Posted on 02/13/2017 5:06:59 AM PST by Kaslin
Bookmark! So much great, “winning” info! Gonna use it to ram it down libs’ throats.....
Do you have a reliable link for that? I don’t recall that, except that the Taliban was more likely than not just stalling or being deceptive.
I know you and I won’t agree on this. I appreciate your being largely civil in this discussion.
I don’t want to hijack Kaslin’s thread more than I already have.
Troof. Never forget that this is us against the uniparty, and the uniparty includes all the Bushes, McCain, Romney, Ryan, and Rubio. The uniparty wanted Jeb against Hillary, cause no matter who won, the policies would have been the same on borders, trade and immigration. Rubio was their fall back, and they only went to Cruz when they had no alternative. None of them would have flipped a single blue state.
BTW, Schlicter was pretty late to the Trump party, but got on board when it was him or Hillary.
Oh, i’ll never forget or forgive the RINOs, Richard (are you still in hiding?). I figure it’s Trump and we-the-people against everyone else.
You are exactly right!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Thanks for those links, thoughtomator. I don’t see them the same way you do, I guess.
To me, this is the offer by the Taliban after several weeks of intensive bombing by the US to either try him in an islamic court or turn him over to some third country (who wouldn’t care what we think) in order to stop the bombing campaign, nothing more, IMO. I don’t see where either of those options would be palatable or acceptable to any American. I certainly wouldn’t have bit on it.
I just don’t see anything in those efforts that could be construed as acceptable.
The enemy is redoubling his efforts.
They are reorganizing. If there is one thing the Left knows how to do, it’s organize.
When you consider that 16 years later, we still lack public domain proof that Osama bin Laden was the organizer of the attacks, and that the Bush admin deliberately covered up Saudi intelligence involvement (the infamous “28 pages”), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Iraq was the second war, not the first, that GWB lied in order to get the US involved in.
This is Bin Laden in his own words from a video he distributed:
"...It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.
It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.
But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah..."
In my opinion, he had more reasons to deny it than to claim credit for it, yet he chose to claim credit. Those are his words in his video he released to Al Jazeera. And he isn't some kind of flunky they picke out of a hat to be a fall guy. He was involved with multiple acts of violence against America.
For me, thinking Bin Laden didn't do it doesn't move a needle at all.
That’s not a claim of credit - it’s simply praise for the people who pulled it off - and he did in fact deny involvement.
Seriously, try to prove OBL was involved - don’t rely on your biases, and don’t rely on single-sourced points from interested parties. You’ll find it amazingly difficult to do.
"...And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice. It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him..."
Those highlighted and underlined areas of his own words indicates foreknowledge, discussion, and planning to me, of which he was a part.
And those are his words, not a transcript from a conversation by someone typing shorthand, but from a video where he spoke those words, heard and seen by millions of arabic speaking viewers, many of whom had no reason to mis-translate what he said.
Sure, he may have denied it in the days following 9/11, but why give your enemies any information, especially if you may have other things planned?
I think you can say there were people in the Saudi government somewhere who were in cahoots with him if you can provide proof, but I don’t think you can reasonably say he didn’t have a major role (if not THE major role) when he explicitly talks about planning it.
Here’s OBL in an interview six days after 9/11:
“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. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”
There is zero speculation involved here - it’s a flat-out denial, and it’s in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
You don’t have to read into a single thing here. You don’t have to guess what he means.
This quote is six days afterwards, not three years of war and a manhunt specifically aimed at him afterwards.
It is here I will point out that the quote you raised is from 2004. But we didn’t invade Afghanistan in 2004, we invaded at the start of 2002.
So what evidence is there, that was available at the time the decision was made to invade Afghanistan, that OBL directed 9/11?
Keep looking - if it exists, you definitely haven’t found it yet and aren’t close.
That pretty much says it all for me.
Look, I am okay not agreeing with you on this. I'm not going to convince you, so I don't want to waste your time and mine as well.
I respect your points of view, as I have read your posts over the years and I generally follow you. I will disagree with you on this. Thanks for keeping it civil.
Freegards, thoughtomator.
Absolutely! It's why you won't hear them referring to themselves as "Liberals"...they are PROGRESSIVES! now. Hey, everyone wants there to be progress, right? We have to take back that word applied only to Liberals and show how Conservatives are the truly progressive people for our country.
The word "progressive" can mean: continuing · continuous · increasing · growing · developing · ongoing · accelerating · escalating · gradual · step-by-step · cumulative
Used to denote a person: innovator · reformer · reformist · liberal · libertarian (Oxford Dictionary)
It's funny, the Oxford Dictionary where I got these from expands on the term:
synonyms: modern · liberal · advanced · forward-thinking · enlightened · enterprising · innovative · pioneering · dynamic · bold · avant-garde · reforming · reformist · radical · go-ahead
antonyms: conservative · reactionary
We need to show how Conservatism is NOT the opposite of Progressive but an outlook that has the truly more advanced, enlightened, bold and reforming principles which provides the best way to make America great again. We know that is true because it works - it has always worked, it's right and it honors God.
I’m quoting Gen. George S. Patton:
“You magnificent bastard! I READ YOUR BOOK!!”
One of the first rules of combat is to know your enemy.
For sure.....you got that right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.