What are the US war zones?

marshlewis · #51 11th June 2012, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by freezerman2000

BTW Afghanistan (the Taliban,which is on the International terror group list) was harboring and aiding Bin Laden and refused to give him up after repeated attempts to get him extradited.Only after repeated attempts to get them to hand him over did we start military operations.
Retaliation IS defense if it brings to justice those responsible for acts like 9/11.
Bring them to justice and you take out a major player in the terror matrix..sounds like defense to me.

This is something that sticks in my memory from those days after 9/11. after bush delivered his demand to the taliban to turn over bin laden, the taliban replied with the reasonable reply that they would do so if the us provided evidence that he was implicated.
'They are trying to trick us' was the Bush and only reply. they started bombing a couple of days later.
there was no repeated 'atempts' to get the taliban to cooperate nor was this widely unknown at the time. the english papers wrote for weeks on the lost chance of diplomacy that could have avoided war.
that you think the us tried to avoid war is an effect of the way the media in the us crafts history, continually rounding off those jagged edges until within a few years history as commonly understood is not supported by the facts. even though they were reported in the us at the time.

Supreme · #52 11th June 2012, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by marshlewis

This is something that sticks in my memory from those days after 9/11. after bush delivered his demand to the taliban to turn over bin laden, the taliban replied with the reasonable reply that they would do so if the us provided evidence that he was implicated.
'They are trying to trick us' was the Bush and only reply. they started bombing a couple of days later.
there was no repeated 'atempts' to get the taliban to cooperate nor was this widely unknown at the time. the english papers wrote for weeks on the lost chance of diplomacy that could have avoided war.
that you think the us tried to avoid war is an effect of the way the media in the us crafts history, continually rounding off those jagged edges until within a few years history as commonly understood is not supported by the facts. even though they were reported in the us at the time.

America provided the Taliban with proof, although the Taliban didn't accept it.

TBH, the US should not have occupied Afghanstan. Overthrow the Taliban is reasonable enough, and then hunting down OBL in the tribal regions of Pakistan would have sufficed. After that, job done, and everyone could go home in the evening for some tea and biscuits.

Billnew · #53 11th June 2012, 08:33 AM

The drones are not made for taking prisoners.
They are a killing machine. Search and recon, search and destroy.
No search and rescue or arrest.

If you send a drone, you want to recon the area, or kill the people.
We don't need drones for police use. Anything we can do with a drone, we can do with a tank. Our gangs are not so heavily armed that a M1 tank crew could be killed by a banger.... yet. Give the ATF a few more F&F mistakes, then maybe...

You don't want a tank busting down your door? DOn't do anything wrong, and you won't have to fear it. The US goverment doesn't make mistakes. Only non-criminals have rights.

sword_of_truth · #54 11th June 2012, 09:59 AM

It won't be until the US itself becomes the war zone that you will realise that it doesn't matter what you think. the only people who get listened to on the hill are the big corporations, especially those of the military industrial complex. who cares if it's legal or not. as long as they're sellling the drones and supplying them with ammo, that's all that matters.

I wonder why DHS have purchased 450 million rounds of bullets? shooting rabbits??
ATK Secures .40 Caliber Ammunition Contract with Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS, ICE) - MarketWatch

katsung47 · #55 11th June 2012, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Supreme

America provided the Taliban with proof, although the Taliban didn't accept it.

.

What kind of proof? Please show it to us.

Proof Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11; 3 simple points
blueridge
Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:52
75.109.16.198
1. Usama Bin Laden's absolute, unequivocal, immediate denial in Pakistan press after he was blamed:

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people…
...What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. " --Osama bin Laden interview with Ummat, 28 September 2001

Sources: Ummat, Urdu-language daily newspaper based in Karachi, Pakistan - Friday, 28 September 2001 - pages 1, 7. - Source: BBC Monitoring Service
http://www.public-action.com/911/oblintrv.html
[this writer found it shortly after, along with others, and retained original links to Ummat's article to this day]

2. The government's spurious video evidence, claiming that he "boasted" (while he denied it above):

“It’s bogus,” says Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program.

The video is further examined here:
http://ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/proof-that-bin-laden-had-no-links-with-911-and-the-bin-laden-tape-is-a-hoax-video/

3. The testimony of the FBI:

a) The FBI "Mosted Wanted" terrorist poster on Bin Laden does not show that he is "wanted" for 9/11. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

b) and here is what they have stated:

“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

--Rex Tomb, FBI spokesman, in interview with Muckraker Report
<http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html>
[Muckraker also did a follow up article in further confirmation]

The FBI is well informed of the video (proves Muckraker Report), but, nonetheless, still considers that there is "no hard evidence" to connect Bin Laden with 9/11. Thus again, the video cannot be considered said evidence.

There is therefore no sustainable evidence except politically-convenient allegation and propaganda, to make such a false and spurious claim. This also kills the idea of Al Qaeda which they claim also was connected directly with Bin Laden. The BBC documentary "Power of Nightmares" documents that Al Qaeda was "an invention" of the U.S. government, and that videos of Bin Laden "were faked for the western media", with "militants" called in for the purpose.

Quote, "

SO WHY DOES THE MEDIA, GOVERNMENT, AND OFFICIALS ALL TALK AS IF THIS IS A PROVEN "FACT"? ONLY BECAUSE IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT TO DO SO, TO CONTROL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND FOREIGN POLICY AND THE RESTRUCTURING OF AMERICA'S GOVERNMENT AWAY FROM CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS.

marshlewis · #56 12th June 2012, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Supreme

America provided the Taliban with proof, although the Taliban didn't accept it.

TBH, the US should not have occupied Afghanstan. Overthrow the Taliban is reasonable enough, and then hunting down OBL in the tribal regions of Pakistan would have sufficed. After that, job done, and everyone could go home in the evening for some tea and biscuits.

Well they must have lost said proof since then. No 'proof' was supplied to the taliban or in fact any evidence at all. Nothing was going to stop the war once the decision to go was made.
just remember how often they moved the goal posts for saddam a few years later.