Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 To have a government throw up there arms and say we can't do anthing about them is bullshit.That's what brought up the "harboring terrorists" dilemma, right. How do you get a country to go after internal criminals that are just as likely to bite the hand that feeds them? How about the US put some men in the woods somewhere in the USA who job it is to go after other countries and say to the other countries, we can't do anything about them becuase the might do what Timoth Mcvey did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 It may be "bullshit" for a government to say they can't police the people living within their own borders. However, it may in fact have been true in the case of Afghanistan or, now, Pakistan. These countries have a long history of tribalism, and the governments are relatively weaker than what we have in the US. It would have been perfectly within our right to go into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and destroy the training camps after 911, but that is not what we did. We deliberately let Bin Laden go and took over Kabul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 It may be "bullshit" for a government to say they can't police the people living within their own borders. However, it may in fact have been true in the case of Afghanistan or, now, Pakistan. It would have been perfectly within our right to go into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and destroy the training camps after 911, but that is not what we did. We deliberately let Bin Laden go and took over Kabul. If I remember correctly the Afgan soldiers let Bin Laden go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Right but it's not whether countries are allowed to cop out, but how best to motivate them. I know, let's invade two bordering countries, point nukes at 'em, and try to convince the world that they are evil. Cuz friends is overrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Right but it's not whether countries are allowed to cop out, but how best to motivate them. I know, let's invade two bordering countries, point nukes at 'em, and try to convince the world that they are evil. Cuz friends is overrated. :crazyeye: You can't motivate the nut in Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 If I remember correctly the Afgan soldiers let Bin Laden go. Nope. You remember only partly. Before we went into Afghanistan, we gave Bin Laden two months warning (as in "you have two months to hide or run away"). Then, when we apparently had him surrounded at Tora Bora, we decided to hang back and let the Afghanistani's do the deed (or to decide whether or not they wanted to do it). For whatever reason, capturing or killing Bin Laden WAS NOT a major priority in the American invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Where are you guys getting this crap? Deliberately letting Bin Laden go? Afghan soldiers let Bin Laden go? Do you have access to classified information or something? If so, you boys are going to be in big trouble for posting it on an internet bulletin board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 ChucK: If you want to capture a bad guy, do you tell him two months in advance when you are going to visit his home and try to arrest him? Do you then let his friends and cousins actually perform the arrest? Seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 Where are you guys getting this crap? Deliberately letting Bin Laden go? Afghan soldiers let Bin Laden go? Do you have access to classified information or something? If so, you boys are going to be in big trouble for posting it on an internet bulletin board. The afgan soldier had him at Tora Bora. They let him escape, that is common knowledge. I don't beleive for second we let him go. No where is that common knowledge. Hell they would have love to had got him to parade him around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 You can't motivate the nut in Iran.What purpose does it serve to assume that Iran isn't rational, unless you've already decided to war on them? Surely, we would have tried to understand Iran before concluding that it is not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 ChucK: If you want to capture a bad guy, do you tell him two months in advance when you are going to visit his home and try to arrest him? Do you then let his friends and cousins actually perform the arrest? Seriously. Come on, now you have gone over the edge, michael moore style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 OK then: how do you explain it? Either the planners of "operation lets get him" were incompetent, or they really didn't want to get him. Did they really think he'd just sit there and wait for them to show up? Did they really think they could rely on the Afghani's to turn in Bin Laden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 You can't motivate the nut in Iran.What purpose does it serve to assume that Iran isn't rational, unless you've already decided to war on them? Surely, we would have tried to understand Iran before concluding that it is not possible. Sounds Rational. "After World War II the Jews and Zionists spread a false rumour that Hitler, Austria and Germany had burned more than six mln Jews in the furnaces," said Meshkini, who heads the body that selects and supervises Iran's supreme leader. "In order to look like victims and provide for a suitable situation for themselves in the world they deceived the world into believing this and were recognised by the UN," he continued. Ahmadinejad unleashed a wave of criticism this week when he described the Holocaust as a "myth". The president had previously called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" or moved to Germany or Austria. Meshinki also echoed Ahmadinejad's comment that Israel should be moved out of the Middle East. "Why should innocent Palestinians pay?" he asked. "The President said to the Europeans that since you accepted this (the Holocaust) as the truth why don't you give a piece of land to Jews to form a government in your country." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 OK then: how do you explain it? Either the planners of "operation lets get him" were incompetent, or they really didn't want to get him. They made the mistake to trust the afgan soldiers. That was dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 OK, so the guy is making political hay at home, saying provocative, untrue, and maybe even racist things. Sounds like our president, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 OK, so the guy is making political hay at home, saying provocative, untrue, and maybe even racist things. Sounds like our president, doesn't it? There you go again, comparing that statement to our president. Micheal moore style. Not the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 They made the mistake to trust the afgan soldiers. That was dumb. They made that mistake only because the actual capture was not at the top of their list of priorities. I cannot for a second imagine that anybody in any position of command in the U.S. military would mistakenly rely upon Afghani soldiers to carry out a sensitive mission like that. Did they REALLY think there were no informants, traitors, or terrorist sympathizers in the Afghan army, or insufficient numbers of them that a Bin Laden "escape" was not a risk? Use your brain! And what's up with the two months' heads up? Clearly they were playing a political game with other desired results that were of higher priority than capturing the bad guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 (edited) They made the mistake to trust the afgan soldiers. That was dumb. They made that mistake only because the actual capture was not at the top of their list of priorities. I cannot for a second imagine that anybody in any position of command in the U.S. military would mistakenly rely upon Afghani soldiers to carry out a sensitive mission like that. Did they REALLY think there were no informants, traitors, or terrorist sympathizers in the Afghan army, or insufficient numbers of them that a Bin Laden "escape" was not a risk? Use your brain! And what's up with the two months' heads up? Clearly they were playing a political game with other desired results that were of higher priority than capturing the bad guy. I've seen the documentary on the whole thing on channel nine made by very liberal people. They didn't let him go on purpose. They were stupid. Heck person like you should realize Bush would have loved to parade him around. Edited May 23, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 They have to keep OBL around because he is the perfect boogie man, just like the right would be decimated if they actually outlawed abortion. They would get kudos for a month or two then donations would dry up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 (edited) They have to keep OBL around because he is the perfect boogie man, just like the right would be decimated if they actually outlawed abortion. They would get kudos for a month or two then donations would dry up. Come on, you guys are nuts. Did they keep Saddam around? You guys are such conspiracy freaks. They didn't want to suffer heavy casulties going up into Tora bora with out helicopter support becuase it was too high. They figured it would be better to sacrifice the Afgans and it didn't pay off, some of them were traders and let him escape. Edited May 23, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 It is certainly more plausible that they didn't really want to catch him - given how they went about it. I'm not sure we'll ever know exactly what they were thinking or trying to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 The highest peak in the area is 14,000 feet. map Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 As far as anything touched by the guiding hand of the Bush administration is concerned, if there's a question of incompetence verses successful conspiracy, I'll take door # 1 every time. Put it this way: if you were hiring someone to manage a big, important project, and you had a choice between two candidates: GW and OBL.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 I don't think it would have taken an elaborate conspiracy to decide that catching Bin Laden was less important than, say, ousting the Taliban. Bush and company have been saying they were trying to do one thing when they were actually trying to do another at several junctures here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted May 23, 2007 Share Posted May 23, 2007 The highest peak in the area is 14,000 feet. map You've neglected to include the manner in which the Zionist Cabal secretly secured the release of Bin Laden, cloned him, and are propogating copies of him in a subterranian embryo-farm as part of their plan to manipulate the US into unwittingly furthering their master-plan to seize control of the world, Matt. Tisk, tisk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.