Over 90,000 US Military Records Leaked

[Baff1 0]

Why wouldn't I be?

The American people needed revenge old man. They weren't too fussy who on.

People never are after shocking events of that nature.

It's far more normal in those situations to focus on a scapegoat than it is to miracle up a convenient and nefarious evil criminal mastermind overnight don't you think?

Did you really think Bush had had a lot of time to investigate before he gave us Bin Ladens name? His people demanded a name and he gave them one.

The guys who did it are dead mate. It was a suicide attack. No matter who else we kill, we can't do anything more to them.

If the Taliban controlled 90% of the country, then that would make them the average Afghan in my opinion. It would just take too many Taliban to control that much of a population without being readily recruited from within it and enjoying the broad support among it to be able to do that.

Dictators, Tyrants, God Emperors, they all broadly speaking rule with the consent of their people. It's not just in democracies that happens.

I don't know what percentage they actually controlled, and I put it to you that the very words controlling the country isn't a very good way to describe any system of government in Afghanistan. I don't really believe in the idea that the Taliban ruled a centralised government as we would understand it. More like an ever shifting alliance of fieifdoms united over a common religious ideology only. I don't suppose they were in daily contact with eachother for example or all sat down at a parliament that often or followed too many common policies or edicts from on high.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Baff1

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Why wouldn't I be?

The American people needed revenge old man. They weren't too fussy who on.

People never are after shocking events of that nature.

Ok, so you're confirming that your opinion is based on conjecture instead of reality. Thanks.

Btw, I don't know anyone who does drugs, therefore there is no drug problem and the entire thing is made up to funnel funding into self-inflated government agencies and to give the government an excuse to regulate commerce and border security.

See how this works?

If the Taliban controlled 90% of the country, then that would make them the average Afghan in my opinion.

I don't know what percentage they actually controlled, and I put it to you that the very words controlling the country isn't a very good way to describe any system of government in Afghanistan. I don't really believe in the idea that the Taliban ruled a centralised government as we would understand it. More like an ever shifting alliance of fieifdoms united over a common religious ideology only.

I would more or less agree with this. However, we did not invade Afghanistan to "hold normal Afghans responsible" or punish them in any way.

And Unocal's pipeline still hasn't been built, so what?

[Big Mac 19]

Iraq is about oil.

As long as Saddam was in power he was a threat to our oil intrests in Kuwait and Saudi.

Our forces had already fought one war against him because of it and had been deployed there for over a decade because of it.

It's just about oil. Plain and simple. All the rest is window dressing.

The problem with going after the leadership of AQ in Afghanistan is that there is no particular link to them and 9/11 anymore than there was one to Saddam and 9/11.

Bush said Bin Laden did it, and that was enough for everyone. It's not like Bin Laden had any friends.

It smacks of scapegoating.

The real problem for America's leadership after 9/11 is that there wasn't anyone to hit back at. The people who did it all died in the plane. They were impotent.

Nevermind the fact that for nearly 9 years he's been admitting to it...

[Baff1 0]

Ok, so you're confirming that your opinion is based on conjecture instead of reality. Thanks.?

Riiiiiiiight because you can conclusively prove that Bin Laden did it.

You saw him and videoed it I suppose

It's all conjecture mate. All of it. What I say. What you think. What the people who told you what to think said. All of it.

Time you got used to that.

Those who did it, died in the attacks. It was a suicide attack.

This is reality.

This is fact.

Anything more you add is just conjecture. Nothing more.

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

Nevermind the fact that for nearly 9 years he's been admitting to it...

He's only been admitting for 6 of those 9 years.

For the first 3 he denied it.

But everyone believed GW Bush over him.

LMAO. Now theres a man well known for telling the truth and not lying about who was responsable for 9/11.

I put it to you that after 3 years of everyone in the world saying Bin Laden did it, that it no longer mattered what he said. Shit sticks.

He was already the worlds no.1 enemy and had all the credit for it. He was already in premanent hiding. What did he have to lose?

Might as well enjoy the kudos.

You know what I mean? Get that invite to Kim Jong Il's dinner party so he can sit down opposite Saddam and between the Ayatollah and Ghadiffi while Frank Dreben hides behind his false beard ready to biff them all about the face in the name of freedom!

---------- Post added at 05:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

I would more or less agree with this. However, we did not invade Afghanistan to "hold normal Afghans responsible" or punish them in any way.

While I agree with this, you also didn't especially care if that was the net result either. You still don't.

In fact in 2001 when we all went in there first and all the pictures of all the ordinary Afghans getting bombed were on TV we all loved it.

It's not that you wanted to specifically and expressly punish the ordinary Afghans, it's just that you wanted to punish and ordinary Afghans would do.

Everyone would all prefer to think that it's all about justice and freedom and bla bla bla but in fact it's all just one long chain reaction of world events. Our enemies aren't our enemies because they are bad guys. They are bad guys because they are our enemies.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Baff1

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Riiiiiiiight because you can conclusively prove that Bin Laden did it.

You saw him and videoed it I suppose.

There's enough proof for any reasonable person.

While I agree with this, you also didn't especially care if that was the net result either. You still don't.

Don't project your opinions onto others. I care; you don't. Get it right.

In fact in 2001 when we all went in there first and all the pictures of all the ordinary Afghans getting bombed were on TV we all loved it.

I was in high school at the time and the onyl footage played on TV were Al Qaeda training videos on loop, and random footage of NA trucks and beatup T-55s rolling around Kabul and Mazar. I remember some footage of Tora Bora being bombed and that's it.

It's not that you wanted to specifically punish the Afghans, it's just that you wanted to punish and ordinary Afghans would do.

You're projecting again.

[Baff1 0]

There's enough proof for any reasonable person.

.

Just as there was for Saddam being behind it too.

Reasonable people don't need much proof when they are angry.

In fact, tell a reasonable person exactly what they want to hear and they won't ask for any proof at all.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

Don't project your opinions onto others. I care; you don't. Get it right.

I was in high school at the time and the onyl footage played on TV were Al Qaeda training videos on loop, and random footage of NA trucks and beatup T-55s rolling around Kabul and Mazar. I remember some footage of Tora Bora being bombed and that's it.

.

You talk like someone who was in high school too.

There are a lot of young posters in this thread. It's one of the reasons you didn't know about the Taliban ruled period of Afghan History. Or that you sought links of media stories from a time before the internet was around.

I've been a bit apprehensive about addressing the age group of the people here, but your lack of knowledge gave it away already.

I'm glad you bridged the subject for me.

In my opinion if you especially cared about ordinary Afghan people you wouldn't have joined an army that was at war with them.

So yes I am projecting onto you.

(Apologies if I have got my wires crossed and you are not that army guy who was posting here earlier).

Edited August 10, 2010 by Baff1

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Just as their was for Saddam being behind it too.

Reasonable people don;t need much proof when they are angry.

Saddam did everything in his power to imply he had them, which gave the Bush admin enough leeway to exploit the populace's fear and fervor. What's your point?

You talk like someone who was in high school too. There are a lot of young posters in this thread.

What's your point?

Ah, here it is:

There are a lot of young posters in this thread. It's one of the ereasons you didn't know about the Taliban ruled period of Afghan History. Or that you sought links media stories from a time before the internet was around.

I'm sorry, by what are you referring to me not knowing about the Taliban's rulership of Afghanistan? Because I disagreed with your fanciful ideas that the Taliban was against the exportation or opium prior to 2001? I cited 2 sources, both of which I found in a good old fashioned book -not the internet, nor do I recall asking for "links media stories from a time before the internet was around"

I simply recall asking you to back up your statements, and the best you gave me was stories about weddings and parties in England. Excellent.

In my opinion if you especially cared about ordinary Afghan people you wouldn't have joined an army that was at war with them.

Funny, the only group of people I saw at war with the ordinary Afghan people were the Taliban, Hekmetyar, and the numerous groups of foreign jihadist fighters.

So yes I am projecting onto you.

Kindly knock it off.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Clavicula_nox4817

[Baff1 0]

Saddam did everything in his power to imply he had them, which gave the Bush admin enough leeway to exploit the populace's fear and fervor. What's your point?

What's your point?

Ah, here it is:

I'm sorry, by what are you referring to me not knowing about the Taliban's rulership of Afghanistan? Because I disagreed with your fanciful ideas that the Taliban was against the exportation or opium prior to 2001? I cited 2 sources, both of which I found in a good old fashioned book -not the internet, nor do I recall asking for "links media stories from a time before the internet was around"

I simply recall asking you to back up your statements, and the best you gave me was stories about weddings and parties in England. Excellent.

Funny, the only group of people I saw at war with the ordinary Afghan people were the Taliban, Hekmetyar, and the numerous groups of foreign jihadist fighters.

Kindly knock it off.

That's right mate you cited sources.

Because you are of the age that linked sources is the most you know.

Because you are from the generation where everything can be found on Google.

Because you didn't understand that the bulk of all sources from that period were not on the internet and still aren't.

You didn't know what anyone old enough learnt from newspapers and TV and radio at that time because you are too young to have been following it.

And because you are so young and you didn't realise that the primary sources were not the internet at that time, you didn't realise that even if you were the most internationally and politicially intrested and aware 13 year old at the time; that living in America, a country with little to no vested intrest in Afghansistan at that time, that the media sources that were available to you and your countrymen then, that they didn't address issues no one wanted to hear.

They couldn't sell newsppaers or TV shows in America on that subject so they didn't often report it, while in GB where I live, where we were in the middle of a full blown heroin flood from Afghanistan, they reported it alot and I was old enough to follow the many many stories reported and had a vested intrest in it enough to do so.

Unlike you, who just thought you knew it all because you found a link or two to support your bias.

You just thought " I've have the linkz therefore I winz at teh internets"

Just like all the little no nothing kiddies do.

And my point remains the same. Bush said Bin Laden was involved in 9/11 but he also said Saddam Hussein was.

And he said it at a time when Americans didn't really care whose fault it was enough to bother to prove either before going out for revenge.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Baff1

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

That's right mate you cited sources.

Because you are of the age that linked sources is the most you know.

Becuase you didn't understand that the bulk of all sources from that period were not on the internet and still aren't.

You didn't know what anyone old enough learnt from newspapers and TV and radio at that time because you are too young.

And because you are so young and you didn't realise that the primary sources were not the internet at that time, you didn't realise that even if you were the most internationally and politicially intrested and aware 13 year old at the time, that livining in America, a country with little to no vested intrest in Afghansistan at that time, that the media sources that were availabale to you and your countrymen at that time didn't address issues no one wanted to hear. They couldn't sell newsppaers or TV shows in America on that subject so they didn't even report it, while in GB where I live, where we were in the middle of a full blown heroin flood from Afghanistan, they reported it alot and I was old enough to follow the story and had a vested intrest in it enough to do so.

Unlike you, who just thought you knew it all because you found a link to support your bias.

You just thought " I've have the linkz therefore I winz at teh internets"

Just like all the little no nothing kiddies do.

You didn't even read my post. The sources I cited were not on the Internet. How many times do I have to say it? They came from a book (Taliban by Ahmed Rashid), again, written by a man who has dedicated his life to reporting in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'm sorry, it's just that in a discussion and in academia, I am usually expected to support everything I say, otherwise I could make any outlandish and idiotic statement I wanted. Because of this, I usually expect others to do the same. *edit* Rashid also cites his sources in his books, but I guess he's a kid too?

*edit*

I'm 25 and a veteran of 2 wars. I am not a kid.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Clavicula_nox4817

[sanctuary 19]

So basically you have no facts, only "opinions", no factual proofs, only "feelings" and try to drown the arguments because you have no reference to back them up by throwing "but you are a kid" , "you are too young" as a last ressort in the face of people contradicting you ?

Yes indeed the internet, you sure know very well how it works to use this kind of arguing.

[Baff1 0]

You didn't even read my post. The sources I cited were not on the Internet. How many times do I have to say it? They came from a book (Taliban by Ahmed Rashid), again, written by a man who has dedicated his life to reporting in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'm sorry, it's just that in a discussion and in academia, I am usually expected to support everything I say, otherwise I could make any outlandish and idiotic statement I wanted. Because of this, I usually expect others to do the same. *edit* Rashid also cites his sources in his books, but I guess he's a kid too?

*edit*

I'm 25 and a veteran of 2 wars. I am not a kid.

25 = young man.

You've got two sources everyone who lives in my country of my age and above has more than they can possibly count.

I don't dispute your source, you just aren't smart enough to understand that there are many more differing sources and you aren't experienced enough to have been exposed to multitudes of them.

And you aren't old enough to be able to place those comments made in the timeline of the events in which they took place either.

Because you were in school aged 12 at the time.

A child.

You want people to recognise your experience, but you don't have any.

Although you are a veteran of two wars now, then you were just a child.

I wasn't.

I do have experiences to share of those times. More than just a book I read.

And you are not in academia now.

And if you were, you would not be asking your teachers and elders to qualify everything they say in case it is stupid, because if you did you wouldn't learn anything at all but would just be wasting lesson time.

I am more than willing to bow to your pertinent experiences and knowledge of things you have seen and done in Afghanistan should you so wish to share them.

But when all you are doing is linking me to someone elses... Sorry but I've read a lot of such things already. More than you.

You are talking to people who have lived through and been personally involved with the events of those times and because you have read a book about it you feel you are well placed to be explaining it to them. Just like a little kiddie.

Utterly laughable that on a forum where there are all these people with actual personal experiences to share you seek to validate history through Google links. To ignore actual qualifiable witness in favour of your own imagination.

Is that what they taught you in academia?

On the subject of the Taliban and the opium trade, you've been corrected. Take it on board.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Baff1

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I don't dispute your source, you just aren't smart enough to understand that there are many more differing sources and you aren't experienced enough to have been exposed to multitudes of them.

I know there are other sources, but so far the impetus has been on you to support your statements. You have chosen to do so by telling stories about weddings and parties in England. Who. Gives. A. Fuck?

And you aren't old enough to be able to place those comments made in them in the timeline of the events in which they took place either.

Because you were in school aged 12 at the time.

A child.

Oh? A few posts ago I was 13, and now I'm 12. Actually, I was 14.

And you are not in academia now.

I am currently a college student. Do you have anymore inaccurate assumptions about me?

And if you were, you would not be asking your teachers and elders to qualify everything they say in case it is stupid because if you did you wouldn't learn anything but just be wasting lesson time.

I do, and have, expected my teachers and professors to support the things they say. I pay for tuition and I do not expect someone to waste my time with bullshit that is conjured out of thin air.

But when all you are doing is linking me to someone elses... Sorry but I've read a lot of such things already. More than you.

More assumptions.

Utterly laughable that on a forum where there are all these people with actual personal experiences to share you seek to validate history through Google links. Is that what they taught you in academia?

Are you fucking stupid or simply illiterate?

Baff, are assumptions and ad hominem the extent of your argument?

*edit*

You keep adding to your post:

You want people to recognise your experience, but you don't have any.

Although you are a veteran of two wars now, then you were just a child.

I wasn't.

I do have experiences to share of those times. More than just a book I read.

I have no idea what my age at the time of 9/11 has to do with research conducted now, or in the past 6 years.

You make a broad and, honestly stupid and irrelevant, comment about weddings and parties in England. You claim to have a multitude of sources proving I am wrong and I am just asking for 1. Just 1. Cite a book; cite several books; cite a news article, I don't care, but cite something. Or quit posting because you have no credibility. So far, the nexus of your argument has been calling me a child, calling me names, and bringing up Google. For someone who considers themselves "the headmaster" you're sure doing a shitty job of it.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Clavicula_nox4817

[HotShot 0]

Please stop this childish bickering. It's obvious neither of you is going to concede and thus serves no purpose other than to loose the original topic and make you look like total arses.

Ontopic:

Amnesty International and others have asked WikiLeaks to blank out more names now too, so not just pro-Alliance organisations (which as far as I could tell were previously the only ones calling for them to be censored). So it corroborates fears that the Taliban is finding useful information on informants. AP

[Baff1 0]

I know there are other sources, but so far the impetus has been on you to support your statements. You have chosen to do so by telling stories about weddings and parties in England. Who. Gives. A. Fuck?.

I dont feel any need or impetus to support my statements thanks.

You parents aren't paying me to teach you son. And anything I could be bothered to support my statements with to you, above my own personal experience and thought process is as easy for you to find as it for me to find for you.

If you seek support, go get it. No one is stopping you. Buy yourself a new book.

If you thought I would find it fun just to spend hour after hour providing you links to debunk you would be very wrong indeed.

The only support for my opinions and knowledge that I can readily give you over and above what you can find for yourself is my personal experiences. Only when faced with real firsthand experience you have proved too smart to "give a fuck".

If you don't value my opinions and the opportunity to reply to them, that is your affair. I value the opportunity to give them.

I care about all the people I've lost over the years. Obviously you don't. Nor do I expect you to. For that matter I don't care about any of your dead comrades. Less so having spoken with you.

Funny how you think we should all give a fuck about you reading book, more than people we know dying.

2010- 1997 = 13 years.

25 years old - 13 years - 12 years old.

You think you were 14 because as I previously stated you are too young to understand the timeline of events I am refering to. You don't remember it.

By the sounds of it you aren't a very good college student. More of the know it all no nothing variety. There is an attitude you need to make an excellent student.

Your age at 9/11 allows me to recognise the level of understanding of those events you were able to have at the time.

The life experience you accumulated allows you to judge and to filter the things people tell you. It aids you to see through the hysteria and form a balanced judgement of what happended using your life experiences as a filter with which to apply common sense.

You might have been smart at 18, but you weren't wise.

It strikes me that if after leaving school you joined the army and then after the army went back to school, you must have spent the bulk of your life in an institution. Which means your life influences probably aren't as broad as most other people your age. You aren't used to thinking for yourself as much.

More notably your age during the reign of the Taliban...at the start of which you were 11 years old completely explains your utter lack of personal knowledge on a subject of general knowledge. You inability to recognise this stands against your continued learning on the subject.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Baff1

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Someone asked why Iraq & Afghan: Iran, go check out the topographic features of the area. The US military is the most technologically advanced in the world, but it can't do miracles. You need both those countries, along with the northern 'stans to cap Iran successfully.

[TFatseas 0]

@Clavicula_nox4817: Meh, I don't think this is a fight you can win. I doubt you'll be able to get through that condescending, elitist, know-it-all attitude.

@Baff1: I hope you realize that attempting to paint your adversary or attacking one with ad hominem jabs at one's character or age etc,etc doesn't prove anything nor make you particularity look good. It makes you a condescending asshole, period.

BTW: Anecdotal arguments don't carry much weight either, unless backed up with hard evidence they hold the same weight as an opinion, nothing more.

My .2 cents, warranted or not.

I also suggest a move to retain the original topic.

Ontopic: Has wikileaks blanked out names when asked before, or do they just continue to ignore the calls to censor?

I've been away from this topic for a few days now.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

So Baff, the answer is "Yes, the extent of your argument is assumptions and ad hominem". You could have simply saved a lot of time and energy just stating that upfront.

*edit*

Sorry guys about the off-topic.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Clavicula_nox4817

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

I understand English isn't your first language so I'm going to do this as simply as possible. Try to follow along, okay?

Ok...

The Taliban controlled 90% of the country. For all intents and purposes, they were the government of Afghanistan. Tribal leaders, in all Taliban controlled regions, were marginalized or outright replaced by Taliban appointed governors and ministers.

I didn't say a single word about "normal Afghans" and it is irrelevant since we are not fighting, or at war with, "normal Afghans".

I don't understand your point here, honestly.

It's quite understandable that you don't get the point which by the way you doesn't seem to get very often anyways. That's because you're ripping anything out of context and read between the lines when there's actually nothing to read.

I wrote...

The terrorists weren't from Afghanistan and I've a problem that a whole country should be held responsible because some few people provided shelter for the leader of Al-Qaeda.

Which means you attack a whole country to get one man! How many civilians (not to mention allied troops) died because of the search for this single man? If f.e. the UK would have measured the same way the USA did and does then they would have invaded Ireland long time ago already.

I understand you don't know anything about intelligence or military operations, so again, I will do this a simply as possible.

But you've the big inside view or what?

Afghanistan is a big country

Oh, really. Tell me something new. The thing is for many of the people there there's no Afghanistan or Pakistan. They only know about Waziristan (which you call NWFP).

We did not control the borders

Because it's impossible!

We fucked up the many attempts to get him (pre and Post 9/11)

In many cases it seem like you wanted to fuck up. You could f.e. have got him as was in the Saudi hospital because of his kidney problems. Actually the Saudis served him on a silver platter but you didn't acted. Why? I tell you because Mr. Oil was a big buddy of Bin Laden, Saddam and even the Taliban. Your government made them to what you now want them for. Think about that!

We relied too much on the overhyped Mujh fighter to get him

These overhyped guys were quite usefull against the Russians but now as they don't dance to your whistle anymore they're trash unable or unwilling to find a man which you with all your hightech and what ever can't trace.

The guy is no longer in Afghanistan. This is a known fact and has been known for some time. Mossad thinks he is in Iran, our guys think he is in NWFP.

I personally think he's dead but this is a big problem because if he's dead there actually isn't a reason to search for him anymore. Which means no money for the bang-bang anymore.

You said that we are holding them responsible, which is another way of saying we are punishing them. Again, I understand that English isn't your first language, but that is what you said. If you meant something different, then please say what you meant.

Holding them responsible and punishing them are two diffrent things but I'm not sure if you Americans understand the diffrence. You at least don't seem to.

So? What's your point?

My point is that somebody came up with telling us that the or at least an important reason to be there is the war against drugs. I just showed you that your very own institutions are deeply involved in what is condemned here.

[Big Mac 19]

I personally think he's dead but this is a big problem because if he's dead there actually isn't a reason to search for him anymore. Which means no money for the bang-bang anymore.

Whether he's dead or not doesn't matter. He was just one of many we are after. There are still quite a few major players at large who mean not on the US harm, but the west and it's allies. That includes your country. Bin Laden wasn't their only source of money. They get millions in donations through mosques and charities from people who don't even realize their money is going to fund terrorist campaigns..

Holding them responsible and punishing them are two diffrent things but I'm not sure if you Americans understand the diffrence. You at least don't seem to.

We are doing neither. It's comments like this that keep people from taking you seriously. That and the fact you run around wearing a tin foil hat..

These overhyped guys were quite usefull against the Russians but now as they don't dance to your whistle anymore they're trash unable or unwilling to find a man which you with all your hightech and what ever can't trace.

HA They didn't dance to our whistle even then. These people are mercenaries and will fight for whom ever pays the highest. We had to pay millions to secure an alliance with the Northern Alliance and even then AQ doubled it and let him and his boys walk.

In many cases it seem like you wanted to fuck up. You could f.e. have got him as was in the Saudi hospital because of his kidney problems. Actually the Saudis served him on a silver platter but you didn't acted. Why? I tell you because Mr. Oil was a big buddy of Bin Laden, Saddam and even the Taliban. Your government made them to what you now want them for. Think about that!

Wow do you ever take off your tin foil hat?

Which means you attack a whole country to get one man! How many civilians (not to mention allied troops) died because of the search for this single man? If f.e. the UK would have measured the same way the USA did and does then they would have invaded Ireland long time ago already.

Civilians die in war as do soldiers. Also it wasn't the search for one man it was to root out a terrorist enclave and the people who harbor them. Edited August 10, 2010 by Big Mac

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

It's useless to discuss with indoctrinated, literally brainwashed people like you who view the world with blinders. I gave you enough stuff to think about and work with but you're unable to question yourself "maybe we did something wrong".

An error doesn't become a mistake until your refuse to correct it.

Come to your senses!

[Big Mac 19]

It's useless to discuss with indoctrinated, literally brainwashed people like you who view the world with blinders. I gave you enough stuff to think about and work with but you're unable to question yourself "maybe we did something wrong".

An error doesn't become a mistake until your refuse to correct it.

Come to your senses!

LOL!!! And you're not brainwashed?! You've been listing to way much anti-american/9/11 truther BS. No one here said that the US is the example of perfection. But you throw in our face that America wages war solely for it's own gain. America helped has saved this world from tyranny more than once in the past century.(I say that not out arrogance, but out of fact.) Iraq was a giant cluster fuck that was concocted, but a few men and sold to the world like a lemon car. Afghanistan was not a meaningless war, just handled in meaningless fashion and you're implying that we're punishing the afghan people for the actions of their former government, which is simply untrue and even if it were your country has a hand in it too. Edited August 11, 2010 by Big Mac

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

In many cases it seem like you wanted to fuck up. You could f.e. have got him as was in the Saudi hospital because of his kidney problems. Actually the Saudis served him on a silver platter but you didn't acted. Why? I tell you because Mr. Oil was a big buddy of Bin Laden, Saddam and even the Taliban. Your government made them to what you now want them for. Think about that!

Wow do you ever take off your tin foil hat?

He is actually correct. We could have gotten Bin Laden many times, but we either didn't have the balls, the president said no, or it went tits up. Clinton had plenty of chances. Bush might have had some, but I don't know anything specific. I do know that sometime in the week before 9/11 (Some say ON 9/11 but I don't believe that) Bush Sr. had breakfast/lunch with Bin Laden Sr. in NYC/Manhattan. That doesn't have to mean anything, and it may have been a perfectly normal meeting between two business men, but you must admit it's something that many conspiracy theorists latch on to. I don't know, and don't really care. As far as I'm concerned it was two guys having breakfast/lunch.

Personally I don't think the government had anything to do with the WTC, or Flight 93. I do firmly believe that they knew about it. How long before I don't know, but it was enough time for them to plan faking a plane crashing into the Pentagon. (No matter what you say here, just look at the damage. There is no freaking way a plane of that size hit the Pentagon. What, did the engines disintegrate into dust?) They didn't create 9/11, or plan it, or help Bin Laden, but they exploited it. Exactly who "they" are, we most likely will never know.

[Big Mac 19]

He is actually correct. We could have gotten Bin Laden many times, but we either didn't have the balls, the president said no, or it went tits up. Clinton had plenty of chances. Bush might have had some, but I don't know anything specific. I do know that sometime in the week before 9/11 (Some say ON 9/11 but I don't believe that) Bush Sr. had breakfast/lunch with Bin Laden Sr. in NYC/Manhattan. That doesn't have to mean anything, and it may have been a perfectly normal meeting between two business men, but you must admit it's something that many conspiracy theorists latch on to. I don't know, and don't really care. As far as I'm concerned it was two guys having breakfast/lunch.

Clinton had at least 2 chances to kill him(That I know of.), the same as Bush. They all went tits up. Clinton because he didn't want to risk killing a UAE prince in ghanny or killing a high level Sudanese official when they sighted him in Sudan. Bush because he relied on people who were easily bought when the CIA Jawbreaker team (Code name for the CIA SAD Team) warned them and the military about the afghans and recommended that US and UK special ops along with a Bn of the 75th Rangers secure Tora Bora, but Tommy Franks being the idiot that he is told the president that the CIA didn't know what they were talking about. And then again during Op. Anaconda because Bin Laden went straight for the NA lines and bribed their way through checkpoints.

It's all in Sean Naylor's book "Not a Good Day to Die." The book mainly focuses on Op. Anaconda, but it makes reference to the fiasco at Tora Bora.

In his 2005 book, Jawbreaker, he alleges that Osama bin Laden could have been captured at Tora Bora if the US military (specifically United States Central Command) had devoted more resources to the operation. This claim gained substantial traction due to a Senate Report on the circumstances of bin Laden's escape. According to both Berntsen's account and the Senate Committee's report, "Bin Laden and bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area." Berntsen insists this would have been stopped by a US military presence on the Afghan-Pak border, instead of a reliance on corrupt local warlords.

For more info about the CIA Jawbreaker Team in Tora Bora you should read "Jawbreaker: The attack on bin Laden and al-Qaeda" by Gary Berntsen. Both this book and Sean Naylor's are quite good reads.

Personally I don't think the government had anything to do with the WTC, or Flight 93. I do firmly believe that they knew about it. How long before I don't know, but it was enough time for them to plan faking a plane crashing into the Pentagon. (No matter what you say here, just look at the damage. There is no freaking way a plane of that size hit the Pentagon. What, did the engines disintegrate into dust?) They didn't create 9/11, or plan it, or help Bin Laden, but they exploited it. Exactly who "they" are, we most likely will never know.

It's kinda hard to fake an attack like that when thousands of people saw the plane hit the pentagon with their own eyes. And even if they could fake the attacks(which they couldn't.), they happened within minutes of each other which that in itself really makes it hard to prove the attack on the pentagon was staged. I do however believe that some of the many various government agencies knew about the attack before hand and either were slow in connecting the dots or were too busy fighting bureaucratic turf wars to do anything to stop it let alone fake an attack. They'd much rather prevent an attack rather than fake one since terrorist attacks makes them all look like idiots. Edited August 11, 2010 by Big Mac

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

For you people like JFK, Dr. King and nowadays Dr. Paul also have to be anti-american then?

Yes, America helped to save the world more then ones and guess what I'm more then thankfull about that. I grew up in the so called American sector of West-Berlin and my father and his brothers were some of the boys that caught the parachutes that Gail Halvorsen and his friends were throwing out of their planes during the blockade. I've to tell only good things about you and never felt you were occupiers but close friends who care for other nations people.

But all this seems to have changed drastically. I want back the old America from about 50 years ago that didn't started aggressiv wars and didn't go to war without a declaration and for lower (economical) reasons.

You say yourself that Iraq was a big mistake and you were betrayed by some few (with which I think you mean your former president and his coatholders) but the same unfortunately goes for Afghanistan, too.

Yes, my country is also involved but I'm surely not down with it even if I was a soldier in our military myself and have friends who were down there. If my voice would count we would be gone yesterday already because in my opinion this is just a massive waste of resources (human and financial).

[Big Mac 19]

For you people like JFK, Dr. King and nowadays Dr. Paul also have to be anti-american then?

Which Dr. Paul do you refer to? The only one I know is my dentist and he's a sadist, lol. But seriously now, I consider JFK and MLK to be two of the greatest Americans that ever lived. By that same token JFK started a war that went undeclared and lasted for over 10 years.

Yes, America helped to save the world more then ones and guess what I'm more then thankfull about that. I grew up in the so called American sector of West-Berlin and my father and his brothers were some of the boys that caught the parachutes that Gail Halvorsen and his friends were throwing out of their planes during the blockade. I've to tell only good things about you and never felt you were occupiers but close friends who care for other nations people.

But all this seems to have changed drastically. I want back the old America from about 50 years ago that didn't started aggressiv wars and didn't go to war without a declaration and for lower (economical) reasons.

You say yourself that Iraq was a big mistake and you were betrayed by some few (with which I think you mean your former president and his coatholders) but the same unfortunately goes for Afghanistan, too.

Yes, my country is also involved but I'm surely not down with it even if I was a soldier in our military myself and have friends who were down there. If my voice would count we would be gone yesterday already because in my opinion this is just a massive waste of resources (human and financial).

Now you're started to talk like a rational human being, I'm proud of you. You are correct in assuming I refer to Bush, but so to our former VP who was the brains behind Iraq. As for Afghanistan you say we went there for ecomical reasons. I want to know what mineral,resource,whatever in that God forsaken country is worth so much that we'd go to war over. It can't be oil since Iraq has more, but yet we were told that the war would pay for itself(meaning the oil.) yet the American people are picking up the bar tab on that one and instead of even lower gas prices we got higher ones. I personally believe that you've been mislead by the media in your country and should do more independent research.