Why isn't there more talk of the smoking gun memo?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Egyptian Islamic Jihad. These are the guys who killed Sadat. In 1993, they were mostly killing tourists in Egypt and a cell in the U.S. attacked the WTC. Ramsey Yusef, the planner of the attack, later joined al Qaeda, but he is not believed to have been a member in 1993.

From Wiki:

Note: Al-Qaeda does not have a habit of taking credit for actions, resulting in a great deal of ambiguity over how many attacks the group has actually conducted. In addition following the U.S. declaration of the War on Terrorism in 2001, the U.S. government has made a great effort to connect as many groups and actions as possible to al-Qaeda, which might result in erroneous attributions.

More about Yusef
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef

The term 'joining' seems like a strange terminology to me. Makes it sound like you get a membership card, a tab at the rotary club and subscription to 'Terrorist Monthly'. The very nature of AQ cells means that its not an organisation with a structure or real hierarchy of command. You can't 'join' per se. Or is it like the masons, and you need to learn the secret handshake before you get to meet the grand pubah Osama?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by oedo
Actually I think this is a good thing. But generally I don't expect that anyone in an internet forum would ever be able to change his point of view. So what happened? There isn't even really new information on the table.

Ted has undergone a serious political soul-searching after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Besides, the obvious has now begun to be broadly acknowledged in the US (that the WMD was an excuse at best, a blatant manipulative lie at worst), and many Americans dislike it.

[Kuciwalker]

Ted's way overdone it, though. There's no particular reason Abu Ghraib should convince him to become an economic lefty.

Imran and I both took a swing to the left during and after the election, but mostly we've just realized that it's not our ideals that are false, but that Bush @ Co don't actually support them.

[Drake Tungsten]

Egyptian Islamic Jihad. These are the guys who killed Sadat. In 1993, they were mostly killing tourists in Egypt and a cell in the U.S. attacked the WTC. Ramsey Yusef, the planner of the attack, later joined al Qaeda, but he is not believed to have been a member in 1993.

Yep. And what was the previous gig of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda's #2 man?

Ayman al-Zawahiri (Arabic: ÇûBEÇáÙæÇåсE (born June 19, 1951) is a prominent member of the al-Qaeda group and formerly the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad paramilitary organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

So, replace "Al Qaeda" with "Al Qaeda and its ideological and real world allies" in my previous post and the point stands.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
what pwns the Bush administration is the example they are setting to other major powers - its okay to lie, to invade, to bomb, to torture or mistreat prisoners.

what are they going to say to China if it takes action against Taiwan or Russia if it attacks a neighbour?

YUP

Do as I say, not as I do, just doesn't work anymore.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So did Clinton in order to invade Yugoslavia.

That's true if you ignore the whole genocide thing.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Ted has undergone a serious political soul-searching after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Besides, the obvious has now begun to be broadly acknowledged in the US (that the WMD was an excuse at best, a blatant manipulative lie at worst), and many Americans dislike it.

That's correct.

Everything I thought my country stood for, has evaporated right in front of my eyes.

We were taught in school that we protected those people who couldn't protect themselves. We were the ones who stood up for the oppressed, the weak.

Now I see countless examples of our country doing the very **** we are supposed to protect people from, to other people.

It's not only unfair to those people who are being hurt, it is destroying the fabric of what the United States is SUPPOSED to be all about. And it's happening right in front of our eyes, but nobody gives a damn.

Look at one of the responses, here, for example. "Oh well, it's just a lie, sh1t happens, I don't see why everyone is so upset about THIS particular lie."


My own economic views have always been more left than people realize, and it has to do more with dealing with impoverished and disadvantaged people more than anything. These poor people are defenseless, and are often blamed for their own situation, being called lazy, or sleazy. Usually the people calling them these things come from a world of privilege, where it's easy to bounce back when you've had a slip-up, or two.

Why the **** should I talk **** about some poor panhandler on the street when Carly from HP gets paid $48 million FOR BEING FIRED. Talk about ****ed up priorities.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So, replace "Al Qaeda" with "Al Qaeda and its ideological and real world allies" in my previous post and the point stands.

What point? That Bush wernt after AQ?

Lets see DRake, in June 2001, if someone had told you "we must invade Afghanistan to remove AQ because of the Cole attack", can you honestly state that you, your family, or the fine people of Nebraska would have approved of such a move?

How many Al Qaeada related questions came up in the 2000 campaign? Anyone care to bring up the campaign statements by Bush about how he was going to take on AQ? I would trully like to see them.

Face reality. Offshore attacks simply would not get the US to invade any state simply in the name of a "war on terrorism". Just look at Reagan and HIzbullah. They blow up a CIA stattion and a Marines Barracks killing 250 Americans plus (before 9/11 the number of Americans killed by AQ in all its attacks was what? Under 50 ) and what does Reagan do? Leaves Lebanon and HIzbullah is now in the Parliment.

Until 9/11 few if any Americans would have named terrorism as one of their top five worries, even after internal terrorism (Oklahoma) and previous large attacks (Lockerbie). To then compare the actions of Clinton without any real political backing (cause the Republicans would NEVER have backed any Clinton lead war, period. They never did) and no popular support vs. any president being handed a mandate after 9/11 is bullcrap.

Add to that, of course, that this discussion is about the Iraq war. If you still think that this war somehow has done anything whatsoever to hurt AQ then you seriously need to have your head examined.

[Drake Tungsten]

Lets see DRake, in June 2001, if someone had told you "we must invade Afghanistan to remove AQ because of the Cole attack", can you honestly state that you, your family, or the fine people of Nebraska would have approved of such a move?

Of course we would have. Nebraskans will fight anybody, anywhere, at any time. We're crazy like that. The fact that they killed American serviceman would have just been icing on the cake.

Nice to see your understanding of America outside of New York city is still as sharp as ever...

[GePap]

I see your transparent bullcrap, especially when you make an assenine point, is as strong as ever Potemkin.

Now run along and don;t clutter this serious dicussion with your rantings, unless you have something adult and coherent to say, and the guts to defend it.

[MrFun]

GePap, it's just that New Yorkers should not have any say in regards to the issue of terrorism. I mean New Yorkers have had no real world experience with ter . . . . .





oh, wait a minute . . . . . .

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by GePap
I see your transparent bullcrap, especially when you make an assenine point, is as strong as ever Potemkin.

Now run along and don;t clutter this serious dicussion with your rantings, unless you have something adult and coherent to say, and the guts to defend it.

Well, I was going to bring up the fact that the Republican controlled Senate supported Clinton's war in Kosovo, but why bother? It's not like you're actually going to listen.

[Ted Striker]

Interesting that people voted for Bush because they believed he would protect them best.

Yet, in the areas hit by the hijackers, they all voted for the other guy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Well, I was going to bring up the fact that the Republican controlled Senate supported Clinton's war in Kosovo, but why bother? It's not like you're actually going to listen.

And the republican controlled house? And right wing radio?


Actually, when I googled "nebraska" and "bombing" I came up with this interesting site, with lists of the people for and against Kosovo:

http://iraqwar.org/list-conservatives.htm

And here is a old slate piece on the sides for and against that:

http://slate.msn.com/id/25358/

And the simple point remains: before 9/11 there was little if any political will in the US to involve US ground troops in any war based solely on the threat of terrorism. How many times from Jan 2001 to Sept. 10 2001 did the press ask people in the Admin. what they were planning to do about AQ? How many times did that amdin. even bring it up?

Anyone remeber the most deadly terrorist attack in the US prior to the Oklahoma City bombing? Anyone here able to know without loooking ti online beforehand? I am actually curious to see. Can you remember what that dastardly attack was Drake?

[Ted Striker]

I want to say the first Trade Center bombing, but I think there was one in between Oklahoma City and that one.

It's a good point, these terrorists attacks were treated as minor, isolated incidents that weren't part of a pattern. People quickly forgot about them.

I didn't even know who Osama was until September 11th, when they mentioned it might be the same guy that did the embassies. And then it clicked, "ohhh THAT guy."