Officials: New Taliban chief was once at Gitmo

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The system can work, however you had them convicted in prior posts by virtue of their imprisonment. Making an allowance that all aren't guilty and deserving punishment is at odds with your prior statements. That's why you were getting slammed. Most of us expect that there ought to an investigation before anyone is released and that when they are found to be dangerous they will be detained. We also don't believe that if a family member were to be arrested, that means automatic guilt. Likewise, as I have proved by example there are those who aren't a threat and weren't fighting. That's how civilized people act. Before there is punishment, there needs to be a proper determination of guilt. When that is done, the innocent go free. Yes there are innocent in Gitmo, and you have acknowledged that fact even after saying that they are being held as terrorists.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

I still think they are guilty. They admitted to training in a Taliban camp and were caught on the battlefield. My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve and if the state thinks that they are innocent and prove no threat and are fit to be released they should be thankfully that the US took mercy on them.

Even in the article it did not state they were innocent, his lawyer did. The courts stated they were no longer a threat. So these people are terrorists, just no longer a threat to the United States.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The system can work, however you had them convicted in prior posts by virtue of their imprisonment. Making an allowance that all aren't guilty and deserving punishment is at odds with your prior statements. That's why you were getting slammed. Most of us expect that there ought to an investigation before anyone is released and that when they are found to be dangerous they will be detained. We also don't believe that if a family member were to be arrested, that means automatic guilt. Likewise, as I have proved by example there are those who aren't a threat and weren't fighting. That's how civilized people act. Before there is punishment, there needs to be a proper determination of guilt. When that is done, the innocent go free. Yes there are innocent in Gitmo, and you have acknowledged that fact even after saying that they are being held as terrorists.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

I still think they are guilty. They admitted to training in a Taliban camp and were caught on the battlefield. My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve and if the state thinks that they are innocent and prove no threat and are fit to be released they should be thankfully that the US took mercy on them.

Even in the article it did not state they were innocent, his lawyer did. The courts stated they were no longer a threat. So these people are terrorists, just no longer a thread to the United States.

Actually they were caught in a camp that has been described as a Taliban training camp, but others maintain that it was a refugee camp and nothing more. No evidence has been provided to show the former was true.

Also note that they didn't belong to any terrorist organization at the time. In fact Conservatives were praising them ten years ago as freedom fighters for resisting the Chinese. So they get caught in camp, detained, and then Bush let the Chinese interrogate the freedom fighters, and THEN declared them terrorists ex post facto.


Regarding those confessions- they weren't made in court. It was said that they had confessed.

So pretty much the DOD said that they were in a camp that was Taliban sponsored and that they confessed, but when the judge reviewed the evidence and testimony their case was distinctly lacking. Accusations don't make for facts.

Uighurs hate the Communist Chinese government, but no one has made a credible case for them being a real threat.

You have your beliefs, however the facts don't back them up.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The system can work, however you had them convicted in prior posts by virtue of their imprisonment. Making an allowance that all aren't guilty and deserving punishment is at odds with your prior statements. That's why you were getting slammed. Most of us expect that there ought to an investigation before anyone is released and that when they are found to be dangerous they will be detained. We also don't believe that if a family member were to be arrested, that means automatic guilt. Likewise, as I have proved by example there are those who aren't a threat and weren't fighting. That's how civilized people act. Before there is punishment, there needs to be a proper determination of guilt. When that is done, the innocent go free. Yes there are innocent in Gitmo, and you have acknowledged that fact even after saying that they are being held as terrorists.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

I still think they are guilty. They admitted to training in a Taliban camp and were caught on the battlefield. My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve and if the state thinks that they are innocent and prove no threat and are fit to be released they should be thankfully that the US took mercy on them.

Even in the article it did not state they were innocent, his lawyer did. The courts stated they were no longer a threat. So these people are terrorists, just no longer a thread to the United States.

Actually they were caught in a camp that has been described as a Taliban training camp, but others maintain that it was a refugee camp and nothing more. No evidence has been provided to show the former was true.

Also note that they didn't belong to any terrorist organization at the time. In fact Conservatives were praising them ten years ago as freedom fighters for resisting the Chinese. So they get caught in camp, detained, and then Bush let the Chinese interrogate the freedom fighters, and THEN declared them terrorists ex post facto.


Regarding those confessions- they weren't made in court. It was said that they had confessed.

So pretty much the DOD said that they were in a camp that was Taliban sponsored and that they confessed, but when the judge reviewed the evidence and testimony their case was distinctly lacking. Accusations don't make for facts.

Uighurs hate the Communist Chinese government, but no one has made a credible case for them being a real threat.

You have your beliefs, however the facts don't back them up.

What facts do you? You base your ideas on assumptions the government lied. Those are not facts.

The government release from the article did not state that the evidence was lacking, it stated they were no longer a threat to the United States. That "fact" in itself declares that at one point they were considered a threat.

So as you said, you have your beliefs and assumptions the facts don't back them up though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

What facts do you? You base your ideas on assumptions the government lied. Those are not facts.

The government release from the article did not state that the evidence was lacking, it stated they were no longer a threat to the United States. That "fact" in itself declares that at one point they were considered a threat.

So as you said, you have your beliefs and assumptions the facts don't back them up though.

Or we could use an impartial look at the facts and realize that both groups, those detained and the government have a motivation to lie. I am unaware of any change in conditions for the Uighurs that would have rendered them no longer a threat, and so the government's claim that they once were but are no longer seems awfully thin.

The claims from both parties should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, but you are just blindly accepting the government's view when it clearly has reasons to lie.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

What facts do you? You base your ideas on assumptions the government lied. Those are not facts.

The government release from the article did not state that the evidence was lacking, it stated they were no longer a threat to the United States. That "fact" in itself declares that at one point they were considered a threat.

So as you said, you have your beliefs and assumptions the facts don't back them up though.

What facts do you base your ideas on assumptions the Bushwhackos told the truth about anything? We have eight years of lies about every aspect of their so called "war on terror" and everything else. If you really need it, I can post one of my "macros" documenting them, but even if I edited the list to just those lies related to terrorists, it would probably be a thread killer.

Or you can do your own homework and just search the forums for my previous posts on the subject. I've only been ranting about your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers for most of their time in office.

George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Berto the Clown Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld and their entire adminstration should be prosecuted to the full extent of U.S. and international law for their inhuman crimes against our nation, our Constitution, our laws, our people and against the world.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

What facts do you? You base your ideas on assumptions the government lied. Those are not facts.

The government release from the article did not state that the evidence was lacking, it stated they were no longer a threat to the United States. That "fact" in itself declares that at one point they were considered a threat.

So as you said, you have your beliefs and assumptions the facts don't back them up though.

Or we could use an impartial look at the facts and realize that both groups, those detained and the government have a motivation to lie. I am unaware of any change in conditions for the Uighurs that would have rendered them no longer a threat, and so the government's claim that they once were but are no longer seems awfully thin.

The claims from both parties should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, but you are just blindly accepting the government's view when it clearly has reasons to lie.

If you want to discuss motivation to lie I would imagine two individuals in prison have more motivation to lie about there innocence. Sort of gets back to the everyone in prison is innocent saying.

Again you are basing your "facts" off assumptions you make in regards to the government and they hold no real credibility besides an opinion that is not based on facts at all.

The prisons have just as much reason to lie, though I question the motivation of the government if it truly had an ulterior agenda to even allow these people to go before a tribunal if they had something to hide. You would think if the government had something to hide they would now have allowed the tribunal to take place.

Your argument is hollow by the actions of the government in even allowing the tribunal to happen.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

What facts do you? You base your ideas on assumptions the government lied. Those are not facts.

The government release from the article did not state that the evidence was lacking, it stated they were no longer a threat to the United States. That "fact" in itself declares that at one point they were considered a threat.

So as you said, you have your beliefs and assumptions the facts don't back them up though.

What facts do you base your ideas on assumptions the Bushwhackos told the truth about anything? We have eight years of lies about every aspect of their so called "war on terrorism." If you really need it, I can post one of my "macros" documenting them, but even if I edited the list to just those lies related to terrorists, it would probably be a thread killer.

Or you can do your own homework and just search the forums for my previous posts on the subject. I've only been ranting about your thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers for most of their time in office.

George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Berto the Clown Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld and their entire adminstration should be prosecuted to the full extent of U.S. and international law for their inhuman crimes against our nation, our Constitution, our laws, our people and against the world.

Why do you continue to hit and run Harvey never sticking around to defend yourself once you are painting into a corner and shown the ridiculousness of your posts?

Is the judge who declared them innocent part of the Bush administration? What if he declared a few other ones guilty, would he now be part of the system?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

If you want to discuss motivation to lie I would imagine two individuals in prison have more motivation to lie about there innocence. Sort of gets back to the everyone in prison is innocent saying.

Again you are basing your "facts" off assumptions you make in regards to the government and they hold no real credibility besides an opinion that is not based on facts at all.

The prisons have just as much reason to lie, though I question the motivation of the government if it truly had an alteriori agenda to even allow these people to go before a tribunal if they had something to hide. You would think if the government had something to hide they would now have allowed the tribunal to take place.

Your argument is hollow by the actions of the government in even allowing the tribunal to happen.

I don't think you understand what 'facts' are. The only fact I mentioned was that both groups here have a motivation to lie. The government to justify their detention, and the detainees to escape it. You have accepted the government's disputed assertions because... well the government made them.

This makes your post ironic when you claim that I am basing my ideas off assumptions I make in regards to the government. My idea was for healthy skepticism, your slavish adherence to authority has rendered you incapable of doing this, as you simply swallow whatever you are given.

 

[Lemon law]

RichardE proves himself a total fool with with his three sentence response in paragraph one with, " I still think they are guilty. They admitted to training in a Taliban camp and were caught on the battlefield. My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve and if the state thinks that they are innocent and prove no threat and are fit to be released they should be thankfully that the US took mercy on them.

Lets analyze each sentence---RichardE, "still thinks they guilty." Its already clear that what RichardE thinks and any fair judicial proceeding have absolutely nothing in common. As is already pointed out, if they are in fact guilty, their must be some greater evidence than they are charged with a crime. All else is simply circular reasoning based on prior imprisonment.

Then RichardE, "they admitted in training in a Taliban training camp. " Not at all in evidence, a few may have admitted it, others deny it, some of the admissions are falsely gained by torture, but again where does it stop. The Taliban is an idea, so is capitalism, communism, reading about the idea, being put in a classroom that teaches about the idea, is still freedom of thought, would RichardE advocate that anyone who read about the ideas of Adam Smith be put to death, if he had a different bias? It still defaults back to criminal acts committed after exposure to the idea. Nor should that thinking apply to anyone in the vicinity, you or a I may be in the same football stadium with some one who does commit a crime, it does nothing to demonstrate we are in any way involved.

Then RichardE refers to " My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve." So if RichardE was a member of the Nazi State of Germany, it would be his duty to kill all jews for the crime of being Jewish, and now he wants to kill all Muslims for the crime of being Muslim, or gasp, even worse, being Palestinian. While I would hope that it is the moral duty of every thinking and moral member of either type of stinking thinking States to resist what amount to the governments of those types of unjust states.

Now matter how its cut, RichardE thinking and any just society's legal system have exactly nothing in common.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The system can work, however you had them convicted in prior posts by virtue of their imprisonment. Making an allowance that all aren't guilty and deserving punishment is at odds with your prior statements. That's why you were getting slammed. Most of us expect that there ought to an investigation before anyone is released and that when they are found to be dangerous they will be detained. We also don't believe that if a family member were to be arrested, that means automatic guilt. Likewise, as I have proved by example there are those who aren't a threat and weren't fighting. That's how civilized people act. Before there is punishment, there needs to be a proper determination of guilt. When that is done, the innocent go free. Yes there are innocent in Gitmo, and you have acknowledged that fact even after saying that they are being held as terrorists.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

I still think they are guilty. They admitted to training in a Taliban camp and were caught on the battlefield. My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve and if the state thinks that they are innocent and prove no threat and are fit to be released they should be thankfully that the US took mercy on them.

Even in the article it did not state they were innocent, his lawyer did. The courts stated they were no longer a threat. So these people are terrorists, just no longer a thread to the United States.

Actually they were caught in a camp that has been described as a Taliban training camp, but others maintain that it was a refugee camp and nothing more. No evidence has been provided to show the former was true.

Also note that they didn't belong to any terrorist organization at the time. In fact Conservatives were praising them ten years ago as freedom fighters for resisting the Chinese. So they get caught in camp, detained, and then Bush let the Chinese interrogate the freedom fighters, and THEN declared them terrorists ex post facto.


Regarding those confessions- they weren't made in court. It was said that they had confessed.

So pretty much the DOD said that they were in a camp that was Taliban sponsored and that they confessed, but when the judge reviewed the evidence and testimony their case was distinctly lacking. Accusations don't make for facts.

Uighurs hate the Communist Chinese government, but no one has made a credible case for them being a real threat.

You have your beliefs, however the facts don't back them up.

What facts do you? You base your ideas on assumptions the government lied. Those are not facts.

The government release from the article did not state that the evidence was lacking, it stated they were no longer a threat to the United States. That "fact" in itself declares that at one point they were considered a threat.

So as you said, you have your beliefs and assumptions the facts don't back them up though.

So you are left with accusations, and again that's enough for you. So be it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

If you want to discuss motivation to lie I would imagine two individuals in prison have more motivation to lie about there innocence. Sort of gets back to the everyone in prison is innocent saying.

Again you are basing your "facts" off assumptions you make in regards to the government and they hold no real credibility besides an opinion that is not based on facts at all.

The prisons have just as much reason to lie, though I question the motivation of the government if it truly had an alteriori agenda to even allow these people to go before a tribunal if they had something to hide. You would think if the government had something to hide they would now have allowed the tribunal to take place.

Your argument is hollow by the actions of the government in even allowing the tribunal to happen.

I don't think you understand what 'facts' are. The only fact I mentioned was that both groups here have a motivation to lie. The government to justify their detention, and the detainees to escape it. You have accepted the government's disputed assertions because... well the government made them.

This makes your post ironic when you claim that I am basing my ideas off assumptions I make in regards to the government. My idea was for healthy skepticism, your slavish adherence to authority has rendered you incapable of doing this, as you simply swallow whatever you are given.

You are right, I incorporated your post in with a few others here.

I accept the governments position due to the fact they ultimately allowed and decided these people should be set free. If like I said, an agenda had been orchestrated to keep them imprisoned they would never have seen a tribunal.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
The system can work, however you had them convicted in prior posts by virtue of their imprisonment. Making an allowance that all aren't guilty and deserving punishment is at odds with your prior statements. That's why you were getting slammed. Most of us expect that there ought to an investigation before anyone is released and that when they are found to be dangerous they will be detained. We also don't believe that if a family member were to be arrested, that means automatic guilt. Likewise, as I have proved by example there are those who aren't a threat and weren't fighting. That's how civilized people act. Before there is punishment, there needs to be a proper determination of guilt. When that is done, the innocent go free. Yes there are innocent in Gitmo, and you have acknowledged that fact even after saying that they are being held as terrorists.

That wasn't so hard, was it?

I still think they are guilty. They admitted to training in a Taliban camp and were caught on the battlefield. My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve and if the state thinks that they are innocent and prove no threat and are fit to be released they should be thankfully that the US took mercy on them.

Even in the article it did not state they were innocent, his lawyer did. The courts stated they were no longer a threat. So these people are terrorists, just no longer a thread to the United States.

Actually they were caught in a camp that has been described as a Taliban training camp, but others maintain that it was a refugee camp and nothing more. No evidence has been provided to show the former was true.

Also note that they didn't belong to any terrorist organization at the time. In fact Conservatives were praising them ten years ago as freedom fighters for resisting the Chinese. So they get caught in camp, detained, and then Bush let the Chinese interrogate the freedom fighters, and THEN declared them terrorists ex post facto.


Regarding those confessions- they weren't made in court. It was said that they had confessed.

So pretty much the DOD said that they were in a camp that was Taliban sponsored and that they confessed, but when the judge reviewed the evidence and testimony their case was distinctly lacking. Accusations don't make for facts.

Uighurs hate the Communist Chinese government, but no one has made a credible case for them being a real threat.

You have your beliefs, however the facts don't back them up.

What facts do you? You base your ideas on assumptions the government lied. Those are not facts.

The government release from the article did not state that the evidence was lacking, it stated they were no longer a threat to the United States. That "fact" in itself declares that at one point they were considered a threat.

So as you said, you have your beliefs and assumptions the facts don't back them up though.

So you are left with accusations, and again that's enough for you. So be it.

Good enough for what? I said I am glad the government decided to release them. Not sure where you are going with this. I merely pointed out that your opinion was based on the same thought process you are pursuing. Assumptions and accusations for both of us.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
RichardE proves himself a total fool with with his three sentence response in paragraph one with, " I still think they are guilty. They admitted to training in a Taliban camp and were caught on the battlefield. My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve and if the state thinks that they are innocent and prove no threat and are fit to be released they should be thankfully that the US took mercy on them.

Lets analyze each sentence---RichardE, "still thinks they guilty." Its already clear that what RichardE thinks and any fair judicial proceeding have absolutely nothing in common. As is already pointed out, if they are in fact guilty, their must be some greater evidence than they are charged with a crime. All else is simply circular reasoning based on prior imprisonment.

Then RichardE, "they admitted in training in a Taliban training camp. " Not at all in evidence, a few may have admitted it, others deny it, some of the admissions are falsely gained by torture, but again where does it stop. The Taliban is an idea, so is capitalism, communism, reading about the idea, being put in a classroom that teaches about the idea, is still freedom of thought, would RichardE advocate that anyone who read about the ideas of Adam Smith be put to death, if he had a different bias? It still defaults back to criminal acts committed after exposure to the idea. Nor should that thinking apply to anyone in the vicinity, you or a I may be in the same football stadium with some one who does commit a crime, it does nothing to demonstrate we are in any way involved.

Then RichardE refers to " My views though ultimately defer to the state who we all serve." So if RichardE was a member of the Nazi State of Germany, it would be his duty to kill all jews for the crime of being Jewish, and now he wants to kill all Muslims for the crime of being Muslim, or gasp, even worse, being Palestinian. While I would hope that it is the moral duty of every thinking and moral member of either type of stinking thinking States to resist what amount to the governments of those types of unjust states.

Now matter how its cut, RichardE thinking and any just society's legal system have exactly nothing in common.

So in other words you are using assumptions to disavow my assumptions? Again LL you post something moronic and without merit oh nothing but straw men weak analogies and utter BS which again illustrated the complete lack of knowledge you really have in anything. Perhaps one day you will put forward a coherent though.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Why do you continue to hit and run Harvey never sticking around to defend yourself once you are painting into a corner and shown the ridiculousness of your posts?

My last post was 17 minutes ago, and I was posting in another thread and doing some moderating in other forums. That's hardly "hit and run."

OTOH, like your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang, you are a malevolent, murderous ethical miscreant willing to murder those in detention who may be innocent along with any who MAY be guilty, despite the fact that our own government hasn't allowed them any kind of legal, let alone fair hearing.

Maybe you'll change your mind when the jack booted thugs come to pick you up and hold you under threat of death for unfounded charges. Until then, any further discussion about it with you is pointless. :|

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

Why do you continue to hit and run Harvey never sticking around to defend yourself once you are painting into a corner and shown the ridiculousness of your posts?

My last post was 17 minutes ago, and I was posting in another thread and doing some moderating in other forums. That's hardly "hit and run."

OTOH, like your EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang, you are a malevolent, murderous ethical miscreant willing to murder those in detention who may be innocent along with any who MAY be guilty, despite the fact that our own government hasn't allowed them any kind of legal, let alone fair hearing.

Maybe you'll change your mind when the jack booted thugs come to pick you up and hold you under threat of death for unfounded charges. Until then, any further discussion about it with you is pointless. :|

Well, you never came back to the post where you screamed for "links and quotes you liar!" which were provided. Though that was only what? 24 hours ago? I can understand I suppose.

You never answered about the Judge? Is he part of the criminal gang? I also already stated that I did not like Bush at all due too his lack of conservatism. Perhaps you should try reading posts before going off the handle and responding Harvey.

As well, are you going to answer why it is ok for you to wish death on people for political ideas and thoughts in general, yet it is wrong to kill people who inflict damage upon society?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Well, you never came back to the post where you screamed for "links and quotes you liar!" which were provided. Though that was only what? 24 hours ago? I can understand I suppose.

Stop! I don't owe you jack shit, let alone instant replies 24/7, but the lies to which I referred were the ones you said didn't exist. Your EX Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang and those who continue to spew their hateful fearmongering are greater threats to our nation and our Constitution than Osama Bin Ladin, all of Al Qaeda and all the Al Qaeda wannabes who really are threats to our nation. At least they admit they're out to destroy us while the Bushwhackos and their ilk just did it from the inside.

You want lies? I've got your lies right here:

Remember, YOU asked for this, so don't give me shit about its length or the fact that I posted it previously.

• "Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
  Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
  
• "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
  
• "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
  
• "This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
  George W. Bush, 9/26/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
  George W. Bush, 10/2/02
  
• "There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
  George W. Bush, 10/7/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
  George W. Bush, 10/16/02
  
• "There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
  George W. Bush, 10/28/02
  
• "I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
  George W. Bush, 11/1/02
  
• "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
  
• "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
  George W. Bush, 11/3/02
  
• "The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
  George W. Bush, 11/23/02
  
• "The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
  George W. Bush, 1/3/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
  
• "Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
  
• "Well, of course he is.?
  White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question ?is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home??, 1/26/03
  
• Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
  Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
  
• Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
  Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
  
• "This is about imminent threat."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
  
• "The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
  George W. Bush, 3/16/03
  
• "The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
  George W. Bush, 3/19/03
  
• "It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
  Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
  
• "The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
  Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
  
• "We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
  George W. Bush 4/24/03
  
• "Absolutely."
  White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
  
• "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
  George W. Bush, 7/2/03
  
• Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
  White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
  
• "We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
  George W. Bush, 7/17/03
  
• "There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
  White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
  
• We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ?90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.
  
• "Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
  George W. Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union Address
  
• "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
  Dick Cheney, 3/16/2003 on ?Meet the Press?
  
• We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ?93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ?93. And we?ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.
  Dick Cheney, 9/14/2003 on "Meet The Press"

You can continue with info about more lies and deception as documented in the 9-11 Commission Report from 2004.

If that's not enough for you, we can move on to admin quotes about the mysteriously disappearing communications between the Whitehouse and Gonzo the Clown and his lackeys at the Department of Justice and their lies about a host of their other lies, failures and deceptions.

Want more? No problem, but remember, if you do, YOU asked for it. :shocked:[/quote]

11/03/2007 05:59 PM (See later post in same thread with more detail on first half)

Originally posted by: Harvey

It took me only two minutes to find several of my posts with the following list of Bushwhacko lies and incompetence from one of my earlier posts. I warned you, and I apologize in advance for reposting it because it's very long, but since you insist...

• The "intelligence" fed to Congress and the American people was cherry picked and directed from the top.
  
• Rumsfeld set his own parallel "intelligence" operation within DOD when the CIA and FBI couldn't tell him what he wanted to hear.
  
• There was no yellow cake uranium in Niger.
  
• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
  
• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:

• They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clarke, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clarke also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
  
  The Bushwhackos didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 400,000 troops to do the job.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
  
• Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed that the reports were false.
  
  The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

Need more lies? Try these:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction
Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent?. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly?..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush, NBC interview, April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need?.so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, press briefing, April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell, remarks to reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein ? because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 6, 2003

We said what we said because we meant it?..We continue to have confidence that WMD will be found.
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them.
George W. Bush, remarks to reporters, May 31, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [SEE NEXT QUOTE].
Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

"I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.? Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat." [SEE NEXT QUOTES].
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat.
Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: "Well, of course he is."
Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

11/07/2007 01:23 PM (Links and details for the first half of the previous post):

Originally posted by: Harvey

Before Bush started his war of lies, Ambassador Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. He returned and informed them that the reports were false, and that several European intelligence agencies had thoroughly discredited the source for the reports.

The Bushwhackos administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good adminstration would do. They outed his wife, Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, blowing off her value to our national security and endangering her life and the lives of everyone who ever worked with her anywhere in the world.

• There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges to process nuclear material.

Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002

A key piece of evidence in the Bush administration's case against Iraq is being challenged in a report by independent experts who question whether thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes recently sought by Iraq were intended for a secret nuclear weapons program.

The White House last week said attempts by Iraq to acquire the tubes point to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. But the experts say in a new report that the evidence is ambiguous, and in some ways contradicts what is known about Iraq's past nuclear efforts.

The report, from the Institute for Science and International Security, also contends that the Bush administration is trying to quiet dissent among its own analysts over how to interpret the evidence. The report, a draft of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was authored by David Albright, a physicist who investigated Iraq's nuclear weapons program following the 1991 Persian Gulf War as a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection team. The institute, headquartered in Washington, is an independent group that studies nuclear and other security issues.

"By themselves, these attempted procurements are not evidence that Iraq is in possession of, or close to possessing, nuclear weapons," the report said. "They do not provide evidence that Iraq has an operating centrifuge plant or when such a plant could be operational."

The controversy stems from shipments to Iraq of specialized aluminum metal that were seized en route by governments allied with the United States. A U.S. intelligence official confirmed that at least two such shipments were seized within the past 14 months, although he declined to give details. The Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the shipments, reported that one originated in China and was intercepted in Jordan.

The shipments sparked concern among U.S. intelligence analysts because of the potential use of such tubes in centrifuges, fast-spinning machines used in making enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. High-strength, heat-resistant metals are needed for centrifuge casings as well as for the rotors, which turn at up to 1,000 rotations per minute.

There is no evidence that any of the tubes reached Iraq. But in its white paper on Iraq released to the United Nations last week, the Bush administration cited the seized shipments as evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said in a televised interview that the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

Since then, U.S. officials have acknowledged differing opinions within the U.S. intelligence community about possible uses for the tubes -- with some experts contending that a more plausible explanation was that the aluminum was meant to build launch tubes for Iraq's artillery rockets.

"But the majority view, held by senior officials here, is that they were most likely intended for gas centrifuges," one U.S. intelligence official said in an interview.

The new report questions that conclusion on several grounds, most of them technical. It says the seized tubes were made of a kind of aluminum that is ill-suited for welding. Other specifications of the imported metal are at odds with what is known about Iraq's previous attempts to build centrifuges. In fact, the report said, Iraq had largely abandoned aluminum for other materials, such as specialized steel and carbon fiber, in its centrifuges at the time its nuclear program was destroyed by allied bombers in the Gulf War.

According to Albright, government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent. Several Energy Department officials familiar with the aluminum shipments declined to comment.

Note the date -- September 19, 2002, BEFORE they launched their war of LIES.

• There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons
  
• There were no long range rockets.
  
• There were no WMD's.
  
• There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Even Colin Powell has since said he strongly questioned the "evidence" the Bushwhackos were pimping to Congress and the American people before he gave his infamous dog and pony show at the U.N.

Powell: Some Iraq testimony not 'solid'

Saturday, April 3, 2004 Posted: 11:05 AM EST (1605 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said his pre-war testimony to the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's alleged mobile, biological weapons labs was based on information that appears not to be "solid."

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's effort to justify a war and win international support.

Powell said Friday his testimony about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs was based on the best intelligence available, but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid," Powell said.
.
.
. (continues

You can pick and choose from the examples in the article, but remember George Tenet's "slam dunk?" Remember the infamously unreliable testimony from "Curveball? :roll:

Powell also told columnist, Robert Scheer that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.

Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us
.
.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department?s top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.
.
.
I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

?The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,? Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush?s State of the Union speech? ?That was a big mistake,? he said. ?It should never have been in the speech. I didn?t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn?t a Niger connection. He didn?t tell us anything we didn?t already know. I never believed it.?

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn?t the president: ?That was all Cheney.?
.
.
. (continues)

I didn't even get to more recent lies that we're just now discovering. For example, the lies about torture by the CIA and about the video tapes documenting that torture that "didn't exist"... until there WAS one... then, there were two and and audio tape... then there were 92. That means we have no way of knowing how many tapes exist or which government agencies were involved in torture or who they tortured.

Yet blood thirsty ethical dwarves like you continue to deny it happened and to assume every person imprisoned at Gitmo and other black sights must all be guilty simply because they are there.

You never answered about the Judge? Is he part of the criminal gang?

Does it matter? Do I care? Hell, NO! There's already too much stench around Gitmo and everything else touched in any way by your EX Traitor In Chief.

I also already stated that I did not like Bush at all due too his lack of conservatism. Perhaps you should try reading posts before going off the handle and responding Harvey.

Not liking him for his "lack of conservatism" doesn't speak well for you, either.

As well, are you going to answer why it is ok for you to wish death on people for political ideas and thoughts in general, yet it is wrong to kill people who inflict damage upon society?

I didn't wish you death. But since you're either reading or memory challenged, I'll repeat what I did say in the post you quoted:

Maybe you'll change your mind when the jack booted thugs come to pick you up and hold you under threat of death for unfounded charges. Until then, any further discussion about it with you is pointless. :|

I already replied to you once more than I intended. That's over. You have nothing of value to say. I won't waste time replying to anymore of your bullshit.

 

[RichardE]

Not quouting since CC would kill me, but Harvey your quote wishing me death was..

Or since you're in such a blood thirsty hurry to execute those at Gitmo, maybe we should wait until after your execution to find out

Your push for execution of political opponents is

If you want to "dispose" of criminals within the prison, the criminals who should be imprisoned there are George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheney, Berto the Clown Gonzales and the rest of the Bushwhacko traitors.

I do love how you don't feel like you need to actually respond when people call you on anything. I never said you owe me anything, I said it says volumes of you when you are unable to defend your positions.

But Alas, as someone who wants to kill based on politics, you are worse than me, or even George Bush.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Not quouting since CC would kill me, but Harvey your quote wishing me death was..

Or since you're in such a blood thirsty hurry to execute those at Gitmo, maybe we should wait until after your execution to find out

Aww... Da widdle boy's sarcasm meter is bwoken. :roll: :laugh:

Seriously, you're one sick fuck. OUT!

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

Not quouting since CC would kill me, but Harvey your quote wishing me death was..

Or since you're in such a blood thirsty hurry to execute those at Gitmo, maybe we should wait until after your execution to find out

Aww... Da widdle boy's sarcasm meter is bwoken. :roll: :laugh:

Awww is da widdle boy sad his true bloodthirsty nature showed through :roll: :laugh:

I also notice you didn't deny you wanted to execute Bush and Co. That is the big one there, killing people based on politics Harvey, wow.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

So the difference between you and those involved in the Holocaust is scale, not right or wrong. Gotcha. It's a wonderful solution you have.

Effectively you define people being held as guilty, and the evidence for their guilt is that they are being held. Yes, I have an emotional response to those who would murder. I have contempt for Muslims killers and wannabes and for you. Not much difference. You don't have the courage of your convictions I suppose.

BTW, you haven't reconciled the people in my link with your claim that they are terrorists. No, you didn't say THEY were, you just said people in GITMO were terrorists and you had no problem with killing them.

Yes, I believe they are and would have no problem killing them.
.
.
(continues)

I know I posted that I was through with talking to a blood thirsty asshole like you, who is so quick to abandon our once honored Constitution, but on further reflection, I recalled an issue that needs to be addressed. Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

So the difference between you and those involved in the Holocaust is scale, not right or wrong. Gotcha. It's a wonderful solution you have.

Effectively you define people being held as guilty, and the evidence for their guilt is that they are being held. Yes, I have an emotional response to those who would murder. I have contempt for Muslims killers and wannabes and for you. Not much difference. You don't have the courage of your convictions I suppose.

BTW, you haven't reconciled the people in my link with your claim that they are terrorists. No, you didn't say THEY were, you just said people in GITMO were terrorists and you had no problem with killing them.

Yes, I believe they are and would have no problem killing them.
.
.
(continues)

I know I posted that I was through with talking to a blood thirsty asshole like you, who is so quick to abandon our once honored Constitution, but on further reflection, I recalled an issue that needs to be addressed. Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

As I stated I dual citenzship Harvey boy.

How about you sit back, take a chill pill and try to form some non foaming at the mouth coherent thought for once and actually address the weaknesses (which are many) in your arguments instead of rambling half thought our ideas that show a lack of effort akin to 5 year old.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Harvey
Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

As I stated I dual citenzship Harvey boy.

How about you sit back, take a chill pill and try to form some non foaming at the mouth coherent thought for once and actually address the weaknesses (which are many) in your arguments instead of rambling half thought our ideas that show a lack of effort akin to 5 year old.

I usually agree with Harvey, but this is an exception. I don't care if you are an American citizen or not, I invite non-Americans to express opinions.

I sure invite (and I suspect Harvey might too) non-Americans to provide the perspective they did on how terrible the Bush administration was.

Good ideas aren't restricted by national borders,and while bad ideas aren't either, they come with the package whether from Americans or not.

We're one big planet, and we Americans sit here all day condemning the treatment of Palestinians, the wrongs in Tibet, and so on - discussion should be global IMO.

 

[ranmaniac]

Tom Clancy tinfoil moment:

Wonder if the new taliban chief is on the payroll, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a dupe or double agent within the Taliban's circle for intelligence purposes. I remember reading about one case where Israeli intelligence (Mossad) gave a cell phone to an informant which had explosives impanted in it, and once the operation was complete, they cut off any loose ends (killing the informant), at least that's what they did when dealing with the PLO. With today's technology, the CIA etc could easily implant gps/rfid into someone, so if mr. taliban chief decides not to cooperate, he'll have a GPS guided missile/bomb ready to take him out.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Harvey
Specifically, you're Canadian, not American. I would guess that many Canadians would be appalled by your inhumanity, but if you want to live under a government of murderous tyrants, you can spew your venom on your own side of the border.

BUTT THE FUCK OUT, and SHUT THE FUCK UP! You have no business telling citizens of the United States of America what kinds of horrific crimes our government can or should commit in our names or what we, as citizens, should do when we learn about them. :thumbsdown: :|

As I stated I dual citenzship Harvey boy.

How about you sit back, take a chill pill and try to form some non foaming at the mouth coherent thought for once and actually address the weaknesses (which are many) in your arguments instead of rambling half thought our ideas that show a lack of effort akin to 5 year old.

I usually agree with Harvey, but this is an exception. I don't care if you are an American citizen or not, I invite non-Americans to express opinions.

I sure invite (and I suspect Harvey might too) non-Americans to provide the perspective they did on how terrible the Bush administration was.

Good ideas aren't restricted by national borders,and while bad ideas aren't either, they come with the package whether from Americans or not.

We're one big planet, and we Americans sit here all day condemning the treatment of Palestinians, the wrongs in Tibet, and so on - discussion should be global IMO.

Well, it's a moot point now, he's been banned.