All politicians are liars. It's what they do. In politics it's not what you say that counts, it's what you don't say. The truth is what's classified.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Osama Bin Laden is dead!
- Thread starter Moses
- Start date
- Status
All politicians are liars. It's what they do. In politics it's not what you say that counts, it's what you don't say. The truth is what's classified.
Appearantly the initial intel came from water boarding. It's time to end out aid to Pakistam and let Indian deal with them.
And where do you get this information from?
I had read just the opposite. That NO waterboarding was used to obtain this info. However, some of the info did got from Gitmo detainees.
".....Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: “First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.
“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”
Last edited:
NY Rep Peter King confirmed that the intel came from KSM via waterboarding techniques.
I am no fan of Osama but am I the only one that is bothered by how we continue to kill the people that we supported in the past? Today's friend is tomorrow's enemy. Here is Donald Rumsfeld on a trip making deals with Sadam:
Sadam was our "friend and ally". We armed Sadam, gave him aid, sold him goods. Then we televised his hanging. Osama and the Mujahidin were "freedom fighters". We trained them, armed them, gave them aid. Now we put a bullet in their previous leader's eye. I won't get into what we have done in South America.
Here is another today's friend, and tomorrow's enemy:
Now Libya... does anyone wonder who these "fighters" are that are suddenly taking on the Libyan army? Really? I mean does an average population suddenly have the capability to Fight a country's army?
Causes have effects. History doesn't only go back a news clip. I am glad Osama is dead, but what about the next one? The one we are training and arming today...
Sadam was our "friend and ally". We armed Sadam, gave him aid, sold him goods. Then we televised his hanging. Osama and the Mujahidin were "freedom fighters". We trained them, armed them, gave them aid. Now we put a bullet in their previous leader's eye. I won't get into what we have done in South America.
Here is another today's friend, and tomorrow's enemy:
Now Libya... does anyone wonder who these "fighters" are that are suddenly taking on the Libyan army? Really? I mean does an average population suddenly have the capability to Fight a country's army?
Causes have effects. History doesn't only go back a news clip. I am glad Osama is dead, but what about the next one? The one we are training and arming today...
Last edited:
We may have supported Osama in the past but it was Osama's decision to then turn on us and declare us the enemy.
Osama didn't turn on us because we helped him.
Osama was a dog that went rabid. I am not bothered by our actions to put him down.
...
Osama didn't turn on us because we helped him.
Osama was a dog that went rabid. I am not bothered by our actions to put him down.
...
I'm pretty certain this thread will bite the dust soon but for anyone interested in knowing a bit of history and how Bin-Laden came to be enemy #1:
In the early 50's the Prime Minister of Iran... who was democtratically elected and known by the people for his integrity and honesty... wanted to nationalize oil. He was upset at the fact that foreign countries were ripping off the country's wealth. As soon as he tried to do this, The british prime minister met up with Eisenhower and we declared him a communist. We then sent in the CIA to overthrow him. The plan was top secret at the time, but now is well documented. We overthrew him and helped a friendly dictator come into power. That was the Shah of Iran. The Shah and his son created 20 years of total repression for the people. The people of Iran blamed the United States for this repression. The first fiercely anti-american figure to rise up out of the built-up rage was the Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini was now an established enemy of the U.S.... Meanhwile, Sadam Hussein in neighboring Iraq, was very anti-Iranian. He became our friend. He attacked Khomeini's regime (now our enemy) and invaded Iran. He started to lose a brutal 8 year war. At that point Ronald Ragan sends Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Sadam, and we support him with intelligence, arms, and funding. The enemy of our enemy, is our friend.
In 1990 our friend Sadam "goes rogue", and invades Kuwait. Now the Saudi's are in total fear because they are staring at Sadam's tanks. The world's oil is about to fall under Sadam's control. So we station troops all over Saudi Arabia. This enrages a huge segment of the Arab population. The person that rises out of this rage as an anti-american leader, is Osama Bin-Laden. He continously is angry at the west meddling in his country's affairs. He vows to fight the U.S. by any means possible. He flees to and builds a base in the now destroyed and impoverished Afghanistan... "Al Qaeda".
In the early 50's the Prime Minister of Iran... who was democtratically elected and known by the people for his integrity and honesty... wanted to nationalize oil. He was upset at the fact that foreign countries were ripping off the country's wealth. As soon as he tried to do this, The british prime minister met up with Eisenhower and we declared him a communist. We then sent in the CIA to overthrow him. The plan was top secret at the time, but now is well documented. We overthrew him and helped a friendly dictator come into power. That was the Shah of Iran. The Shah and his son created 20 years of total repression for the people. The people of Iran blamed the United States for this repression. The first fiercely anti-american figure to rise up out of the built-up rage was the Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini was now an established enemy of the U.S.... Meanhwile, Sadam Hussein in neighboring Iraq, was very anti-Iranian. He became our friend. He attacked Khomeini's regime (now our enemy) and invaded Iran. He started to lose a brutal 8 year war. At that point Ronald Ragan sends Donald Rumsfeld to meet with Sadam, and we support him with intelligence, arms, and funding. The enemy of our enemy, is our friend.
In 1990 our friend Sadam "goes rogue", and invades Kuwait. Now the Saudi's are in total fear because they are staring at Sadam's tanks. The world's oil is about to fall under Sadam's control. So we station troops all over Saudi Arabia. This enrages a huge segment of the Arab population. The person that rises out of this rage as an anti-american leader, is Osama Bin-Laden. He continously is angry at the west meddling in his country's affairs. He vows to fight the U.S. by any means possible. He flees to and builds a base in the now destroyed and impoverished Afghanistan... "Al Qaeda".
Last edited:
That about sums it up.
+1 rep
Haha what a douche! He tried to put one of his wives in front of himself to protect himself from the heat! Like the Navy Seals showed up with a single bullet? Take your bullet to the head like a man Osama...we should've just captured his ass and let the 9-11 families beat him down like a red-headed stepchild on national TV.
When you sleep with a whore, you wake up to a whore.
Last edited:
Yeah, I understand what you're saying but I'm not buying that we're to blame for OBL killing 3000 innocents and ordering the beheading of Daniel Pearl, etc, etc.
Sure, we went in to help our ally, Kuwait defend themselves from Saddam. And your premise is that OBL hated us for simply being there. Well, that might be so, but that's OBL's problem not ours.
We didn't invade Kuwait. Kuwait begged us to help and we did.
Just because we once worked with Saddam and OBL doesn't imply that we will always stand by them no matter what they do subsequently.
Our earlier support of Saddam didn't mean we would sanction his invasion of Kuwait. Likewise with OBL. We helped him. And then when the Russians were gone he needed another enemy, so he turned against us. I'm sure even if we hadn't helped him he would still be against us for our support of our other ally in the region, Israel. He certainly didn't mind our presence when we were helping him.
In both cases of Saddam and OBL, it was their own rogue actions after the fact of us assisting them, that caused the problems. It wasn't our assistance that caused the problems. If Saddam never invaded Kuwait, he would likely still be in office. If OBL didn't get a bug up his butt from our mere presence in the region, then he could have gone back to his Daddy's construction business and had a good life.
Their wacko decisions precipitated the problem.
Last edited:
I must applaud NSX Primers for treading lightly on this thread...so far.
In reference to the comment above regarding OBL we actually know his cousin. She is western educated like most of the Bin Laden family that work for or are apart of the construction business. She has mentioned on occassion that OBL was the outcast of the family. Always different from the others and odd at times.
Knowing DBL (our friend) puts a weird light on now knowing OBL is deceased.
True but who initially trained the Mujahadiin(sp?) - We did. So basically we helped train the guys who went on to form AQ. We helped train Saddam Hussain's military and armed both them AND Iran in their 8 year war. There is a reason why we are one of the most hated countries in the world. They don't Americans - They hate our foreign policy. Another eg. The Pakistani CIA ISI is a know terrorist supporting, Taliban protecting corrupt organization yet we funded their country to the tune of $20 Billion dollars since 9/11. Yet when one of their terrorist groups bombed Bombay a couple of years ago - we asked the Indian leaders to show restraint!!
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
Agreed. Protecting U.S. interests is what our Presidents and politicians are supposed to do and I applaud them for that.
Relationships change over time as differing conflicts of interest arise. It's a fact of life.
God bless the USA.
Last edited:
I wish that's all there was to it.
Inside CIA files Sadam and OBL were well known as were their tendecies... Since they were young kids. There are declassified files that show the level of information we had on them. We are fully aware of who we are dealing with. There are actual terms within intelligence agencies which we have for these people and their tendencies.
The deal making and brokering in the middle east and the rise of problems from the middle east is not a coincidence. If there is no oil, the entire infrastructure of a country comes to a complete halt. We are not talking about 10% unemployment. we are talking about wheels grinding to a complete halt. Utter devestation.
In the war between Iran and Iraq we armed both sides. In order to finance their wars, both countries sold oil at prices that were low at an unprecented level. U.S., German, and British Tankers were filling up at incredible rates. While we sent funding to Iraq, Sadam was throwing mustard gas onto his own people. This is a more complex issue than one or two guys making a bad decision and turning on us.
I also don't mean to imply that it is just us. All countries with industry have a heavy demand for oil. So they all get involved. The need is strong. The source cannot be cut.
Last edited:
+1 SEALS. Hooya!
+1 NSA.
+1 CIA.
+1 Obama.
+1 America.
Osama - Rott in hell with 72 dudes mofo.
+1 NSA.
+1 CIA.
+1 Obama.
+1 America.
Osama - Rott in hell with 72 dudes mofo.
Osama was hoping for 72 virgins but got 24 Virginians instead:wink:...............:tongue:
Last edited:
So you are saying it does not matter to you how many people across the world suffer or die as a direct result of measures taken to protect "interests". Right?
- Status
