOL
quote: Because the military has political restaints.
And prey tell, five star Gen. Grumman, what else would you propose militarily that hasn't been done already? Please don't tell us Dresden-type onslaught, you only reveal more of your ignorance of the Afghan strategy for past eight years.
quote: I'll get back to your frequent misunderstanding and mischaracterization in this particular topic later.
Please be gentle with me I'm only an ignorant liberal with no experience in the militray. LOL
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Then genius, how else would you prevent another Nazi regime – which was elected and popular – from coming to power again if not by occupation and restructuring the country in your interests? Which is exactly what America did.''
I'll ask you again. What did the Americans restructure after they ran hitler's thugs out of town? Do you have any sources that say nazism would have risen again had the U.S. simply left them alone. If so don't you think the Russians would have had something to say about that.
''Well for one, he was elected and popular, even among other Europeans, don't let me go for flattering comments about him by world figures including Churchill, we all know your WW2 knowledge is shaky. LOL!''
I take it you are saying European leaders admired him before he set off on his conquest of Europe. I can just imagine Churchill saying ''Oh yeah hitler bomb the hell out of London while you're at it, I still admire you.''
You posted this from me :Germans would still have pursued an aggressive stance''.
Since that comment had other words attached to it what is your motivation using it that way?
Oh, I see...
''Strawman as the aggressors in WW2 weren't the Germans, no evidence they wanted to "conquer" the world as allied propaganda says, a local conflict was turned into a global crisis for political reasons.''
Question for you revisionist. If there were no Germans in WWII would there have been a world war? If yes, then who would have been the participants? You don't suppose it would have been Tunisia, or Algiers do you? But I will agree hitler couldn't have pulled off world domination. So you aren't as blind as you talk.
''Sorry, your friends did not die for "democracy" and "world peace" but for a restructuring of European imperial interests.''
Poppycock.
''...you know damn well civilian deaths are result of Americans not giving a dam about densely populated areas and infrastructure so long as they get "the guy". Hundreds of thousands cannot be just a result of "faulty" intelligence Grumman even you are not that stupid, then again...''
If you are asking me to say there can be a rogue pilot or two in warplanes then yes there probably are. But you aren't saying that. You are asking me to believe and to accept your nonsensical deliberately attacking civilians comment in Afghanistan and Iraq. Prove to me that what you say you know to be the truth is actually true. Prove it! Prove it. prove it!
''Then genius, if, as you say, the problem is just a small minority of "thugs" not the civilian population then your option of a total war a la Dresden and Tokyo looks even more insane!!! LOL!!!''
What... are... you... talking about here! What!
''Why refer to WW2-style scorch earth policy if that's not what you propose in this conflict?''
You are a slow mf ain't you. All the talking I've done and you still eff it up. You still haven't separated the thugs, who usually carry weapons, from civilians. I give you credit for one thing molasses, you have spilled a whole bottle all over these posts.
''the America democracy waged a "total war" in Afghanistan longer than WW2 destroying Taliban political infrastructure, Afghan schools, mosques and hundreds of thousands of civilians yet it still has not brought "victory". So your argument about an absence of a "total war" campaign as being the reason for failure is inaccurate. Yes total war ''punishes'' people but that doesn't mean they will accept occupation when you safely fly back to base. The human spirit is resilient especially when fighting to defend home, if Vietnam has not taught you Americans that then there is no hope for you.''
No the war wasn't total in fighting the Taliban, they are still fighting. WWith the exception of attacking Taliban infrastructure, your schools, mosques and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths is nonsense. But you are saved by the bell when you say America should have learned its lesson about Viet Nam; and they haven't.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll ask you again. What did the Americans restructure after they ran hitler's thugs out of town?
The party was banned, imposed holocaust denial laws, army was controlled, just to cite a few. The country became a defato colony of the US Grumman grade school 2oth century history class.
quote:Do you have any sources that say nazism would have risen again had the U.S. simply left them alone.
You're old but you haven't learned much in all your life have you? Haven't paid attention all these years. Go look at US army propaganda films of the era that promoted a need for US to stay and restructure Germany so as to prevent another rise of "Karl Schmitt" their generic name for German.
quote: I take it you are saying European leaders admired him before he set off on his conquest of Europe.
No evidence Germany set out to conquer Europe stupid, and yes they did admire him, even your own JFK. Where do you think some of the top Nazi doctors and processionals went? It must pain you that even though your "inglorious bastard" black ass fought and died fighting them, your country still brought over the "enemy" and given status over YOUR BLACK ASS. Next time think before you follow white propaganda.
quote: Question for you revisionist. If there were no Germans in WWII would there have been a world war?
Stupid, if there were no Iraqis would there have been a pointless costly war? Are you going to blame Iraqis too for the American elites decision to wage war on Iraq for their own political interests? What f!cking retard! LOL
quote: If you are asking me to say there can be a rogue pilot or two in warplanes then yes there probably are.
Wow, hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths are as a result of one or two "rogue pilots". Amazing naivety.
quote: You are asking me to believe and to accept your nonsensical deliberately attacking civilians comment in Afghanistan and Iraq. Prove to me that what you say you know to be the truth is actually true. Prove it! Prove it. prove it!
LOL Calm down old man. I'll say again for you civilian deaths are result of Americans not giving a dam about densely populated areas; when this is done consistently, that is deliberate in my book.
quote: What... are... you... talking about here! What!
That you are a total gungo ho jackass for thinking your total war policy (a la Dresden and Tokyo) would be the best option in a country where you see as your mission to rescue the majority from a minority of religious crazies. That is not a military solution but stupidity. That is why you never made it past being a private, private pile!
quote:No the war wasn't total in fighting the Taliban, they are still fighting.
As if reducing that country to more misery and suffering does not translate into a total war for you. What a wild-eyed gungo ho jingoist you are! And you have the nerve to point fingers at Nazis, you bankrupt moral hypocrite! LOL
quote: WWith the exception of attacking Taliban infrastructure, your schools, mosques and hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths is nonsense.
Again, you cannot bring yourself to accept this as it is evidence of the ineffectiveness of your stupid policy. I wouldn't even entertain you anymore referring to it as a "military solution" as sensible military men don't agree, least not anymore.
quote:But you are saved by the bell when you say America should have learned its lesson about Viet Nam; and they haven't.
LOL It is YOU Grumman who have to learned you lesson; all your life a hapless negro victim of constant white propaganda. You are the best evidence yet for the behaviorist perspective: not a thinking being but a chemical bag just responding to stimulus. How sad...
P.S. don't think I didn't notice you avoid telling us what else would you propose militarily that hasn't been done already.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''The party was banned, imposed holocaust denial laws, army was controlled, just to cite a few. The country became a defato colony of the US Grumman grade school 2oth century history class.''
I see you are making this one out to be something that could have been difficult to do. Let's see, unconditional surrender... and a war-making party has to be banned? An army and airforce in abject defeat and this is called restructuring by your reckoning? Hmmm. Alrighty then. And I see your revisionist textbook didn't tell you holocaust denial laws didn't come into effect until 1985. Tough being an all-the-way revisionist ain't it. How about your defacto. In light of unconditional surrender what would be defacto about it. The U.S. was the government... quick.
''don't think I didn't notice you avoid telling us what else would you propose militarily that hasn't been done already.''
Pull the troops out; saturate the Taliban skies with armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs; tell the Pakistanis it would be to their advantage to let the drones roam their skies too; this takes the pressure off the Pakistanis from actually fighting the Taliban half heartedly since a lot of them may be in bed with their hoodlum buddies. In this sense total war, which is relative, and you didn't see this until I had to lower my goal posts to inform your molasses ass, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, will have many a restless night. Plus your mythical figure of hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths will be avoided. And how long will this last? Several more years I'm sure. But just think, the Afghan civilian population won't suffer needlessly because their menfolk won't be hiding behind their womens' skirts... unless they drag the women out in the open hoping to attract an UAV which then fires a missile at the 20 or so group of men with weapons of war strapped about their person. But the innocent women die as a result. Is the pilot at fault or the turbaned guys?
Getting back to the Pakistanis for a second. Once they really see the capability and functionality of the UAVs they may decide to purchase some from the U.S.
P.S. My bad when I called you a mf. I wasn't mad; wasn't nothin' but some hood talk. But my molassses comment still applies. Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So because the denial laws came in effect in 85 this means Germany wasn't restructured after WW2? You really should have used your opportunity in the army to get an education old man.
And please, your Nintendo style war has contributed to the hundreds of thousands of deaths, dumbass!! In fact, I was waiting for you to suggest this type of distance fighting, you cowardly yankee. LOL
You still don't get it do you old man? The "Taliban" arent some uniformed fighters that you can separate from the people, they ARE the people hence you cannot defeat an insurgency without avoiding genocide: Vietnam, Soviets in Afghanistan, Israel in occupied territories, France in Algeria etc etc etc
And today US and Co. in Afghanistan with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.
But I'm sure in "several years" you would have killed enough Taliban, and the women whose skirts you know they are hiding under, to ensure that America will be locked in an eternal struggle along the lines of Sisyphus with the offspring of dead Afghans and piss off Muslims around the world. Smart move genius. LOL
Like I said, there's a reason why your dumbass didn't make it past being a simple private.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
...''So because the denial laws came in effect in 85 this means Germany wasn't restructured after WW2?''
Just pointing out your faulty use of revisionist history. The date stands.
''In fact, I was waiting for you to suggest this type of distance fighting, you cowardly yankee. LOL''
So when were you going to use it? Right now when you found out about it? I understand.
''The "Taliban" arent some uniformed fighters that you can separate from the people, they ARE the people...''
Sure you can separate them, as fighters, from the people you twit; they are the guys who carry weapons most of the time. Most people in Afghanistan aren't Taliban; you ought to slap your revisionist teacher.
Sisyphus didn't have UAVs; that 's why he stayed dumb and in trouble. A slow Greek dude. Hope this helps. Now before you lose your way yet again please note the acronym UAV and what it means. And from my position, from a strictly military point of view Einstein, until the Taliban can manufacture UAVs then they will be destined to looking over their shoulders until someone pulls the aerial political plug. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I forgot to tell you. I made corporal E-4, and that was the usual rank for a four year enlisted man in the Marines. In other words there could have been more but I wasn't interested. But the military spirit still lingers. Much to your dismay and ignorance you don't know why that is do you. You read a lot but can't come to grips with some of the stuff you do read. You cite the Greek character but don't understand it at all. Tough being you dude.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
If you find comfort in that so be it. Sorry to break your heart though, it does nothing for your argument.
quote: Sure you can separate them
Then your white masters should use you instead of UAVs as they have been unable to, as seen by the "collateral damage".
quote: Most people in Afghanistan aren't Taliban
In most countries, the people are not the elite, dummy. The American elite are certainly not like your black ass, not even illiterate white country teacher Hammer would be included in this circle. Afghanistan is no different. Taliban are a minority elite and if you think they are just a bunch of fringed elements in Afghan society then you only prove you are indeed the typical American ignoramus.
quote: Sisyphus didn't have UAVs
quote:they will be destined to looking over their shoulders
Yeh, and don't forget the civilians too, slaughtered by your deadly toys.
quote: In other words there could have been more but I wasn't interested.
Required too much cognitive effort eh? No wonder you propose Nintendo toys as answer to the afghan crisis. Even the military would laugh at your dumbass.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah my man we are finished. But I will say this.
When you use the term blackass and a couple of others elsewhere, this reads like an indicator of your dissatisfaction with black people as a whole. It seems to me since you authoritatively bandy the words about there is some ulterior motive behind you Bogle. If you are from Jamaica and you aren't white, and Jamaica is heavily mixed, then maybe you are one of those who have no identity... someone who has lost his way. I have also noticed in the past many months you readily speak out against some members on this board yet you don't aggressively attack the posters you should be; people like rushton, derk8, afronut and many others. Your silence is condemning you. And their silence, in some cases, doesn't need to be ignored. Is this why I'm a ''blackass'',... too uppity for you am I?
If I can help out here you can call me a mf and I won't get mad. Otherwise with your (here on out) continued use of the derogatory term blackass, and your inexplicable silence on what I mentioned above I'm compelled to believe you are actually white, or, at least one of those whom have lost their way on their journey to understanding who they really are.
Remember, you can call me a mf if you like. But somehow you won't because now you know you can use blackass indiscriminately. Carry on molasses.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try, I will continue to call misguided blacks like you, who uncritically swallow American propaganda hook line and sinker, black asses. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
A couple of hours ago, about 12:20 a.m. December 2, CNN reported that the use of ''Drones'' will be increased in Afghanistan and that Pakistan* is receptive to the idea. Well it looks like those ''video game'' machines will be used more often. I do believe I said that about 14 hours ago. The only bad part is more troops are going in. Considering that it costs a million dollars a pop to support one ground troop per year, according to, then surely those drones are less expensive don't you think.
* Would you like me to explain why Pakistan is receptive to the idea?
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What this means, Grumman, is that your "idea" was already a considered one, and was in use. Yet, Afghan insurgency remains to be pacified; hence, the urge to use more ground troops in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should hardly be surprising that they would want to increase the use of their "drones" as the American cowards can kill more untermenschen with less causalities on their side. You must be very proud of "your" country Grumman. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
''What this means, Grumman, is that your "idea" was already a considered one, and was in use.''
Agreed, that's why I said, ''Well it looks like those ''video game'' machines will be used more often''. And Pakistan may or may not have something to say about U.S. troops on their soil unless invited. Yet they will be elated at the troop buildup in Afghanistan. But I don't believe the buildup will work in the long run. It temporarily plugs the dike.
Bogle says:
''It should hardly be surprising that they would want to increase the use of their "drones" as the American cowards can kill more untermenschen with less causalities on their side. You must be very proud of "your" country Grumman.''
Then you are effectively saying what I said with the use of drones. Why do you think the Taliban and Al-Qaeda use hit and run tactics. They work to some degree. So why would it be unusual for you to think the U.S. or any other combat-inclined state to use the same strategy/tactics/ maneuvering? Is this still a surprise to you. Or is it your disgust with the U.S. has taken control of your senses. I can't help you on that one. Deal with it.
Here is something that may further your grasp of what I'm telling you.
I have a grandson who is nearly 15 years old. A grandson who seemingly is a thug; not in trouble with the law yet, but headed in that direction. A poor student. Not an incapable student but a poor one. He is aggressive. Knowing that he is aggressive I try to help him in seeing what it will take to defend himself because one of these days he will surely need it. Does it make me wrong for showing him how to get the upper hand in a fistfight by my showing him how to box and use other tactics to his advantage. He is my flesh and blood. Hopefully he understands the importance of restraint; a restraint that may be beyond his reach. I tell him to mind his own affairs but he struggles with that idea. I also reiterate to him that his interfering with other ''innocent'' boys his age will invite retaliation at some point. Knowing that he is aggressive wouldn't it make more sense to equip him for the inevitable response he is surely to invoke when he won't mind his own affairs?
P.S. Do you have any proof of your untermenschen idea? Rhetorical flourish no doubt.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel isn't too strong for Obama. Jews are just too intelligent for WASPS...and always have been since Jews stole all their knowledge from Africa.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Then my grandson analogy hit home for you? If not then some of your posts indicate the Americans are the only ones capable of mischief and chicannery.
I said, ''Do you have any proof of your untermenschen idea?''
You countered with:
''American foreign policy.''
American foreign policy can be argued and debated by analysts. I don't recall any on CNN nor MSNBC, nor FOX debating that point nor ABC, CBS nor NBC preceding cable news over the past 40 years. While those that frequent Fox may feel that way there is no way of knowing that; after all Fox does cater to those more inclined to the right. Maybe FOX can be seen as guilt by association. Even so that ain't no issue of mine.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
''What this means, Grumman, is that your "idea" was already a considered one, and was in use.''
Agreed, that's why I said, ''Well it looks like those ''video game'' machines will be used more often''. And Pakistan may or may not have something to say about U.S. troops on their soil unless invited. Yet they will be elated at the troop buildup in Afghanistan. But I don't believe the buildup will work in the long run. It temporarily plugs the dike.
I thought you were putting forth the use of UAVs in Pakistan and Afghanistan against Taliban insurgency as "your idea", which the U.S. military supposedly never considered, and hence, what you'd hypothetically bring to the table, if you were called on to provide solution to Afghan insurgency?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Initially I said: A couple of hours ago, about 12:20 a.m. December 2, CNN reported that the use of ''Drones'' will be increased in Afghanistan and that Pakistan* is receptive to the idea. Well it looks like those ''video game'' machines will be used more often. I do believe I said that about 14 hours ago.
Actually I could have worded it more precisely to reflect it was a military decision. My thought was the military was in agreement with an idea I had personally, not stated to anyone but a member on this topic, but not related to anything officially the military had in mind.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Pakistan has serious reservations, and since they are the ones who would suffer further destabilisation due to this arrogant madness, who could blame them. They take issue also with the standrad caricature of them in the US as being "in bed" with religious crazies and not doing "enough".
Such simplistic misrepresentations of a section of the world that is more complex than you Pepsi drinking, Britney spears listening Americans could ever understand has serious consequences. Expensive consequences, but then again you Americans are use to paying for costly neocon wars. You ignorant Americans seem to take as "fact" whatever "intelligence assessments" that comes from your leaders.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''Such simplistic misrepresentations of a section of the world that is more complex than ... Americans could ever understand has serious consequences. Expensive consequences, but then again you Americans are use to paying for costly neocon wars. You ignorant Americans seem to take as "fact" whatever "intelligence assessments" that comes from your leaders.''
The only thing I would disagree on here is your seeming suggestion that every American ''accepts'' war decisions. Nonsense. Nevertheless decisions are made that are highly unpopular. Do you have an answer for the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation? I'm saying is the answer simply that easy... like get out? Like, bye? I would like to think it is but is it? Some running the government and military think they have the answers. They don't really, but what is the answer. As you know once you start meddling it gets a bit more difficult to unmeddle so to speak, especially when there is a perception of security interests.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The only thing I would disagree on here is your seeming suggestion that every American ''accepts'' war decisions.
Of course we all know you don't accept "war decisions" from softie military men Grumman. If you had your way the skies would be "saturated" with drones.
quote:Do you have an answer for the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation?
Well other than go back the **** to whence you came, you could cut a deal with the Taliban who are more capable in running their own country as opposed to the CIA stooge in Kabul. And save your "but-they-harbored-Bin-ladin-who-was-responsible-for-9/11" BS. If you Americans really wanted to know who was behind 9/11 you would look closer home. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''If you had your way the skies would be "saturated" with drones.'
That is an accurate assessment on military targets yes; but no foot soldiers.
''Well other than go back the **** to whence you came, you could cut a deal with the Taliban who are more capable in running their own country as opposed to the CIA stooge in Kabul.''
Well Bogle someone is always a stooge when you meddle in their affairs. And until you can prove that millions upon millions of Afghans are Taliban then I can't accept you saying the Taliban is welcome on all fronts. Then again those many millions may be Taliban but don't know it yet. In other words they may be minding their own business and wishing the U.S. and Taliban will leave them alone so they won't have to make a decision.
I did see a figure the other day that put the Taliban's numbers at 10,000. There may be more who knows. And I'm thinking not all the women in that country will agree with their rule, and you too for that matter. Now don't take that and run with it. All I'm saying is you are mad at me and now have reduced yourself to actually believing everyone in that country accepts their rule willingly. All is not lost however. You will be right in saying go back from whence you came, that is , the U.S.
''And save your "but-they-harbored-Bin-ladin-who-was-responsible-for-9/11" BS.''
Well that was the reason they went into Afghanistan because they wouldn't give up binnyboy.
''If you Americans really wanted to know who was behind 9/11 you would look closer home.''
Yes, America's meddling in that part of the world is the problem and 9/11 was the result. Yeah buddy I know what you really mean but don't look to me for discussion on it either because other than a lot of coincidences and mismanagement it is bullshit masquerading as proof... some of that yes it is no it ain't stuff.
That said I do believe former president John Kennedy's death in 1963 was the result of two shooters... according to the autopsy reports performed by the doctors; not that they said two shooters, just that the autopsy indicated two directions front and back. Even that can be reduced to he said she said.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
See now you're reduced to wild straw man because you can't deal with the reality. I certainly never said anything about millions upon millions or that everyone in that country accepted their rule willingly. Where do you even find this scenario in any country anyway?
Fact is, the Taliban were not some foreign fringed group the people were dying to get rid of. They were the Afghans who brought stability to a country destroyed by Soviet and US cold war death dance. Taliban knew their people and knew how to rule them, and please don't say it was just brute force as US and Co are trying just that right now and are failing miserably. For you to equate the Taliban and the US is worst than simplistic. Take for example post-Taliban Kabul, seat of the US puppet regime, you still see most of the women in burkas and efforts at westernization, through education and culture, has been meet with stiff opposition and violent clashes. Based on your line of thinking, in the absence of the evil unwanted Taliban, you would think we would see women in miniskirts and men with pants at their waists. And in those remote villages where there are no Taliban, its even more conservative and distrusting of westerners.
This is why realist politicians, old cold warriors like those in the first Bush regime don't harbor any illusions about placing a pro-western stooge in that part of the world and trying to build democracy etc. In other words you live in a REAL world where there are different peoples with different cultures and you have to deal with them as they are not as you want them to be. Face it, that region was too complex for you Americans. But what can we expect from a people who get their geography lessons from their invasions of other peoples countries.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''See now you're reduced to wild straw man because you can't deal with the reality. I certainly never said anything about millions upon millions or that everyone in that country accepted their rule willingly. Where do you even find this scenario in any country anyway?'']
I know you didn't say millions I did, But you said the Taliban are the people. So here, read the below again from me.
''And until you can prove that millions upon millions of Afghans are Taliban then I can't accept you saying the Taliban is welcome on all fronts.Then again those many millions may be Taliban but don't know it yet. In other words they may be minding their own business and wishing the U.S. and Taliban will leave them alone so they won't have to make a decision.''
On your strawman comment some of your posts throughout have been just that. I didn't call you on them simply because I understood what you were driving at. The problem in using a strawman is when you think you can defeat another argument by using it. I recognized why you did it which was to prove something. I let it go. What I said about the millions is a direct result of how you frame your responses. It can be distracting at times.
''They were the Afghans who brought stability to a country destroyed by Soviet and US cold war death dance.''
You are forgetting that after the Soviets pulled out the Northern Alliance and the Taliban couldn't see eye-to-eye. This protracted struggle between the two lasted a few years until the Northern Alliance got beat. Then the Taliban instituted their strict way of running things.
''Taliban knew their people and knew how to rule them, and please don't say it was just brute force as US and Co are trying just that right now and are failing miserably.''
The Taliban knew how they wanted to rule their people plain and simple, with force. The U.S. is trying to defeat the Taliban, maybe, but not the people.
''For you to equate the Taliban and the US is worst than simplistic.''
I couldn't agree more.
''Take for example post-Taliban Kabul, seat of the US puppet regime, you still see most of the women in burkas and efforts at westernization, through education and culture, has been meet with stiff opposition and violent clashes.''
Do you think the U.S. would tell an Afghan woman to take off her burka because they don't permit them? I don't.
Is there any way to know what you mean by ''most women''... eight out ten... six out of ten? Are the violent clashes an epidemic? If they are I wonder why the U.S. doesn't get this message and get out if this be the case. Look at it this way. Some people in Afghanistan like Taliban rule, some don't.
''Based on your line of thinking, in the absence of the evil unwanted Taliban, you would think we would see women in miniskirts and men with pants at their waists. And in those remote villages where there are no Taliban, its even more conservative and distrusting of westerners.''
No, none of that will be based on my line of thinking. Cultures are different and you know that as well as me. I'm liberal in some areas, conservative in others. Tough for you to know that isn't it.
Face it, that region was too complex for you Americans. But what can we expect from a people who get their geography lessons from their invasions of other peoples countries.''
Well said.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Northern Alliance are the minority ethnic group, while the Taliban are from the Pashtun majority. It would hardly be surprising they lost. Again I don't think the success of the Taliban in keeping that country stable, even with the threat from the Northern Alliance, can be reduced to simply brute force as that has not worked for the US in eight years. They must be doing something US is not. Or they must mean something to the Afghans that the US clearly does not.
And I would think it safe to say "most women" still wear burkas since video shots of the people in Kabul market etc show this and logically that is all they knew, it is their culture. Of course there are western oriented Afghan women, like in the Kabul puppet govt, but I doubt they represent a significant minority matchless a majority.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
The Iraq war was misguided. Afghanistan is another story. I don't believe the U.S.'s policy for that country is occupation; nothing there to want politically and materially {except to say Pakistan is a nuisance). All Mullah Omar had to do was give up Ben; they didn't; they suffered, and are suffering today because of political decisions.
[/QB]
Wrong!
Afghanistan is, in many regards, strategic. It not only borders the “Silk Road Corridor” linking the Caucasus to China’s Western border, it is also at the hub of five nuclear powers: China, Russia, India, Pakistan and Kazakhstan.
Afghanistan is at the strategic crossroads of the Eurasian oil pipeline and transport routes. It also constitutes a land-bridge for the southbound oil pipeline from the former Soviet republic of Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea across Pakistan, which had initially been negotiated by Unocal with the Taliban government.
The former Soviet republics of Central Asia-Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and especially “the new Kuwait”, Kazakhstan-have vast oil and gas reserves. But Russia has refused to allow the US to extract it through Russian pipelines and Iran is considered a dangerous route.
That left Afghanistan. The US oil company Chevron-where Mr. Bush’s National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, was a director throughout the 1990s-is deeply involved in Kazakhstan. In 1995, another US company, Unocal (formerly Union Oil Company of California), signed a contract to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
The oil and natural gas reserves of “the Eurasian Corridor” are substantial, at least of the same size of those in the Persian Gulf.
"The region of the South Caucasus and Central Asia could produce oil and gas in sufficient quantities to reduce the dependence of the United States on energy from the volatile Persian Gulf region."
“Political and military conditions” in the region (meaning Russia’s presence and influence) have been viewed by both the Clinton and Bush administrations as:
…presenting obstacles to bringing this energy to the global market….Both regions are the object of outside states competing for influence there. Not only Russia, but also China, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are competitively engaged, often in non-constructive ways….If we [the US] and our allies cannot manage the second and third sets of realities, we will forego the benefits of the first set of realities. Bringing the oil and gas to market will be sporadic, if not impossible, and far more costly. At the same time, the resulting political instabilities may turn both regions into a cauldron of civil wars and political violence, inevitably drawing in the surrounding states. We already have this pattern in the Persian Gulf region, requiring US military involvement, and we could hardly stand by politically, even if we did so militarily, if conflicts entangle Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and some of the Arab states in the Trans-caucasus or Central Asia."
In other words, the successful implementation of the SRS requires the concurrent “militarization” of the Eurasian corridor as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as “protecting” the pipeline routes on behalf of the Anglo-American oil companies. “[A] successful international oil regime is a combination of economic, political and military arrangements to support oil production and transportation to markets.”
In the words of a (former) CIA “policy analyst”:
"Whoever has control over certain kinds of pipelines and certain kinds of investments in the region does have a certain amount of geopolitical clout. Such clout is something of a commodity itself, even if the physical control of the oil is not. For much of the Third World, this is a newer way of thinking about resources; it’s no longer the old story of Hitler’s Germany trying to get to the Caucasus and use the oil for its own purposes in World War II."
It's far more complex than you're told, Grumman.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
When people across the U.S. and around the World find out that "Al Qaeda" is not an outside enemy but a creation of U.S. foreign policy and the CIA, the legitimacy of the bipartisan war agenda will tumble like a deck of cards.
According to a Reuters report (quoting Richard Labevière's book Corridors of Terror), "negotiations" between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment.(1)
Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment "negotiating with the CIA"?
The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE had indeed been confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le Figaro, published in October 2001.(2)
As to "negotiations" between the CIA and Osama (a CIA "intelligence asset"), this statement seems to be contradictory.
Even though the CIA has refuted the claim, the report serves to highlight Osama as a bona fide "Enemy of America," rather than a creation of the CIA. In the words of former CIA agent Milt Bearden in an interview with Dan Rather on September 12, 2001, "If they didn't have an Osama bin Laden, they would invent one."
Intelligence negotiations never take place on a hospital bed. The CIA knew Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai. Rather than negotiate, they could have arrested him. He was on the FBI most wanted list.
According to the Reuters report: "At the time, bin Laden had a multi-million dollar price on his head for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in East Africa". So why did the hospital staff, who knew that Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai, not claim the reward?
The Figaro report points to complicity between the CIA and Osama rather than "negotiation". Consistent with several other reports, it also points to the antagonism between the FBI and the CIA.
If the CIA had wanted to arrest Osama bin Laden prior to September 11, they could have done it then in Dubai. But they would not have had a pretext for waging a major military operation in the Middle East and Central Asia.
According to Le Figaro:
Dubai…was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July [2001]. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that "public enemy number one" stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July.
While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go [up] to bin Laden's hospital room.
A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorized sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta [Pakistan], the CIA agent was called back to headquarters.
In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered "financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "Arab friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is, so it would seem, within the logic of "a certain American policy."
The Figaro report is confirmed by several other news reports including the London Times. During his 11-day stay in the American hospital, Osama received specialized medical treatment from Canadian urologist Dr. Terry Calloway.
Osama back in Hospital on September 10, 2001, one Day before the 9/11 Attacks
According to Dan Rather, CBS, bin Laden was back in Hospital, one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, this time, courtesy of America's indefectible ally Pakistan. Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, in a military hospital at Pak Army’s headquarters:
DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United States and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States [on] September 11.
This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS's Barry Petersen. Here is his report.
BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here’s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the US war on terror in Afghanistan.
Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.
"The military had him surrounded," says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time," he says, "I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden.
I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after." Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.
AHMED RASHID, TALIBAN EXPERT: There were reports that Pakistani intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines. And the rumor was that these were wanted for Osama bin Laden.
PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.
(voice-over): But it was Pakistan’s President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don’t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.
DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden’s health, I just am-don't have any knowledge.
PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan’s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.(6)
It should be noted that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. US military advisers based in Rawalpindi work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America's best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another "better purpose".
Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama's health.
The CBS report is a crucial piece of information in the 9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration’s claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistani connection; it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Dan Rather and Barry Petersen failed to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They failed to beg the key question: where was Osama on 9/11? If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious: The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama.
If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on the evening of September 10 (local time), courtesy of America’s ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. Even if he had been released from the hospital the following morning on the 11th (local time), in all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the mark in many of your observations, vis-a-vis the strategic motives behind Afghan occupation, not to leave out the issue of Iraq; sometimes one has to wonder if someone, not unlike Grumman himself, is not also aware of the various aspects of such relatively more comprehensive view of certain U.S. foreign policy undertaking, but instead chooses to stick with the "selling the war" talking points -- well, because it is easier for one to justify one's otherwise malicious actions, if one can convince oneself of the idea that oneself is the one who is taking a high moral ground over all other parties involved. False sense of self-righteousness helps in talking away some of that guilt from conduct of misdeed.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
[''one has to wonder if someone, not unlike Grumman himself, is not also aware of the various aspects of such relatively more comprehensive view of certain U.S. foreign policy undertaking, but instead chooses to stick with the "selling the war" talking points -- well, because it is easier for one to justify one's otherwise malicious actions, if one can convince oneself of the idea that oneself is the one who is taking a high moral ground over all other parties involved. False sense of self-righteousness helps in talking away some of that guilt from conduct of misdeed.''
I'm not the one. As noted from the beginning of the topic I have said strictly from a military point of view. That leaves me out of the CIA and the U.S government's political dealings even though the military is a tool of politicicans.
Former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson turned a lot of military men off in the very early stages of the Viet Nam conflict when he is purportedly to have said, paraphrasing here, ''They can't bomb an outhouse without my permission.''
So if you are not prepared to put foot your in somebody's ass after meddling for so many years get the hell out and leave the people alone. But the U.S. can't do that for whatever reason; maybe mentioned in the long post above. Maybe if the Chinese will stop loaning them money they may realize a thing or two. But the Chinese...
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson turned a lot of military men off in the very early stages of the Viet Nam conflict
Don't tell me you are one of those who thinks the US could have actually won the Vietnam war, militarily. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well yeh, if its like the Iraq and Afghan wars, you can't win when you are fighting the people.Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if the U.S had really studied Afghanistan, especially, then they should have known it would have to be a parallel to Viet Nam. They lied to themselves. You will notice I left out Iraq.
If you guys continue to tick off the white guys he may lock his doors all the way tight. That'll give some folks a reason to bitch even more.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
the United States could have won the Vietnam war in six months. Think guys.....if there was no North Vietnam there would have been no war. Again, the Roman model actually works.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: If you guys continue to tick off the white guys he may lock his doors all the way tight. That'll give some folks a reason to bitch even more.
Not quite sure what that means. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Where do you think some of the top Nazi doctors and processionals went? 
Printer-friendly view of this topic