Well you twist the facts to your liking it seems... I guess you have some stake in this, right. Maybe you work or own stock of oil - or weapons industries ? Who knows. I agree with you, about the "slurs" tho. I read some stuff here, which could be named as such, which I don´t approve (like eg. against muslim or russians)... So you say, some of the allegged 9/11 terrorists came from A´stan and a sick guy in a cave with a beard directed that thing with a mobile phone ??? Ok, you still believe that....but even if it were so like said.....the US now has the right to attack half of the muslim world ? LOOOL. FIRSTLY: This was no country attacking you, so not an act of war. It was a crime and demanded a criminal answer....Secondly: Other "terrorists" came from Hamburg, Germany and Saudi Arabia.... also some of them lived in the US for a while. Which means German, SA and the USA would be a legitimate target for the Nato aggression then too ? Also google who came up with "a new pearl harbour"... hint: Not the evil arabs... Also I was a bit rude, I know if one works 9-10 hours a week one has no time to research such issues. So you at least should try to learn from people who are better informed... That´s the way to better oneself, learn... Hence I saw quite some footage about how "mainly" US troops in these countries behave....so the invasions were illegal in the 1st place and even than US soldiers commit more crimes as if the invasion as such would not be enough. This is why I named them assholes, which was way too soft language (maybe you can come up with better terms, criminals maybe?).... Btw: I say the same to other Nato troops (esp. German sheeples) - but let´s face it the US are the worst offenders...
What obsession do you guys have with tin ? I like silver or copper much more, are there also hats from these metals ?
Well there is a theory this "chaos" is exactly that what is wanted... chaos breeds more violence and unstability. The smaller factions fight each other....then the whole area is so weakened, infrastructur etc destroyed, that the bringers of democrazy can take it over without much a fight (divide and conquer). Also the chaos wil bring more profits for weapons companies and those that build up all the destroyed stuff (which are often western ones)... however this is a theory. It may be that the chaos was not intended.... the policy maker were just too stupid (I don´t believe the people who real rule are stupid tho)
Nope. Yeah, I still believe that. Al Qaeda was/is a real terrorist organization. And at that time, they were based in Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban who ruled that country. The leader was Osama bin Laden, though at the time I'm sure his quarters were much more luxurious than a cave. As for "alleged" I do not subscribe to the tinfoil hat theories that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the CIA, the Illuminati, the Jews, shadowy corporate entities or whatever bizarre conspiracy theories are currently in vogue. You are free to continue floating such conspiracies and I am free to debunk them for the silliness that they are. Well, I must admit you are good for a few laughs! Perhaps Interpol would have sent a couple of guys with an arrest warrant? Or we could have staged one of those meaningless trials in the Hague? Nah, we were attacked just like Pearl Harbor and we responded in the same way. It's true that I don't have the time to peruse all the left wing conspiracy theory blogs to get the "real story." I'm stuck with boring reality... Yes, it's too bad we don't have the moral code of Saddam and the other people you admire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ Even the US gov and business doesn´t care about their own troops loool These companies want to make money, they have no other interests and get support from the gov(s), sad but true. Btw: KB, I generally doubt stories which seem inconsistent and where is no real proof for. That is what divides sheeples from BS believers....and it doesn´t help your case that you talk about tin, lefties and Saddam "admiration" here, because it is irrelevant here. What is relevant is evidence and facts... Edit. However we might note that in the 80ties the US was a huge Saddam admirerer. Ok, Saddam used western delivered WMDs on Iranians and Kurds... ahhh nooo problem he is our friend, right??
Well here is where the idea of the new Pearl Harbour as well the Iraq attacks came from: http://de.wikipedia.org /wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century KB: The taliban wanted to deliver Bin Laden to the US btw. If they presented evidence he was guilty. The US had no proof. Even the FBI did never connect Bin Laden to 9/11. Their website showed BL as wanted person, but for other older cimes he commited but not for 9/11...strange eh? Also how come 4 of the alledged terrorists were alive and well after 9/11, never entered the Us or left before 9/11??
It is entirely relevant. You either wanted to keep Saddam in power which makes you pro-genocide or just an admirer of his brand of national socialism, or you wanted him out of power. You're either for or against him. I was against him. Tinfoil hat BS. Tinfoil hat BS.
Ah I see KB doesn´t want to learn.... you think the Guardian (among much others) are BS ? I still don´t get your tin obsession, but if you like it so much.... go on... Also I am what ??? pro genocide.... I am the one here who is against illegal wars and killing civilians en masse, YOU are in favor of it....so don´t turn this upside down... everyone can read that you are defending these actions. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 9.30pm update: * Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt * Second week of airstrikes starts * Taliban urges US to halt bombing Staff and agencies Sunday 14 October 2001 22.19 BST President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan. Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
if someone threatens Americans, we can, should, and will kill them....osama was a danger to a lot of people, not just the US..the US was not ''invading'' but attacking the murderers....
Well Bronk you missed to attack Germany, Saudi Arabia and the US themselves then, because these countries among others harboured terrorists. As I explained before. But as even the guilt of BL and the 19 arab guys are in question the discussion is senseless. However it´s good that you question the conspiracy theory that a sick old man in a cave and 19 arabs were able to defeat the mightiest country on the world (well at least all their services and air defense). We can not even imagine what would have happened if a real enemy with real assets would have attacked you that day.... eg. the Russians or Chinese....while you couldn´t defend against 4 civil airliners........scary thought, right? But, A´stan may indeed be a doubtful case, while Iraq was clearly illegal....and that was the orig. topic right ?
saddam had started a war with Iran....gassed women and children....invaded Kuwait, who Iraq owed viel money to, etc etc ...more than enough validation to protect the area, and eradicate his regime....
I realize im late to the party and have only a few posts but I have to ask the following of all who support the Iraq war... I have along with many others around the world seen the situation unfold in the following manner. The United States's primary reasons for war were WMD which posed a threat to the region and potentially the US and "strong" ties to Al Qaida. The case was brought in front of the UN security council (the same that approved the Gulf War) and was this time shut down. Not enough evidence to go to war over. Bush and Cheney decided to go to war anyway. More then a decade later no Al Qaida link has ever been made and the only WMD that the US ever found were their own (which Reagan had given Saddam through Contra). How can Iraq be justified? How is it NOT illegal?
One nut just flew a German airplane into a mountain a few days ago. Yet, your tinfoil hat websites completely reject the possibility that 19 nuts couldn't take over three planes?
Please include photos and locations of these Al-Queda terrorist training camps in Germany, Saudi, and the US. Seeing as the 19 arab guys were crushed, burnt to a crisp, and then flattened thinner than a piece of paper - I'd say their guilt is a moot point. As to BL's guilt...Are you saying that Barack Obama would whack an innocent man? A "real enemy" with "real assets"??? The Russians??? The Russians could even defend themselves against a 18-year-old in a Cessna...Or perhaps you are to young to remember... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wue02Y0lS38 Where are all the conspiracy theories concerning Mathias Rust...Or is it because he did not kill anybody?
Reagan gave the Chemical weapons to Saddam? Another conspiracy theory. Just add Contra and that means it's true, right? If he did this it was a pretty good trick. Reagan was President from 1981 to 1989. Iraq's first use of chemical weapons against Iran was in November 1980, BEFORE Reagan became president. The Iran-Contra (not just Contra) scandal was in 1986 and was over covert arm sales to Iran (the country fighting Iraq) in an attempt to secure the release of some American hostages.
After reading Bundesluftwaffe's last few posts, I could not resist posting this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm5go6mVqwU
they did find a major terrorist there <> http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/04/16/palestinian-terrorist-abu-abbas-arrested/ Iraq constantly violated the cease fire...that, in itself, justifies the US, and US only, to finish the war....Iraq hindered WMD inspectors<> http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
Then you have Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. He was running an Al-Qaeda training camp, for Jordanian militants, with money provided him personally by Osama Bin-Laden, in Herat, Afghanistan in 1999-2001. His camp also specialized in poisons. He had traveled to Iran just before the US invasion of Afghanistan. He immediately returned to Afghanistan to fight US/Northern Alliance forces. He was wounded in the chest in a firefight and went to Iran for medical treatment where Jordan attempted to extradite him for a 1999 terrorist plot. He fell ill in 2002 and received (according to a Senate intelligence report, and several Arab intelligence sources, including Jordanian) medical treatment in Baghdad, Iraq from May-late November 2002. Saddam refused Jordanian efforts to extradite him. He is the same Zarqawi that formed Al-Qaeda in Iraq and for a time was one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. I have several friends that were still in the special operations community in 2002-2003 leading up to the war with Iraq, that have told me they were running missions into Iraq to surveil Al-Queda groups that had fled Afghanistan due to the US invasion and were setting up training camps in northern Iraq. They also told me the big fear was that they would gain control of the oil resources in that region which would allow them to fund their operations. We all know how hard the Taliban fought to protect their poppy growing region in northern Helmand province Afghanistan, around Sangin. This is because it was a major source of their funding. Here are some excerpts from an August 2002 article in "The Guardian" that support the story: A radical armed Islamist group with ties to Tehran and Baghdad has helped al-Qaida establish an international terrorist training camp in northern Iraq, Kurdish officials say. Intelligence officers in the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq told the Guardian that the Ansar al-Islam (supporters of Islam) group is harbouring up to 150 al-Qaida members in a string of villages it controls along the Iraq-Iran border. Most of them fled Afghanistan after the US-led offensive, but officials from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which controls part of north-east Iraq, claim an "abnormal" number of recruits are making their way to the area from Jordan, Syria and Egypt. "They are being trained for terrorist operations within the Kurdish region and beyond, possibly Europe," one said. It was reported this week that the Bush administration contemplated a covert strike on Ansar-controlled territory because it suspected al-Qaida had set up a laboratory there to experiment with chemical or biological weapons. But US analysts decided that whatever al-Qaida was up to was too rudimentary to pose a direct threat and was not worth risking American lives for.......Five hundred Ansar fighters are reported to have imposed a strict Taliban-style rule in the remote mountainous villages of eastern Kurdistan. Music, pictures and advertising have been banned; girls in the area are prevented from going to school. Officials in the Kurdish self-rule area say that in isolated camps between the villages foreign recruits, including Egyptians, Yemenis, Moroccans and Jordanians, are given training by al-Qaida operatives in bomb-making, poisoning, hit-and-run tactics, assassination and guerrilla warfare. Now Saddam and Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister, both denied this, and there was a good deal of evidence that these groups were getting aid from Iran. Do you really think Saddam really didn't know that they were there? Look at the dates, one could perhaps surmise that it is possible that Al-Zarqawi's "illness" might have been feigned and he was in Baghdad to coordinate the rebasing of Al-Queda training and operational locations to the safety of northern Iraq. Or he may have actually been ill, in which case Iraq was harboring one of the major terrorist leaders in the world.
