They let them go? I say kill them all and torture them! That's the way to do it! We can't have none of them extras from Indiana Jones gettin' lose on Bama's watch now can we? Hell no!
US releases man, now al quaeda leader again
- Thread starter georges
- Start date
It all seems rather pointless to me , if there is a sense of injustice there will always be a steady supply of volunteers, and new leaders will come forward.It's no good locking up a few (or a few hundred) of them if they are replaced so easily.And to give them a valid reason for a heightened sense of injustice (which is what the Bay did) is the law of unintended consequences writ large.
This article reeks of propaganda. How can any of this really be verified? Just scan the news in the coming weeks and months and I guarantee you'll see more and more seeds being planted to convince the public that Pakistan is the new country we desperately need to invade. Iran is nice, but they're backed by Russia, and the U.S. already turned down Israel's rabid calls to bomb them. My guess is when the next attack hits U.S. soil, or a U.S. embassy, or ship, they will find that the culprits came from Pakistan. The Mumbai incident already probably gives them enough to brainwash the public with, but after their last propaganda effort to convince people Iraq was where the 'evil doers' were hiding, the American public will need a bit more encouragement to become cannon fodder.
Not sure how it will happen, but it's looking more and more likely everyday they continue to send drone planes, and helicopter gunships across their border. My friend is right on the border of northwest Pakistan now and he says they're bringing in thousands of new people. He said he hasn't got any specifics on what their objective is yet, but that they're training in large numbers together, which means an invasion of some sort. If Pakistan retaliates against ground troops I don't think they would use nuclear arms on their own people, but it would give the U.S. the green light to invade.
The reason, that the US did not invade Iran, is not, that Iran is backed by Russia. That's just not true, because Iran isn't backed by Russia. Russia doesn't care about Iran. But what Russia and every other European and Asian country cares about, is stability in the region and sovereignty of the nation. Thus it wasn't that anybody backed Iran, it was that nobody (except Israel)backed the US.
And I don't think the US will invade Pakistan either. The surrounding countries and the US increased the military presence near Pakistan (and India), because Pakistan and India where more than once on the brink of war. And both countries are nuclear powers. Thus stability and a fast ending in case of a military conflict would be essential.
And I don't think the US will invade Pakistan either. The surrounding countries and the US increased the military presence near Pakistan (and India), because Pakistan and India where more than once on the brink of war. And both countries are nuclear powers. Thus stability and a fast ending in case of a military conflict would be essential.
Obviously stability is on the minds of most of the leaders, however the U.S. having an ally like Israel, is to me what is going to send that region into chaos. Israel wants war with everyone, they enjoy testing out their military power and seeing just what they can get away with. If you did not know Israel even asked the U.S. to use their airspace to bomb Iran, which the U.S. denied. Iran is backed by Russia, but not so much so that anyone could really say how they would react if the U.S. decided to aid Israel in their campaign for war. Russia, just like China, and the U.S., are battling for resources, and this is area is a hotspot. The reason I see something igniting in the near future, is because the U.S. really has nothing left but it's military, and it needs to secure those oil reserves to maintain itself. China and Russia will do fine, they can go about things diplomatically, an option ever more rapidly dissolving for the U.S.
I'd agree with that. I'd make just a few "additions". That Israel and Iran would have at it, if it were up to Israel, is out of the question. I know the current situation and development in this region very well. But Israel was just shown its limits in the Gaza war. Towards the end of that conflict, even countries like Germany withdrew their unconditional support of Israeli policy. And Israel will have its hands full, if there will actually be a Gaza state in the near future. And concerning Iran: momentarily Iran (or more precisely the Irani government) certainly doesn't have the reach (financially, military, politically) to engage in a conflict with Israel, even if Ahmadinedschad is still loudmouthing towards Israel. But I gotta say, he has grown remarkably quiet over the last few months.
Russias interest in the Irani resources/raw materials is rather low. Russia has already leverage over almost all of Europe by the means of their gas and oil deliveries. Russia is converting Europes need for energy into leverage or pawn to conduct its bussiness in Europe and thus in the the world. Hence I'd say Russias main interest is not in the Irani resources or raw materials themselves, but in who will get them and who won't. This could interfere with the US' need for those resources (if the US continues on this path, which I don't believe). But I could be wrong and the Russian government is even more greedy than it already seems now. I certainly don't hope so.
Iran doesn't want a war, they don't attack anyone, it's as you said 'loudmouthing'. Personally I don't see any peace coming out of the Obama administration. The peace process essentially begins and ends with what the U.S. and Israel decide, and we already know from the past 40 years or more that they do not want peace for whatever reason. It doesn't help that nearly all of Obama's administration are all hardcore Zionists.
What do you mean exactly by the path the U.S. is on?
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
I forget the exact number, as I was half asleep when I heard it, but I was watching the news this morning and they mentioned that 61 (I believe) people that have been released from Guantanamo are now members of Al-Qaeda.
Food for thought...
Food for thought...
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Hmm, good question. I was just stating what I heard on the news. I haven't found a source that says what their previous actions were, but I did find this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7846203.stm
Obama is in, stop the rhetoric ...
I mean, at what point do you look at the fact that this man either has to be prisoned permanently or executed (far less likely, the former is more)? That's the question I have. Furthermore, I think people like to pick at Gitmo not realizing they did treat them humanely, and that was verified and re-verified over and over.
Moving him from Gitmo doesn't change that reality. And the reality that the Saudi's couldn't "rehabilitate" him. Obama is now in. It's time to stop the W. rhetoric, just like it was with Clinton when W. got in.
You are so into rhetoric against W. that you miss the detail of the article. That there are hard choices and I think you'll see Obama make the exact same choices like W., including imprisoning some war prisoners permanently until the war is over when they are shown that they'd go right back to the enemy.
I really get tired of that. These are people who declare war on the US.
No offense, but you turn everything into political garbage. Even if he was "processed to the law of the USA" (of which you'll dodge, because there has always been different laws for civil crimes and military/war ones), he might be released.
I mean, at what point do you look at the fact that this man either has to be prisoned permanently or executed (far less likely, the former is more)? That's the question I have. Furthermore, I think people like to pick at Gitmo not realizing they did treat them humanely, and that was verified and re-verified over and over.
Moving him from Gitmo doesn't change that reality. And the reality that the Saudi's couldn't "rehabilitate" him. Obama is now in. It's time to stop the W. rhetoric, just like it was with Clinton when W. got in.
You are so into rhetoric against W. that you miss the detail of the article. That there are hard choices and I think you'll see Obama make the exact same choices like W., including imprisoning some war prisoners permanently until the war is over when they are shown that they'd go right back to the enemy.
I really get tired of that. These are people who declare war on the US.
Blame the US by default ...
The years of 2001-2005 showed that any appeasement that Israel shows only makes Hamas and Hezabolla more aggressive, at the expense of Lebanon, Palestine, Gaza, etc... Hell, even the Egyptians are trying to work through their bullshit, and that says something.
Unless you want to reverse time back to 1948, this is reality. Not to mention the fact that the Iranian leadership would nuke the fucking territory and take out plenty of their, alleged "fellow" Arabs and Palestinians. Do you really think they'd 'rejoice' in such an action by Iran?
The Iranian people pretty much have the right idea. Unfortunately their leadership is completely the opposite.
So you're blaming the US for the war in 1967? Again in 1973? This is getting old.
The years of 2001-2005 showed that any appeasement that Israel shows only makes Hamas and Hezabolla more aggressive, at the expense of Lebanon, Palestine, Gaza, etc... Hell, even the Egyptians are trying to work through their bullshit, and that says something.
Unless you want to reverse time back to 1948, this is reality. Not to mention the fact that the Iranian leadership would nuke the fucking territory and take out plenty of their, alleged "fellow" Arabs and Palestinians. Do you really think they'd 'rejoice' in such an action by Iran?
The Iranian people pretty much have the right idea. Unfortunately their leadership is completely the opposite.
It's legal ...
The Clinton administration made arguments against Iraq in 1998, and North Korea in 1994, because they had. W. followed suit, especially on North Korea in 2001 (all 6 nations agree the 1994 agreement was a failure because it was only 2 party).
Claim it was 'illegal' all you want, the US had authority from the UN to invade Iraq from 1991 in the cease fire terms. Hans Blix repeatedly stated in 2002 how they were in gross violation of the disclosure terms, regardless of whether they had WMDs at that time. They never disclosed the ones found in 1996 (openly lying to the Security Council in 1995, with France and Russia blocking UK and US action), let alone after the 1991 war.
The US has no such justification on Iran. In fact, US tinkering with Iran was part of the reason for the 1979 incident, and the Iran-Iraq war (among other nations).
The reason why the US did not invade Iran is that they have never started a war and been sanctioned by the UN for military action. There is absolute 0 justification.
The Clinton administration made arguments against Iraq in 1998, and North Korea in 1994, because they had. W. followed suit, especially on North Korea in 2001 (all 6 nations agree the 1994 agreement was a failure because it was only 2 party).
Claim it was 'illegal' all you want, the US had authority from the UN to invade Iraq from 1991 in the cease fire terms. Hans Blix repeatedly stated in 2002 how they were in gross violation of the disclosure terms, regardless of whether they had WMDs at that time. They never disclosed the ones found in 1996 (openly lying to the Security Council in 1995, with France and Russia blocking UK and US action), let alone after the 1991 war.
The US has no such justification on Iran. In fact, US tinkering with Iran was part of the reason for the 1979 incident, and the Iran-Iraq war (among other nations).
Re: Blame the US by default ...
Israel won't accept the pre-1967 borders resolution. If they did there would be peace. They won't accept this, even though all territory they have inhabited past then is illegal, hence 'occupied territories'.
Iran doesn't have nuclear bombs, so it would be pretty hard for them to kill their fellow Arabs.
As far as the rest is concerned, you'll have to explain how Israel has appeased anyone. Gaza is a concentration camp, and the only reason Hezbollah has attacked them was for their illegal campaigns into Lebanon, which mind you was fought in Lebanon, not Israel. I should also congratulate Hezbollah for a job well done. If it weren't for them their country would be yet another victim of Israeli aggression.
Israel won't accept the pre-1967 borders resolution. If they did there would be peace. They won't accept this, even though all territory they have inhabited past then is illegal, hence 'occupied territories'.
Iran doesn't have nuclear bombs, so it would be pretty hard for them to kill their fellow Arabs.
As far as the rest is concerned, you'll have to explain how Israel has appeased anyone. Gaza is a concentration camp, and the only reason Hezbollah has attacked them was for their illegal campaigns into Lebanon, which mind you was fought in Lebanon, not Israel. I should also congratulate Hezbollah for a job well done. If it weren't for them their country would be yet another victim of Israeli aggression.
Technically, many of them are people who supposedly declared war on the US, and even that is questionable seeing how they are not acknowledged as prisoners of war. Put them on trial, give them PoW rights (those who actually were captured under those circumstances), or let them go. Right now they are apparently neither military nor civilians.
That's rather questionable, but it wouldn't hurt I suppose. Creating the Israeli state in the first place was probably the most idiotic decision made in modern times and ample proof that the lessons learned from WW2 were superficial at best.
Exactly! They no longer exist. What should scare people is they don't just do this to extras from Indiana Jones, but to anyone they think may be conspiring against the government. They can take you off the street for whatever reason, lock you up, and throw away the key.
Similar threads
