U.S. Government KNOWINGLY let Mutallab board Detroit flight

[Michael Tee]

Yeah, so only SOME of the children are "innocent."  There's gotta be an age below which they're not considered reliable informants, even by the FBI.

[Plane]

Yeah, so only SOME of the children are "innocent."  There's gotta be an age below which they're not considered reliable informants, even by the FBI.

How did we avoid this problem during WWII?

Did we evacuate the children of Hiroshima or Dresden before we burned the city?

Al Queda chooses the location of the fight , they bear 100% of the responsibility , after all ,they have the choice of simply stopping , we don't have that choice.

[BSB]

"In the Baghdad marketplace, for example, the problem is the American occupation,...solution.....the Resistance...."

Ah huh, the real problem concerning the bombs in the markets of Baghdad was Al Qaeda's need to foster chaos and and civil war because those are the waters they, Al Qaeda, swim in.

Note what's happening in all the places that Al Qaeda has had a prolonged presence. Chaos and civil war. They need it to get a foothold and they need to keep it going to continue having a foothold.

[Michael Tee]

<<How did we avoid this problem during WWII?

<<Did we evacuate the children of Hiroshima or Dresden before we burned the city?>>

No, I think we considered the heinousness of the enemy, the general support they and their crimes received from the local population, the relative absence of any real Resistance movements in the population, the atrocities inflicted by them, the threats posed by their still-formidable military if the conflict were to continue and them just decided, Fuck 'em, they don't deserve to live anyway.

<<Al Queda chooses the location of the fight , they bear 100% of the responsibility , after all ,they have the choice of simply stopping , we don't have that choice.>>

You could say that of any enemy - - they can simply stop resisting.  OTOH the U.S.A. can stop enabling the dispossession of the Palestinians and the ongoing theft of their land, etc.  

al Qaeda lives in the shadows, it still doesn't justify your bombing of defenceless villages.  If you don't have the balls to go in after them on the ground, don't sacrifice the lives of innocent children to your own cowardice.

[Michael Tee]

<<Note what's happening in all the places that Al Qaeda has had a prolonged presence. Chaos and civil war. They need it to get a foothold and they need to keep it going to continue having a foothold.>>

You got it all wrong.  Saddam had brought stability and order to Iraq.  The U.S. invasion brought chaos and civil war.  Al Qaeda, which was firmly suppressed by Saddam, got its foothold only AFTER the American invasion brought down Saddam.

[Plane]

So you like the Bush methods better than the Clinton methods?


I think it is a matter of patience, when our patience fades we are apt to use wholesale methods.

[BSB]

Of course we brought out the chaos and civil war in Iraq. It was always there, we just brought it out. Sooner or laer it would have happened anyway. However it was the chaos and civil war that brought Al Qaeda to Iraq. And it was Al Qaeda's need to foster it that led to te use of bombs in the markets of Baghdad. 

[Michael Tee]

<<So you like the Bush methods better than the Clinton methods?>>

What does that mean?


<<I think it is a matter of patience, when our patience fades we are apt to use wholesale methods.>>

Exactly.   Just like al Qaeda.  They got impatient with all your bullshit and when their patience ran out . . .  Ka-BOOM!!!  So you guys aren't so different after all.  The U.S. can just make bigger explosions.  And - - inexplicably - - hold higher moral pretensions.

[BT]

<<So you like the Bush methods better than the Clinton methods?>>

What does that mean?

Bush put boots on the ground.

[Plane]

<<So you like the Bush methods better than the Clinton methods?>>

What does that mean?


<<I think it is a matter of patience, when our patience fades we are apt to use wholesale methods.>>

Exactly.   Just like al Qaeda.  They got impatient with all your bullshit and when their patience ran out . . .  Ka-BOOM!!!  So you guys aren't so different after all.  The U.S. can just make bigger explosions.  And - - inexplicably - - hold higher moral pretensions.

Bush was more likely to use infantry units close in and risky , this does produce better controll of colateral damage , but nothing eliminates it.

Clinton went to war without exposeing Americans to much enemy fire , one of our Pilots was shot down in Bosnia , that was about as good a rate of casualty as you could expect in any war. I see that both philosophys of attack have virtues , in Clintons style of fighting we could sustain an attack absolutely eternally.


I note that robotic attack aircraft are being used more and are being built more , the Obama style of attack might be something really new , something even easyer to sustain and more out of sight than the Clinton style was.


You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day , but if we can stand a bit more collateral damage we don't need to put up with the loss.

[Michael Tee]

What complete and utter nonsense.

<<Of course we brought out the chaos and civil war in Iraq. >>

<<It was always there, we just brought it out. >>

Well, actually "chaos" and "civil war" are conditions that are objectively verifiable.  There is either chaos or there is order.  There is either civil war or there is not.  Under most of Saddam's rule, there was no chaos, and there was no civil war.  It's just a total perversion of reality to claim something was "always there" when in fact it was not.   It's a ridiculous semantics-based argument akin to arguing that the grenade was always exploding, and pulling the pin "just brought it out."  One's as stupid a thing to say as the other.

"Sooner or laer it would have happened anyway."

Kinda like the murderer speaking of the death of his victim - - "Sooner or later it would have happened anyway."  Now that's one helluva defence.

<<However it was the chaos and civil war that brought Al Qaeda to Iraq. >>

We're just going back to Square One here - - it was the American invasion that brought the chaos and civil war that brought al Qaeda to Iraq.

<<And it was Al Qaeda's need to foster it that led to te use of bombs in the markets of Baghdad. >>

Well, that's not just al Qaeda, it was also the strategy of the Sunni resistance in Iraq as well.  And now it's picking up again, to counter Shi'ite gains made in the ethnic cleansing of the city.  Maliki's too fucking dumb and the Shi'ites are too divided to beat the Sunni resistance and the U.S. is caught in a real bind - - if it goes, the Iranians will replace them.  If they don't want the Iranians in, they have to stay themselves.  The market bombings are just a flexing of Sunni muscle.  OTOH, it's hard to see how the Sunni can re-establish their dominance over the nation without the Party.  Things are really fucked up now.

[Michael Tee]

<<Bush was more likely to use infantry units close in and risky , this does produce better controll of colateral damage , but nothing eliminates it.>>

Thanks.  I don't know if those are "Bush" or "Clinton" styles or just the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs in accordance with the exigencies of the particular situations.

I don't favour either one.  Sometimes heavy bombing is the only way to go, as in WWII bombing of Nazi Germany, and sometimes you need to spare civilian casualties and it's better to go in mano-a-mano.   I favour or disfavour according to the case at hand.

<<I note that robotic attack aircraft are being used more and are being built more , the Obama style of attack might be something really new , something even easyer to sustain and more out of sight than the Clinton style was.>>

Yeah, but I wonder how much you'll still favour them when your enemies learn how to use them against your own cities and towns.

<<You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day . . . >>

Nope, if anything, I'm nostalgic for the early days of the United Nations, when it was envisaged that countries would not go to war against one another without actual provocation.

[Plane]

Well, actually "chaos" and "civil war" are conditions that are objectively verifiable.  There is either chaos or there is order.  There is either civil war or there is not.  Under most of Saddam's rule, there was no chaos, and there was no civil war.  It's just a total perversion of reality to claim something was "always there" when in fact it was not.   It's a ridiculous semantics-based argument akin to arguing that the grenade was always exploding, and pulling the pin "just brought it out."  One's as stupid a thing to say as the other.

The Shah of Iran was simularly orderly , but his holding on the lid caused a build up of pressure .

The potential energy of a grenade is indeed apt , if you mean a grenade that is missing its pin already , only a firm grip keeps the thing calm.

[Plane]

Thanks.  I don't know if those are "Bush" or "Clinton" styles or just the recommendations of the Joint Chiefs in accordance with the exigencies of the particular situations.

It is the President that is commander in cheif , the joint cheifs are his appointees.

Yeah, but I wonder how much you'll still favour them when your enemies learn how to use them against your own cities and towns.

The Al Queda version of a smart bomb is Mohammed Atta , we don't like it .

<<You may be nostalgic for the Bush style in which an American or two actually gets shot every day . . . >>

Nope, if anything, I'm nostalgic for the early days of the United Nations, when it was envisaged that countries would not go to war against one another without actual provocation.

When was this gilded age?

[BSB]

"Well, actually "chaos" and ...........................................................................................One's as stupid a thing to say as the other."


Ha ha...........what a bunch of crap.

If I were you I would be deeply embarrassed to admit that I had such a limited view of the world as you admit to here. It's embarrassing enough just to read it. It's almost criminal in its ignorance.

Saddam Hussein lived in constant fear of being killed, overthrown, deposed, use what ever term you chose, by his own people. He ruled with an iron fist because Iraq was constantly on the verge of chaos and civil war. You can't oppress the majority for decades the way Saddam Hussein did and not have an irruption at some point.  Of course Iraq was ready to irrupt when we went in and created a power vacuum. And of course an irruption is exactly what happened. And of course Al Qaeda's goal was to take advantage of it. Al Qaeda doesn't operate anywhere that doesn't meet its prescription for survival. Chaos and civil war. 

You're the most dishonest poster I've ever run across on the net, bin Snowblower. I repeat, you're a fool, and a joke. Get an education and stop wasting our time.