🔒 Locked

War on terror : rude facts

Started by Charles B Oct 23, 2004 at 8:24 PM 98 replies 17.2k views

Original Post

Oct 23, 2004 at 8:24 PM

So the USA are "fighting terror in Iraq" : This is an amazing list of facts, collected by Eric Laurent in the USA, in Afghanistan, and in many other countries. The book comes in France. I hope it will be translated into english soon. (Google around the infos of this post if you want more). Anyone can verify most of the facts reported by Laurent, some very easilly. But of course, it requires more efforts than watching passively O'Reilly or Coulter. I can't tell atm. But if a single of these facts is true, and my opinion is 95% are, then any individual gifted enough to have a brain should question the Bush policies very seriously. - Text in italic is my comments. - Normal text is purely factual, following the claims of Eric Laurent. I consider Laurent as a serious scrutinizer, not a polemist. Unlike Moore, he does not show his opinions he just aligns stupefying facts. So I take these formal precautions to not betray his cautious work. Make your mind, it's up to you ! One can still interpret his own pro Bush way. But personnally, I can't distort my common sense enough to do that. - One of the members (#3) of the american 9/11 commission has been associated with saudians linked to AlQaida in an oil company. Why not choose someone else ? Maybe this explains a little of : - Ousama Bin Laden has not been "legally accused" (correct me if it's not the exact word in american english) for the 9/11 yet !. Bush can bark a heluva lota times "9/11". But the CIA agents would like to be in the legal conditions where they could actually and officially seek Bin Laden ! Ultra EZ to verify - A very important taliban chief has been freed against a caution of 150000$. He's in Pakistan now. When you catch ACTUAL terrorists dont let them go ! That's plain factual. Can any bushist logic explain that ? - Mullah Omar was totally in the hands of the US soldiers (phone tracked by sats). Dixit a US officer who was in mission there (also a book now). Can you believe it ? He got no helicopter to catch him ! He was told none of them was avalaible. Right they were still and unused on the US base ! When you can catch, the #1 of the talibans, catch him ! OR WHAT ? - Bin Laden is in Pakistan, in the tribal zone, as nearly any specialist suspects. Why not ask this "ally" to catch him ? Did not Bush say to everyone : "concealing terrorists is being against US" ? Why not send some of the troops in Irak to catch him ? This ill shaped man and his donkey. Too hard to find, too risky ? Oh yes maybe but then it tells a lot, about Pakistan or about the USA. - The James Bond style lair of Bin Laden in Tora Bora was a complete invention. The caves were not even in the standards of the neandertalians. Why kilotons of bombs then ? Just to be sure not to catch anyone ? Anyway BL was probably far away, riding a horse or a motorcycle. - No inquiry concerning insider trading that occured just before the 9/11 and most certainly also indicate a prevision of the event, has been done. I don't have the personal formation to tell if these potential infringements can be coincidential or not. But I am very stomached that no inquiry has been done. - 3 saudians princes, bankers of AlQaida and 140 other saudians have been escorted out of the USA right after the 9/11. When you have potential terrorists, .... A right arm of Bin Laden has been trapped by US soldiers of arab origin disguised as saudians, in Saudia. Thinking they were saudians, he told the soldiers with confidence : "You understand nothing at all. Call them (these 3 princes), they finance us". A few days later these 3 princes (have been assassinated), they all died in very strange conditions (40 years old cardiac arrest, car crash, last died of thurst in the desert!!!) at the same time. A pakistanese minister also revealed by this member of AlQaida, also died in the same conditions (helicopter crash). - Do you know who owns some of the private firms in the USA that collect informations and provide computer based services to the CIA ? Saudians, and not just any saudians. These are highly suspected, through other firms (gold and diamond mines) they own of collecting money for AlQaida. - No inquiry has been done to find the identity of 5 hijackers who used theft passports. These 5 names you read are not the right ones. - Aknowledged elements of the MOSSAD have been photographed applauding to the collapse of the WTC. They have been demolished by the israelian press when they came back to Israel. Ever heard about them in Fox News ? Anywhere else ? - What about Saddam ? Someone cut his tongue ? Does Rumsfeld fear he tells how he brought him Anthrax under Reagan ?. Does Bush father fears he reveals the ammount of equipment he sold to him just before GW1 ? Now, c'mon Bush supporters, and tell me how the USA lead by G.W. intends to show France and other countries how to fight terrorism for instance. The WMD joke, Hussein & AlQaida joke does not make us laugh since 2002. I frankly hope that Bush will be beaten and hugely. I have nothing against the republicans, but it looks more and more obvious that the GOP and also the US institutions has been hijacked by a bunch of crooks of the worst ilk. Funny, nearly all linked to the oil industry in one way or another. OK let's not submit to the plot theory, maybe they just have to hide some very bad things. Knowing that the grandfather of Bush has been condemned for illegal trading with the nazis during WW2, nothing surprises me. Anyone can verify the archives of this (once) great democracy called the USA. One might also meditate what Eisenhower said publically before he retired : "Beware of the military and industrial lobbies". one link to Laurent's last book ... in french It's a very recent publication. If you want to rely on a better transcript, you'll have to dig with Google by yourself. Not so strange but not so many links in english, some are dead for some reason. Probably a few more in a few days ... after the election ? [Edited by - Charles B on October 24, 2004 6:02:33 AM]

trzy

Oct 23, 2004 at 8:32 PM

Quote:
Original post by Charles B
Now, cm'on Bush supporters, and tell me how the USA lead by G.W. intends to show France and other countries how to fight terrorism for instance.

Bush supporters don't want to show other countries how to do anything, they feel they can go it alone and would rather just blow stuff up abroad rather than face the problem in an intelligent manner.

Charles B

Oct 23, 2004 at 8:52 PM

I know it's sad since the worm seems to be in the Apple. And the worm is not Chirac. Maybe one day he'll be a hero in the States, (though I don't support him in France). The USA are very probably facing more tragedies, that can be avoided. The french specially, and many other countries like the USA, and the americans, but we're loosing grasp and can only mostly spectate the possible incoming disaster.

In fact I think I see the pieces of the puzzle more and more. It's not so much the EVIL Bush against the rest of the world. It's far more complex and subtle, mostly a huge corruption, that has to be covered, an incredibly intricated chain of international and political constraints that can not be revealed without terrible consequences. But this ammount of secrecy lets only room to speculations to see something close to the truth. So it's very hard to demolish such a cabale and propaganda globally, this can only be done partially.

PnP Bios

Oct 23, 2004 at 9:06 PM

Ok, now do something about it.

I'm just thinking, this is stuff everybody already knows, it's been said time and time again. You are preaching to the choir.

And people don't support bush because they think he is a swell guy. They elect him because he is a republican. You elect the party, seldom ever the person. You pick the person who you think has the most electability. Kerry won the nomination because he won the first little primary. That gave him electability. Bush is a war time president, bam, electability.

Thats that.

Charles B

Oct 23, 2004 at 9:13 PM

Of course I understand that very well. Most republicans vote right, most democrats vote left. Nothing uncommon. But I also remember the 511 votes of Florida. So I do something, terrorism concerns the whole world (cf Madrid) unless you are sure that everyone knows : ?

Bin Laden is not legally tracked !!!
A very important taliban chief has been freed against a caution of 150000$

I follow this story quite regularilly. First news for me.

To me, nothing can be done against terrorism as long as the USA act so weirdly. And can you say the next bomb will not be in Paris, London, Berlin ? We're all concerned exactly the same way.

Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Oct 25, 2004 at 9:57 AM

Quote:
Original post by Charles B
Of course I understand that very well. Most republicans vote right, most democrats vote left. Nothing uncommon. But I also remember the 511 votes of Florida. So I do something, terrorism concerns the whole world (cf Madrid) unless you are sure that everyone knows : ?

Bin Laden is not legally tracked !!!
A very important taliban chief has been freed against a caution of 150000$

I follow this story quite regularly. First news for me.

To me, nothing can be done against terrorism as long as the USA act so weirdly. And can you say the next bomb will not be in Paris, London, Berlin ? We're all concerned exactly the same way.

You're concerned in exactly the same way, that doesn't mean that your colleagues are.

Michael Moore(to an adoring crowd)- "There is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...(crowd goes wild)

Your argument now is that the gloves need to be taken off, and no expense spared. I say, "right on", and welcome to the madness.

Etnu

Oct 25, 2004 at 10:03 AM

The problem with the "war on terror" is that you can't fight a "war" on small, non-government organizations.

Fighting terror by starting wars is about on par with fighting inflation by dropping interest rates.

Eelco

Oct 25, 2004 at 10:09 AM

Quote:
Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Michael Moore(to an adoring crowd)- "There is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...(crowd goes wild)

as shocking as it might sound to some people: i think hes quite right about that. terrorists killed 3000 people in the timespan of a deccade or so. how many 'things' can you name that kill humans at rates orders of magnitude higher, which noone gives a damn about? oops.

in reality it IS a storm in a glass of water, but one some people like to magnify to no end because it furthers their cause.

coldacid

Oct 25, 2004 at 10:26 AM

Quote:
Original post by Charles B
But if a single of these facts is true, and my opinion is 95% are, then any individual gifted enough to have a brain should question the Bush policies very seriously.

The problem isn't that the people with brains aren't questioning Bush's policies, it's that they're outnumbered by people without brains.

xg0blin

Oct 25, 2004 at 10:40 AM

Quote:
Original post by coldacid
Quote:
Original post by Charles B
But if a single of these facts is true, and my opinion is 95% are, then any individual gifted enough to have a brain should question the Bush policies very seriously.

The problem isn't that the people with brains aren't questioning Bush's policies, it's that they're outnumbered by people without brains.

I probably would have disagreed with you there if I had not looked at the electoral map and seen the states Bush is carrying vs. the states Kerry is carrying. I'll let you infer your own meaning from that. Let's just say they are the states where the majority of people seem a tad less...erm....sophisticated, one of which I'm cursed to live in.

Charles B

Oct 25, 2004 at 10:43 AM

Quote:
Original post by Dredd
Michael Moore(to an adoring crowd)- "There is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...there is no terrorist threat...(crowd goes wild)

If that's what Moore actually says, then it's another reason for me to disagree with him and his counter productive methods. Once again guys like Laurent just report bare facts and informations. I am not naive or hypocrit to tell he has no intents and does not focus on certain informations though. Still this can be useful food for thoughts, even for a "Bush supporter".

Quote:

Your argument now is that the gloves need to be taken off, and no expense spared. I say, "right on", and welcome to the madness.

My position is clear. I try not to underestimate nor overestimate islamist terrorism. I consider Moore underestimates by scale, what can probably happen next to NY or Madrid. I consider Bush and co underestimate, at least in their communication, the terrorist threat by nature (Cf Etnu). So to me it's the same fault of analysis, from two apparently opposite angles.

It's also for this reason that I bash the original sin of the GW2 Casus Belli. Propagating simplifications such as Saddam==AlQaida, or Saddam has nukes, WMDs and can do 9/11 power 3, was misleading the masses, and more dangerous, misleading the US policies. Cf all the facts reported. Isn't it amazing that Bin Laden is not officially accused for the 9/11 (I mean formally) ? No surprise that if he's in Pakistan, no extradition is asked then.

Else I am not sure of what you mean by colleagues. Pls elaborate. Moore ? french authorities, euro citizens, anti-Bush ? I try to see things like a historian as much as possible, though I am not one. Iraq and 9/11 involve many complex and global issues. But I think I see more and more clearly the true state of the relations between the USA, Saudia, Pakistan and Israel for instance, beyond the sick screens of haze.

The Frugal Gourmet

Oct 25, 2004 at 10:58 AM

Not buying it.

Charles B

Oct 25, 2004 at 11:02 AM

Quote:
Original post by xg0blin
Quote:
Original post by coldacid
Quote:
Original post by Charles B
But if a single of these facts is true, and my opinion is 95% are, then any individual gifted enough to have a brain should question the Bush policies very seriously.

The problem isn't that the people with brains aren't questioning Bush's policies, it's that they're outnumbered by people without brains.

I probably would have disagreed with you there if I had not looked at the electoral map and seen the states Bush is carrying vs. the states Kerry is carrying. I'll let you infer your own meaning from that. Let's just say they are the states where the majority of people seem a tad less...erm....sophisticated, one of which I'm cursed to live in.

Well let's not fall in such a simplistic dichotomy. My reference to brain was conditionned by the truth or aknowledgeability (hmm is that english ?) of truth of the elements I gave. My grandfathers were peasants, lacked of some elements of culture but certainly had a very strong common sense.

My opinion is that the americans "in general" (thus a generalization...) care less of international issues, prefer action to analysis and in front of an overwhelming complexity prefer to rely on their emotions and instinct. But they are able, as anyone else to see when it's clear as cristal. The problem today is that the level of propaganda smog (both sides, Fox News being number one) is so huge, that no information can be taken for granted, so many are left with their instinct ... and it's also true that's what behind the haze screen is also very complex anyway.

But this time I am quite worried that this (intuitive and brute force) attitude can cost too much, even for the always optimistic american way.

Ajare

Oct 25, 2004 at 11:02 AM

Quote:
Original post by PnP Bios
And people don't support bush because they think he is a swell guy. They elect him because he is a republican. You elect the party, seldom ever the person.

To my mind, it's Cheney and Rumsfeld (bar his amazing admission) that are the 'dangerous' ones. I give Rumsfeld lots of credit for admitting there was no evidence of WMD, but Cheney I'm deeply suspicious of. I won't guess at the machinations of the Republican party, but Bush comes across to me merely as a slightly slow frontman.

Charles B

Oct 25, 2004 at 11:09 AM

Quote:
Original post by The Frugal Gourmet
Not buying it.

What ? I was used to more elaborated arguments. Or was it just to confirm my claim that americans rely more on instinct when they face over complicated issues ? ;)

Etnu

Oct 25, 2004 at 11:11 AM

Quote:
Original post by xg0blin
Quote:
Original post by coldacid
Quote:
Original post by Charles B
But if a single of these facts is true, and my opinion is 95% are, then any individual gifted enough to have a brain should question the Bush policies very seriously.

The problem isn't that the people with brains aren't questioning Bush's policies, it's that they're outnumbered by people without brains.

I probably would have disagreed with you there if I had not looked at the electoral map and seen the states Bush is carrying vs. the states Kerry is carrying. I'll let you infer your own meaning from that. Let's just say they are the states where the majority of people seem a tad less...erm....sophisticated, one of which I'm cursed to live in.

Current electoral map

State education rankings

Now, that doesn't really tell the whole story. For example, Phoenix, AZ is by itself ranked among the top 10 cities in the country for education, boasting 5 four year universities and over a dozen community colleges -- but the entire state is ranked an abysmall 48th. Why? Because of the fact that Phoenix only represents about 2/3rds of the state's population, and AZ is about 85% rural area.

Charles B

Oct 25, 2004 at 11:18 AM

Quote:
Original post by Ajare
Quote:
Original post by PnP Bios
And people don't support bush because they think he is a swell guy. They elect him because he is a republican. You elect the party, seldom ever the person.

To my mind, it's Cheney and Rumsfeld (bar his amazing admission) that are the 'dangerous' ones. I give Rumsfeld lots of credit for admitting there was no evidence of WMD, but Cheney I'm deeply suspicious of. I won't guess at the machinations of the Republican party, but Bush comes across to me merely as a slightly slow frontman.

It's possible that Bush has been misleaded in some ways. It's been showed how Cheney totally bypassed the CIA and created the Saddam has Nuke story for his agenda. (Cf the thread about the centrifuge tubes in the Lounge). But I would not underestimate Bush that much, I have heard him speak during the campaign, he's a tricky mind. You have to remember the role of a politician.

Do you know that even the good old Churchill let thousands of english civilians be bombed unalerted, just to protect the secret of Enigma ? This saved much more : the survival of UK against the nazi Germany. The morals of the politicians are quite different, they often have to weight between two great evils. And the public rarely knows. And sometimes this goes too far, specially when the inheritage of compromission and corruption is huge.

MDI

Oct 25, 2004 at 12:06 PM

Quote:
Original post by Etnu
The problem with the "war on terror" is that you can't fight a "war" on small, non-government organizations.

Fighting terror by starting wars is about on par with fighting inflation by dropping interest rates.

Of course you can, the UK has done it plenty of times, both in NI and Malaya. What you can't do is bomb a country into submission, killing hundreds of civilians, and then expect there to be no consequences.

The Frugal Gourmet

Oct 25, 2004 at 12:28 PM

Quote:
Original post by Charles B
What ? I was used to more elaborated arguments. Or was it just to confirm my claim that americans rely more on instinct when they face over complicated issues ? ;)

I'm stating that I'm not really swallowing all your facts. I don't know exactly what "argument" I need to make. I don't see any reason to believe you because you've given no real proof and a highly biased source. End of story.

Binomine

Oct 25, 2004 at 12:35 PM

Quote:
Original post by Eelco
as shocking as it might sound to some people: i think hes quite right about that. terrorists killed 3000 people in the timespan of a decade or so.

??3000??

You do realize that there has been more than 1 terrorist attack in the last decade or so, right? Unless, of course, you define terrorist attack as an attack on the US from an islamic extremist.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.