PDA

View Full Version : Another perspective on Lebanon and Israel



zoombwaz
08-04-2006, 12:31 AM
What follows is the body of an email from Ray Close, retired CIA spook and a member of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Ray sends out periodic emails to a circle of friends and associates (which includes my father, who forwards them on to me) with his analysis of events in the Middle East and his predictions of likely outcomes. His web of contacts in that region is more than impressive and includes officials from Mossad as well as from Arab intelligence services. His analyses are always spot on, and the accuracy of his predictions is scary. If he has missed a guess in the whole sordid MCF the Shrub has gotten us into, I haven't seen it.

Following is his take in Israel's actions in Lebanon and Gaza

"Chuck Cogan, former Chief of CIA's Near East Division, writing from Harvard now, has provided a very useful response to the question I posed a few days ago in the context of Rami Khouri's excellent essay on the Israeli attacks on Lebanon. I have condensed Chuck's answer to one strikingly significant observation:

The irony in all this is that Israel has an interest in a
multicultural Lebanon and not an Islamist Lebanon, and the high hopes
for the former are being dashed.

The exquisite simplicity of that one sentence has prompted me to add the following comment of my own:

The value of canvassing opinions from a number of friends is that I pick up many little jewels of logic that may seem obvious at first, but sometimes get overlooked in the whole complex fabric of ideas that makes up comprehensive intelligence analysis.

For example, one former Israeli military intelligence officer mentioned to me the other day the ridiculously simple and logical point that the waging of modern asymetrical warfare (and the development of effective strategies to oppose it) has undergone a sea change recently --- not as a result of the development of great "weapons of mass destruction" by evil states, but because our non-state adversaries have developed ingenious new ways to employ relatively small and cheap tactical weapons of the simplest kind. The perfect example, of course, is the use of IED's and car bombs in Iraq, which are frustrating (and punishing) 130,000 highly-trained, expertly-led, heavily-armed and supurbly-equipped US troops and twice that many Iraqi soldiers. Another appropriate example, of course, is the Hizballah situation in southern Lebanon. Even if the Israelis were again to occupy and hold a 20-mile defensive cordon sanitaire above Israel's northern border, then missiles of 30-mile range (or 40 or 50 or 60, as the need demanded) would render that barrier obsolete and useless --- while Hizballah guerrillas, using the other new set of super-weapons --- the IED and the suicide bomber --- would make Israelis just as vulnerable and just as miserable in that so-called "protective zone" as they were during the 18 long years when they occupied the same swath of Lebaneses teritory the last time around. The same applies to Gaza. In 38 long years (count them, mothers and dads) a large modern Israeli war machine, equipped with every hi-tech weapon that modern military science can devise, has been unable to contain, much less defeat, a virulent and lethal resistance movement in tiny little Gaza. Today, the crude and clumsy and inaccurate little home-made Qassam rocket is driving mighty Israel mad. Asymetry at its classic extreme --- David vs Goliath, deja vu.

The lesson here is that nation states (like Iran and North Korea) that are determined to harm the United States and its allies need not develop intercontinental ballistic missiles that distract and blind us to the realities I'm talking about here. They need only supply simple kitchen-variety missiles, armed with simple garden-variety explosives, to their non-state surrogates like Hizballah and Hamas, and let them do the dirty work. Sending multi-million-dollar B-2 stealth bombers with multi-thousand-ton bunker-buster bombs to destroy multi-billion-dollar industrial installations in Iran (or destroying the entire infrastructure of a helpless little neighbor like Lebanon, or depriving a million Gazans of fresh water and electricity) will not really strengthen the defenses of either Israel (or America) as long as there are these simple weapons and these elusive and determined fighters to torture us with endless, painful, maddening pinpricks. (Somebody explain this to Rumsfeld, please. It's a mind thing, Don, not a gun thing.)

Is the massively destructive Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanon the right way to ensure that Israel will someday live in a peaceful neighborhood?

Folks who think the answer to that question is yes should read over and over again the simple little truth that Chuck Cogan expressed so well:

The irony in all this is that Israel has an interest in a
multicultural Lebanon and not an Islamist Lebanon, and the high hopes
for the former are being dashed.

And then study again the powerful jewel offered by Rami Khouri:

For decades now Israel has established buffer zones, occupation zones, red lines, blue lines, green lines, interdiction zones, killing fields, surrogate army zones, scorched earth, and every other conceivable kind of zone between it and Arabs who fight its occupation and colonial policies -- all without success. Here is why: Protecting Israelis while leaving Arabs to a fate of humiliation, occupation, degradation and subservient acquiescence to Israeli-American dictates only guarantees that those Arabs will regroup, plan a resistance strategy, and come back one day to fight for their land, their humanity, their dignity and the prospect that their children can have a normal life one day."

maineman
08-04-2006, 05:50 AM
precisely. to fix this problem, we need to look at the socio-economic inequities and realities that fuel the anger of the Islamic world and work hard to find ways to deal with them in non-violent ways. Killing muslims in an effort to get muslims to quit killing us is pretty much guaranteed to either a) not work, or b) lead us into Hell.

that is a great article. Too bad the neocons will scoff at it out of hand.

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 07:09 AM
precisely. to fix this problem, we need to look at the socio-economic inequities and realities that fuel the anger of the Islamic world and work hard to find ways to deal with them in non-violent ways. Killing muslims in an effort to get muslims to quit killing us is pretty much guaranteed to either a) not work, or b) lead us into Hell.

that is a great article. Too bad the neocons will scoff at it out of hand.

:rolleyes:

oh the diplomacy works so well with these radicals! ever think these radicals may be as tired of you appeasers as the rest of us? They don't want to be appeased, they don't want to negotiate, they don't want much from you other than your life!

I know you are culturally rich because you spent two years in Lebanon so after all you are just an expert on this subject, but being you were such a special guest to that side of the world why not go back and ask some of the radicals what you can do to help the situation, what it will take for them to chill out a bit, and why they wanna wipe Israel off the map?

maineman
08-04-2006, 08:21 AM
:rolleyes:

oh the diplomacy works so well with these radicals! ever think these radicals may be as tired of you appeasers as the rest of us? They don't want to be appeased, they don't want to negotiate, they don't want much from you other than your life!

I know you are culturally rich because you spent two years in Lebanon so after all you are just an expert on this subject, but being you were such a special guest to that side of the world why not go back and ask some of the radicals what you can do to help the situation, what it will take for them to chill out a bit, and why they wanna wipe Israel off the map?

why don't you tell me again about Ollie North telling congress how dangerous Osama was.... fucking moron.

I certainly do not have all the answers...but I sure as hell know that your side has NONE of them. The fact remains: killing muslims in an effort to convince them to stop killing us is not a viable solution... but it seems that is all you neocons can come up with.

Cypress
08-04-2006, 08:25 AM
I fondly remember the days when bush-loving neocons pointed to Lebanon's democracy, as proof that the Bush war in iraq was working!

LadyT
08-04-2006, 08:28 AM
Here is why: Protecting Israelis while leaving Arabs to a fate of humiliation, occupation, degradation and subservient acquiescence to Israeli-American dictates only guarantees that those Arabs will regroup, plan a resistance strategy, and come back one day to fight for their land, their humanity, their dignity and the prospect that their children can have a normal life one day."

Truer words have never been spoken.

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 11:10 AM
Truer words have never been spoken.
I agree.

Look, my con brethren, I do understand the frustration this causes. I really do. You really want to be able to simply pound the "terrorists" into submission. Having the greatest military in the history of the world makes it seem like this ought to be possible. It really has to be possible, doesn't it?

Well, no: it doesn't. Therein lies the rub. Nowhere is it written that it has to be possible.

Fundamentally, this desire is no different from that which makes me want to toss gonzo off the Bank of America building, so I can watch him land on the Banker's Heart*. These desires, while understandable, do not constitute natural law. I know: it's tough to adjust. :(



*A large and largely reviled black granite sculpture in the plaza in front of the B of A building in downtown San Francisco. It is called "the Banker's Heart" in local parlance only.

http://www.saintstupid.com/fcllpics/ss02/ma-9336824-9fe3-02000155-.jpg

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 11:14 AM
why don't you tell me again about Ollie North telling congress how dangerous Osama was.... fucking moron.

Hey don't get angry with me because I am not a terrorist sympathizer.

I certainly do not have all the answers...but I sure as hell know that your side has NONE of them. The fact remains: killing muslims in an effort to convince them to stop killing us is not a viable solution... but it seems that is all you neocons can come up with.[/QUOTE]

It's pretty obvious you don't have the answers, hell I have'nt seen any answers from you at all outside of explaining what radical group wants what, I think you might be for one of these factions yourself there mainecoon!

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 11:17 AM
Hey don't get angry with me because I am not a terrorist s

It's pretty obvious you don't have the answers, hell I have'nt seen any answers from you at all outside of explaining what radical group wants what, I think you might be for one of these factions yourself there mainecoon!
Admitting one has no answer is better than simply doing something even if it doesn't make any sense. Like, say, invading Iraq to take out terrorists, for example.

Best to admit one's ignorance than confirm it by opening one's mouth. Or invading another country, for that matter.

maineman
08-04-2006, 11:19 AM
I am no terrorist sympathizer. I just have little patience for ill-informed morons who spout bullshit and claim it as fact. Now...if you would care to provide me with a link to some site that would show what crimes against the United States that we had evidence that OBL had committed prior to 05/96, that would be one way to show that you are not just a flatulent neocon incapable of original thought.

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 11:21 AM
Admitting one has no answer is better than simply doing something even if it doesn't make any sense. Like, say, invading Iraq to take out terrorists, for example.

Best to admit one's ignorance than confirm it by opening one's mouth. Or invading another country, for that matter.


Again, anytime you are ready to reply with solutions or suggestions I will listen, otherwise these posts are just taking up space.

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 11:24 AM
I am no terrorist sympathizer. I just have little patience for ill-informed morons who spout bullshit and claim it as fact. Now...if you would care to provide me with a link to some site that would show what crimes against the United States that we had evidence that OBL had committed prior to 05/96, that would be one way to show that you are not just a flatulent neocon incapable of original thought.

Damn, is that your best way of discussing a topic with insults and name calling?

Well alrighty mainecoon, I'll look up some info for your reading pleasure. But still I have to wonder if you are not really a terrorist yourself. I guess it was our own government that pulled of 911 too, right?

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 11:26 AM
Again, anytime you are ready to reply with solutions or suggestions I will listen, otherwise these posts are just taking up space.
Make Republicanism a capital offense. That would improve the quality of life immensely. It would also solve the (alleged) immigration problem, too.

No? Oh, okay.

What to do? Leave Iraq now, after admitting that it was a stupid mistake to go in there in the first place. I believe we're still doing more harm than good, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.

We will owe the Iraqis reparations: there's no doubt about that. Best to own up to our mistakes and try to make amends as best we can though.

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 11:29 AM
Again, anytime you are ready to reply with solutions or suggestions I will listen, otherwise these posts are just taking up space.
And as to the original topic of this thread, tell Israel to quit killing civilians in Lebanon or we'll yank all of their aid. That's step one. We have less leverage with Hezbollah and so will have to work with Syria and Iran on that side of it. Ironic, but true.

maineman
08-04-2006, 11:31 AM
Damn, is that your best way of discussing a topic with insults and name calling?

Well alrighty mainecoon, I'll look up some info for your reading pleasure. But still I have to wonder if you are not really a terrorist yourself. I guess it was our own government that pulled of 911 too, right?

so...let me get this straight....you refer to me as "mainecoon", call me a terrorist,and then bitch about insults and namecalling? Have I got that right?

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 11:32 AM
Make Republicanism a capital offense. That would improve the quality of life immensely. It would also solve the (alleged) immigration problem, too.

And I bet you are a daily member of the DU......:rolleyes:

No? Oh, okay.

What to do? Leave Iraq now, after admitting that it was a stupid mistake to go in there in the first place. I believe we're still doing more harm than good, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.

We will owe the Iraqis reparations: there's no doubt about that. Best to own up to our mistakes and try to make amends as best we can though.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, I never said Iraq was going smoothly but doubt it was a mistake. You are probably right in the fact that we are doing more harm than good, and much of that is just our mere presence over their. Should show you thow the type of radicals that exist out there.

So if we left Iraq be where do you think there cards would be today?

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 11:32 AM
so...let me get this straight....you refer to me as "mainecoon", call me a terrorist,and then bitch about insults and namecalling? Have I got that right?
That's one for maineman. :cof1:

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 11:33 AM
so...let me get this straight....you refer to me as "mainecoon", call me a terrorist,and then bitch about insults and namecalling? Have I got that right?

Hey slappy that was a good flip flop! I was not the one who started it but now you are asking me why I point it out after stooping to your level.:rolleyes:


nothing wrong with a mainecoon, just a harmless little kitty kat right?:cof1:

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 11:35 AM
And I bet you are a daily member of the DU......:rolleyes:


No? Oh, okay.

What to do? Leave Iraq now, after admitting that it was a stupid mistake to go in there in the first place. I believe we're still doing more harm than good, as counter-intuitive as that may seem.

We will owe the Iraqis reparations: there's no doubt about that. Best to own up to our mistakes and try to make amends as best we can though.

Fair enough, I never said Iraq was going smoothly but doubt it was a mistake. You are probably right in the fact that we are doing more harm than good, and much of that is just our mere presence over their. Should show you thow the type of radicals that exist out there.

So if we left Iraq be where do you think there cards would be today?
Their cards? Que?

Do I think that, if we were not occupying Iraq right now, terrorist acts would increase within the U.S. proper? No, I don't. I suggest we find out by experiment.

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 11:42 AM
Their cards? Que?

Do I think that, if we were not occupying Iraq right now, terrorist acts would increase within the U.S. proper? No, I don't. I suggest we find out by experiment.

In my opinion Iraq today would be send funds, weaponry, over to Afghanistan. True there is no love lost between Iraq & Iran but they both would love nothing more to see the fall of America, so yeah I believe Iraq would also be funding proxy armies to help the cause. You all wanna talk about how OBL & saddam hated each other and had hugely different beliefs, could be but there sure are plenty of AQ fighters in Iraq now. Bottom line is that they all had a common hatred for America and would certainly help in any way they could to bring death and destruction upon Americans how ever possible.

maineman
08-04-2006, 11:46 AM
AQ is in Iraq now because baathists aren't in power. Secular baathists and ultra islamic wahabbists go together like chocolate ice cream and steak sauce

OrnotBitwise
08-04-2006, 11:47 AM
In my opinion Iraq today would be send funds, weaponry, over to Afghanistan. True there is no love lost between Iraq & Iran but they both would love nothing more to see the fall of America, so yeah I believe Iraq would also be funding proxy armies to help the cause. You all wanna talk about how OBL & saddam hated each other and had hugely different beliefs, could be but there sure are plenty of AQ fighters in Iraq now. Bottom line is that they all had a common hatred for America and would certainly help in any way they could to bring death and destruction upon Americans how ever possible.
But they have little capability for doing so. And if we start taking positive steps to ameliorate the conditions that give rise to their hatred we'll undermine their support within the Muslim world very rapidly.

How many people died in the attacks of 9/11/2001? Less than 3,000 all told. It was a horrible tragedy, yes, but not the Earth shattering event so many glandular types try to make it.

Terrorism is far less of a threat to us than some of the ideologues try to paint it. Yes, it's a problem and yes, it does have to be addressed. That doesn't mean we have to . . . well, live in terror of it. Nor do we have to let fear of terrorism dictate our foreign policy. Doing so simply plays into their hands.

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 11:49 AM
AQ is in Iraq now because baathists aren't in power. Secular baathists and ultra islamic wahabbists go together like chocolate ice cream and steak sauce

Call it a cocktail if you would like, but they are there and are there because we invaded, they will be anywhere they can reach us for the simple point of killing us. So is it the baathists are all good and they should not of been bothered, is it that the baathists could certainly have nothing to do with supporting terrorism like the baathists of Syria? :rolleyes:

maineman
08-04-2006, 12:26 PM
baathist do not get along with wahabbists.... wahabbists attacked us.... that does not make baathists any better...it just makes them NOT the guys who attacked us.... and therefore, our attacking them, when they were enemies of the guys who attacked us and also enemies of Iran, was a bad idea.

Damocles
08-04-2006, 12:29 PM
baathist do not get along with wahabbists.... wahabbists attacked us.... that does not make baathists any better...it just makes them NOT the guys who attacked us.... and therefore, our attacking them, when they were enemies of the guys who attacked us and also enemies of Iran, was a bad idea.
That Baathist regime of Saddam's paid kid's families after they blew up children on busses and in Discos... Saying that he didn't support terrorism is like saying cats don't meow because you saw one the other day that didn't.

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 12:30 PM
baathist do not get along with wahabbists.... wahabbists attacked us.... that does not make baathists any better...it just makes them NOT the guys who attacked us.... and therefore, our attacking them, when they were enemies of the guys who attacked us and also enemies of Iran, was a bad idea.

They are all bad guys with their own bad intentions. So you truly believe that because of their differences they would never untie through these proxy armys to take shots at America?

zoombwaz
08-04-2006, 12:34 PM
:rolleyes:

oh the diplomacy works so well with these radicals! ever think these radicals may be as tired of you appeasers as the rest of us? They don't want to be appeased, they don't want to negotiate, they don't want much from you other than your life!

I know you are culturally rich because you spent two years in Lebanon so after all you are just an expert on this subject, but being you were such a special guest to that side of the world why not go back and ask some of the radicals what you can do to help the situation, what it will take for them to chill out a bit, and why they wanna wipe Israel off the map?


Appeasers? Since when has diplomacy only been about appeasement? Answer: never. It is only appeasement in the tiny parrot brains of the neocon apologist.

Do you have an actual point to make, or are neocon buzzwords the only thing you'er capable of posting? Your comments show you either didn't read or didn't comprehend what Ray Close wrote. Try to keep up. If you aren't sure, ask.

zoombwaz
08-04-2006, 12:41 PM
Hey don't get angry with me because I am not a terrorist sympathizer.

I certainly do not have all the answers...but I sure as hell know that your side has NONE of them. The fact remains: killing muslims in an effort to convince them to stop killing us is not a viable solution... but it seems that is all you neocons can come up with.

It's pretty obvious you don't have the answers, hell I have'nt seen any answers from you at all outside of explaining what radical group wants what, I think you might be for one of these factions yourself there mainecoon![/QUOTE]

Terrorist sympathizer? WTF? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? If so, do you plan on showing it anytime soon?

zoombwaz
08-04-2006, 12:47 PM
Hey slappy that was a good flip flop! I was not the one who started it but now you are asking me why I point it out after stooping to your level.:rolleyes:


nothing wrong with a mainecoon, just a harmless little kitty kat right?:cof1:

Stoop to his level? There is no level below neocon. At least not among vertebrates.

zoombwaz
08-04-2006, 12:51 PM
Call it a cocktail if you would like, but they are there and are there because we invaded, they will be anywhere they can reach us for the simple point of killing us. So is it the baathists are all good and they should not of been bothered, is it that the baathists could certainly have nothing to do with supporting terrorism like the baathists of Syria? :rolleyes:

Are you capable of anything besides straw man arguments? You do realizr\e that you have yet to make a valid point, don't you?

zoombwaz
08-04-2006, 12:59 PM
They are all bad guys with their own bad intentions. So you truly believe that because of their differences they would never untie through these proxy armys to take shots at America?

So we should invade a country because they might someday take a shot at us through a proxy? According to our own laws, there are three acceptable reasons for invading another country:

1. They attacked us first.
2. An attqack from them is imminent.
3' With the approval of the UN Security Council

Please nte that your weak assed rationale does not appear on that list.

maineman
08-04-2006, 01:22 PM
That Baathist regime of Saddam's paid kid's families after they blew up children on busses and in Discos... Saying that he didn't support terrorism is like saying cats don't meow because you saw one the other day that didn't.
and watching you continuing to confuse nationalist arab terrorist organizations such as Hamas and fatah with wahabbist organizations like the ones who attacked US is getting boring. I never said he didn't support terrorism. I said he never supported wahabbists like AQ. get it?????

If we are going to attack anyone who ever supported terrorists, we need to start by levelling south boston - they supported the IRA for decades whilst they were still blowing up stuff all over the UK

Damocles
08-04-2006, 02:02 PM
and watching you continuing to confuse nationalist arab terrorist organizations such as Hamas and fatah with wahabbist organizations like the ones who attacked US is getting boring. I never said he didn't support terrorism. I said he never supported wahabbists like AQ. get it?????

If we are going to attack anyone who ever supported terrorists, we need to start by levelling south boston - they supported the IRA for decades whilst they were still blowing up stuff all over the UK
I'm saying that it was only one small step before he did. The "enemy of my enemy" rule applies there too and often does make strange bedfellows. Also repeating "Nationalist" doesn't change the central religious theme of those movements that is not based on Nationalism. It is based on directive of the Imam... Attempting to equate them with secularism and state that they are no danger to the west because they are "nationalist" when they are not is a mistake, and one you keep repeating.

Sir Evil
08-04-2006, 05:07 PM
Now...if you would care to provide me with a link to some site that would show what crimes against the United States that we had evidence that OBL had committed prior to 05/96, that would be one way to show that you are not just a flatulent neocon incapable of original thought.


Al-Qaida is linked to the following plans that were disrupted or not carried out: to assassinate Pope John Paul II during his visit to Manila in late 1994, to kill President Clinton during a visit to the Philippines in early 1995, to bomb in midair a dozen US trans-Pacific flights in 1995, and to set off a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. Also plotted to carry out terrorist operations against US and Israeli tourists visiting Jordan for millennial celebrations in late 1999. (Jordanian authorities thwarted the planned attacks and put 28 suspects on trial.) In December 2001, suspected al-Qaida associate Richard Colvin Reid attempted to ignite a shoe bomb on a transatlantic flight from Paris to Miami. Attempted to shoot down an Israeli chartered plane with a surface-to-air missile as it departed the Mombasa airport in November 2002.


LINK (http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm)

I can see how Billy thought he was a harmless guy! This was after a two second search so not sure if this will suit it's purpose for you.

maineman
08-04-2006, 08:43 PM
now...if you could only show me that we had that intelligence before May of '96, then maybe you would have something...but alas....you cannot.

Like I said....show me that we had knowledge BEFORE MAY '96 that OBL.... the man... had himself committed any crimes against America or American interests that would have allowed the United States to take custody of a foreign national on foreign soil.

Here's a hint: there is no such evidence you can show me. I have scoured the web for weeks and weeks on end looking at thousands of links and the links listed on those links.... the fact of the matter is: Bill Clinton did not have a crystal ball.... he did not have any way to know, in May of '96, that OBL would direct the attacks of 9/11/2001 anymore than Union military officers and Washington DC police did not know on April 10th 1865 that John Wilkes Booth would assassinate Lincoln five days later.... if only they had known, they could have picked him up and avoided that tragedy.

Neocons like to replay that fantasy to somehow make it Bill Clinton's fault that 9/11 happened. It's bullshit. 9/11 happened because the president at the time did not care a bit about islamic terrorism. He was all about star wars....it is a FACT that the very day before 9/11 happened, Attorney General Ashcroft reduced the anti-terrorism task force budget within the DoJ by over $50Million.

Trying to make it, somehow, partially Clinton's fault when he didn't take OBL from the Sudan EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NO BASIS FOR DOING SO is nothing more than a pathetic neocon fantasy. Wake up and smell the coffee....wake up and accept responsibility for the failures of your stupid stupid PNAC insired plan and the failures of your administration to execute their own policy.

Sir Evil
08-05-2006, 06:48 AM
and watching you continuing to confuse nationalist arab terrorist organizations such as Hamas and fatah with wahabbist organizations like the ones who attacked US is getting boring. I never said he didn't support terrorism. I said he never supported wahabbists like AQ. get it?????

If we are going to attack anyone who ever supported terrorists, we need to start by levelling south boston - they supported the IRA for decades whilst they were still blowing up stuff all over the UK

You seriously need to STFU with your babble about what org. is representing what. All you point out for all to see is that there is many more factions of terrorism out there then some may be aware of.

Futhermore for my third day on the board I am already tired of hearing your typical lib attitude, quickly attacking with insults when discussions are'nt the way you see them. Take your diaper off and discuss a topic like a man for a change!

Sir Evil
08-05-2006, 06:51 AM
now...if you could only show me that we had that intelligence before May of '96, then maybe you would have something...but alas....you cannot.

Like I said....show me that we had knowledge BEFORE MAY '96 that OBL....

Yeah, and I guess Clinton did'nt realize to many years later about this info right?
They wanted to assasinate him and he never knew it right? :rolleyes:

Take the terrorist weenies out of your mouth for a while why don't ya!

maineman
08-05-2006, 07:30 AM
Yeah, and I guess Clinton did'nt realize to many years later about this info right?
They wanted to assasinate him and he never knew it right? :rolleyes:

Take the terrorist weenies out of your mouth for a while why don't ya!

all I am saying is that there was NO evidence against OBL that we were aware of in the springtime of '96 that would have given us reason to take him into custody.

I am not apologizing for this guy...I am only stating facts. Just deal with it. Clinton could not have taken him into custody when Sudan offered him up because we had no reason to hold him.

Sir Evil
08-05-2006, 08:33 AM
all I am saying is that there was NO evidence against OBL that we were aware of in the springtime of '96 that would have given us reason to take him into custody.

I am not apologizing for this guy...I am only stating facts. Just deal with it. Clinton could not have taken him into custody when Sudan offered him up because we had no reason to hold him.

Back to the friendly approach? do you suffer from a split personality issue?

Save it, I can't discuss any issues with you as you are so back in forth in your own little mind.....:rolleyes:

maineman
08-05-2006, 09:14 AM
I am a friendly guy... I just do not have a great deal of patience for people who spout unsupportable blather. Do you honestly think that if Bill Clinton's administration had any evidence that Osama bin Laden had hatched a plot to assassinate him that they would not have used that evidence as justification to take Osama into custody when Sudan offered him up? I am telling you that we did not know enough about the guy to be capable of taking him - a foreign national - into custody in a foreign land in May of '96. I realize that perpetrating that myth is a way for conservatives to somehow dissapate the blame for 9/11 away from the Bush administration... much like the myth that Ollie North warned us about him during the Reagan years.... the FACTS do not support those myths. The facts show that the Bush administration was warned about AQ and did not take the warnings seriously... the facts show that the very day before 9/11 the administration was giving speeches about star wars and taking millions of dollars AWAY from the FBI's anti-terrorism task force.

Cypress
08-05-2006, 10:01 AM
In my opinion Iraq today would be send funds, weaponry, over to Afghanistan. True there is no love lost between Iraq & Iran but they both would love nothing more to see the fall of America, so yeah I believe Iraq would also be funding proxy armies to help the cause. You all wanna talk about how OBL & saddam hated each other and had hugely different beliefs, could be but there sure are plenty of AQ fighters in Iraq now. Bottom line is that they all had a common hatred for America and would certainly help in any way they could to bring death and destruction upon Americans how ever possible.

In my opinion Iraq today would be send funds, weaponry, over to Afghanistan.

Your "opinion" isn't backed up by any facts or evidence. There's no evidence Iraq supported islamic insurgents against us in somalia, in lebanon, or islamic insurgents in chechnay or kashmir. Saddam's beef wasn't with the US, with Russia, or with India.

Sir Evil
08-05-2006, 07:40 PM
In my opinion Iraq today would be send funds, weaponry, over to Afghanistan.

Your "opinion" isn't backed up by any facts or evidence. There's no evidence Iraq supported islamic insurgents against us in somalia, in lebanon, or islamic insurgents in chechnay or kashmir. Saddam's beef wasn't with the US, with Russia, or with India.

Yep, he was surely a guy who would want to see no harm come to the US. Now I can understand some of the arguments on your side of the table but to think he had nothing against the US is just plain ignoring reality.

Tell me though, how long was diplomacy to go before it would be obvious that it was not going to work. Is'nt 13 years of failed sanctions a bit of a clue that sadaam had no regard for international law? I personally see the UN as a waste but 13 years is just downright rediculous.

Cypress
08-05-2006, 08:12 PM
Yep, he was surely a guy who would want to see no harm come to the US. Now I can understand some of the arguments on your side of the table but to think he had nothing against the US is just plain ignoring reality.

Tell me though, how long was diplomacy to go before it would be obvious that it was not going to work. Is'nt 13 years of failed sanctions a bit of a clue that sadaam had no regard for international law? I personally see the UN as a waste but 13 years is just downright rediculous.

Plenty of tinpot dictator "want" to see harm come to the us.

But you don't kill thousands of american soldiers and spend half a trillion taxpayer dollars, unless the dictator is acting out aggresion against the U.S. There's no evidence saddam actively armed and supported islamic insurgents previously fighting the U.S. in Somalia or in Lebanon.

zoombwaz
08-05-2006, 08:29 PM
all I am saying is that there was NO evidence against OBL that we were aware of in the springtime of '96 that would have given us reason to take him into custody.

I am not apologizing for this guy...I am only stating facts. Just deal with it. Clinton could not have taken him into custody when Sudan offered him up because we had no reason to hold him.


Time out. The Sudan never had him, let alone offered him to Clinton. Total fabrication, mot to mention irrelevant.

zoombwaz
08-05-2006, 08:37 PM
You seriously need to STFU with your babble about what org. is representing what. All you point out for all to see is that there is many more factions of terrorism out there then some may be aware of.

Futhermore for my third day on the board I am already tired of hearing your typical lib attitude, quickly attacking with insults when discussions are'nt the way you see them. Take your diaper off and discuss a topic like a man for a change!


When do you plan to start offering valid rebuttals for us to discuss? Thus far, yo have offered nothing but straw men and non sequiturs, so if anybody needs to stfu it's you.