“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Friday, September 24, 2010

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 9/11 rant sparks US walkout from UN


Can we get a list of those applauding?

____________________

Applause for Ahmadinejad
September 23, 2010 - 5:39 PM | by: Eric Shawn Liveshots

He was greeted by applause when he walked into the United Nations General Assembly, and applauded again, even after questioning 9/11 and claiming that the American government may have been behind the attack.

That’s right, applauded after questioning the motivation for the terrorist attacks, who was responsible for them, and essentially suggesting they were a U.S. plot.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made a variety of claims over the years during his appearances here, but he never has gone this far when talking about 9/11.

During his General Assembly address, the Iranian President called for a “U.N. fact finding group” to investigate 9/11.

He also said that ”the majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world” believe that “some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining of the American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime.”

Before his speech, the Obama administration must have had high hopes that Ahmadinejad would have listened to the offers of diplomacy as presented by the administration and its allies on the Security Council. Members of the U.S. delegation remained in their seats. In years past, only what is called a “low-level note taker” has often been posted behind the little plastic “United States” sign, when Ahmadinejad took the stage.

On Tuesday, when Ahmadinejad spoke during the global summit on poverty, the American delegation remained even as he predicted the defeat of capitalism.

But true to form, he quickly went over the line with his 9/11 remarks and that prompted the U.S. diplomats, and others, to get up and walk out.

“ It’s outrageous,” said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. “a short distance from here, nine years ago, three-thousand people were killed in an attack perpetrated by nineteen people, and an attack that was orchestrated by Al Qaeda. We know exactly who did it, they’ve admitted it, the facts are not in dispute, so for the President of Iran to come here and make the suggestion that somehow this was an American plot, is simply outrageous.”

But as Ahmadinejad walked from the podium, he did so rewarded by applause in the august chamber of the world body.



Read more: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/23/applause-for-ahmadinejad/#ixzz10QoDEcWx


75 comments:

  1. Oops, it's 4:00. Almost time to run down and fill them cars up with Gazzoline.

    Hurry, now; don't be late. The Muzzies need your money.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Advocates of conspiracy will always find cause, when things do not behave as normal.

    When buildings burn and collapse. Then the evidence is subsequently destroyed before the investigation is complete.

    The Reichstag Fire exemplifies the application of the technique.

    "Nero's Fire" in Rome is another example of a disaster being exploited for practical and political purposes. Nero building a palace upon the ashes, while his enemies blamed him for the fire.

    The Emperor accuses domestic or foreign devils, while the conspiracy theorists lay fault with evil doers within the government.

    The disaster is then used by propagandists on both sides of the political divide to justify actions that are disconnected to that disaster.

    While the actual conspirators, the folks that did the deed, are never caught, prosecuted or even attacked in revenge.

    In fact they are seemingly paid off, as exampled by Pakistan's receiving $10 billion USD, subsequent of the attack on the WTC by their proxy forces.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In Nero's case, the Christians were blamed by the government.

    In the Reichstag Fire, communists were accused.

    The WTC and Pentagon attacks, Iraq bore the brunt of the retaliation.

    In Rome and Germany examples, who knows what the truth may really be, but in regards the events of 11SEP2001, Iraq had no standing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. After 9/11, the scat hit the fan and Iraq was on the opposite side. Too bad for them that Saddam had been such an evil ass.

    Why would anyone want to carry his water today?

    ReplyDelete
  5. And when and if it hits the fan over Iran, too bad for the Iranian people that the Mullahs were their leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Saddam was a bad actor, whit.
    No one argues that.

    Without the events of 11SEP2001 there'd have been no US invasion of Iraq. That's a fact, despite Saddam being a bad actor.

    He was the greatest threat to the Sauds, he was removed after a trusted Saudi agents perpetrated an attack on the US.

    Iran is now the greatest threat to the Sauds, and they are being demonized.
    Neither Saddam nor Iran were complicit in 11SEP2001.
    The Saudis were.
    The Pakistani were.
    Those are both incontrovertible truths.

    Both those countries have profited from the raid in US, in 2001.
    Those that had no part in the conspiracy have taken the brunt of the military retaliation and current propaganda attacks.

    For reasons not connected to the events of 11SEP2001.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The only point of real discussion, were some US government officials actively complicent in the conspiracy or did it become a
    "Crisis to Good to Waste"?

    I think the latter.

    But it is easy to see how those targeted by the subsequent actions of the United States could argue otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. How in December of 2001 a Ranger Bn of 800 troops to capture or kill Osama would have been "to big a footprint" in Afpakistan.

    While in 2010 it is claimed by US Generals that 130,000 troops is not enough.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Progress is our most important product.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Of all the criticisms from the left wrt the war on terror, one of the most accurate, and by far one of the most important, was that Iraq sapped resources and attention from Afpakistan.

    Yon chronicled what was happening and what would be the result, the pols and many professional military ignored his warnings.

    Trish maintains there wasn't that much to do, 'Rat and I called out the targets in 2005.

    Left unmolested at the time, they have metastisized into the disaster that is present day Pakistan.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just as the firebombings and nukes on Japanese civilians saved lives on both sides in the final analysis, so would have carpet bombing of the areas around the Taliban training operations in Waziristan.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Michael Yon has been invited to embed again by both Great Britain and the US.Michael Yon isn’t a correspondent who sparks a neutral reaction in the reader. You either love him or you don’t. There’s not much of an in-between.

    In April Yon’s embed in Afghanistan ended abruptly. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, was in charge and some of Yon’s fans blamed the general. The official reason given was “overcrowding by journalists.”

    In a dispatch announcing the change, Yon wrote, “Haven’t seen a journalist in weeks.”

    In the preceding month, Yon had pulled no punches in his dispatches, criticizing Canadian Brig. Gen. Daniel Ménard who commanded Task Force Kandahar. Yon took some heat for that one too, until the truth came out.

    A court martial found Menard guilty of accidentally firing a weapon while preparing to board a military helicopter in Kandahar—the shot allegedly came close to hitting Canada’s chief of defense as well as military vehicles. Then a female Canadian soldier confessed to having an inappropriate relationship with Ménard. The rest is history.

    Yon said in an email: “Insofar as Menard, that guy allowed Tarnak River Bridge to be blown up. Lost Ian Gelig. Halted many operations for DAYS. Lied about it. ND'd with his rifle. Lied about it. Affair with enlisted subordinate...

    Michael Yon has been invited to embed again

    ---

    Published in the Daily Telegraph at telegraph.co.uk
    Published on June 24th, 2010
    By Toby Harnden

    Well, I wouldn’t cross Michael Yon, the intrepid independent war reporter and photographer who has covered the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with distinction and dogged intensity. For weeks, he was fulimating about two men – Brigadier-General Daniel Menard of the Canadian Army and General Stanley McChrystal.

    Then, two things happened. First, Menard was fired. Then, McChrystal was fired.

    True, neither was dismissed for reasons directly related to Yon’s reporting – though Menard’s negligent discharge of his rifle at Kandahar can hardly have helped any case he had for staying and McChrystal’s chances of remaining in post might have been greater had his Afghan war strategy not been facing excoriating criticism from the likes of Yon.

    But it might be wise for generals to keep on the right side of Yon, who was disembedded by McChrystal’s staff, in the future. Perhaps fortunately for him (though it’s no accident – he assiduously cultivates media opinion shapers), General David Petraeus has an excellent relationship with Yon.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Michael Yon has been invited to embed again by both Great Britain and the US.Michael Yon isn’t a correspondent who sparks a neutral reaction in the reader. You either love him or you don’t. There’s not much of an in-between.

    In April Yon’s embed in Afghanistan ended abruptly. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, was in charge and some of Yon’s fans blamed the general. The official reason given was “overcrowding by journalists.”

    In a dispatch announcing the change, Yon wrote, “Haven’t seen a journalist in weeks.”

    In the preceding month, Yon had pulled no punches in his dispatches, criticizing Canadian Brig. Gen. Daniel Ménard who commanded Task Force Kandahar. Yon took some heat for that one too, until the truth came out.

    A court martial found Menard guilty of accidentally firing a weapon while preparing to board a military helicopter in Kandahar—the shot allegedly came close to hitting Canada’s chief of defense as well as military vehicles. Then a female Canadian soldier confessed to having an inappropriate relationship with Ménard. The rest is history.

    Yon said in an email: “Insofar as Menard, that guy allowed Tarnak River Bridge to be blown up. Lost Ian Gelig. Halted many operations for DAYS. Lied about it. ND'd with his rifle. Lied about it. Affair with enlisted subordinate...

    Michael Yon has been invited to embed again

    ---

    Published in the Daily Telegraph at telegraph.co.uk
    Published on June 24th, 2010
    By Toby Harnden

    Well, I wouldn’t cross Michael Yon, the intrepid independent war reporter and photographer who has covered the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with distinction and dogged intensity. For weeks, he was fulimating about two men – Brigadier-General Daniel Menard of the Canadian Army and General Stanley McChrystal.

    Then, two things happened. First, Menard was fired. Then, McChrystal was fired.

    True, neither was dismissed for reasons directly related to Yon’s reporting – though Menard’s negligent discharge of his rifle at Kandahar can hardly have helped any case he had for staying and McChrystal’s chances of remaining in post might have been greater had his Afghan war strategy not been facing excoriating criticism from the likes of Yon.

    But it might be wise for generals to keep on the right side of Yon, who was disembedded by McChrystal’s staff, in the future. Perhaps fortunately for him (though it’s no accident – he assiduously cultivates media opinion shapers), General David Petraeus has an excellent relationship with Yon.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Blogger is screwing up big time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Keeps eating my post after double posting it.
    When I deleted one, both disappeared.

    Try Try Again.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Michael Yon has been invited to embed again by both Great Britain and the US.Michael Yon isn’t a correspondent who sparks a neutral reaction in the reader. You either love him or you don’t. There’s not much of an in-between.

    In April Yon’s embed in Afghanistan ended abruptly. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, was in charge and some of Yon’s fans blamed the general. The official reason given was “overcrowding by journalists.”

    In a dispatch announcing the change, Yon wrote, “Haven’t seen a journalist in weeks.”

    In the preceding month, Yon had pulled no punches in his dispatches, criticizing Canadian Brig. Gen. Daniel Ménard who commanded Task Force Kandahar. Yon took some heat for that one too, until the truth came out.

    A court martial found Menard guilty of accidentally firing a weapon while preparing to board a military helicopter in Kandahar—the shot allegedly came close to hitting Canada’s chief of defense as well as military vehicles. Then a female Canadian soldier confessed to having an inappropriate relationship with Ménard. The rest is history.

    Yon said in an email: “Insofar as Menard, that guy allowed Tarnak River Bridge to be blown up. Lost Ian Gelig. Halted many operations for DAYS. Lied about it. ND'd with his rifle. Lied about it. Affair with enlisted subordinate...

    ---

    Published in the Daily Telegraph at telegraph.co.uk
    Published on June 24th, 2010
    By Toby Harnden

    Well, I wouldn’t cross Michael Yon, the intrepid independent war reporter and photographer who has covered the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with distinction and dogged intensity. For weeks, he was fulimating about two men – Brigadier-General Daniel Menard of the Canadian Army and General Stanley McChrystal.

    Then, two things happened. First, Menard was fired. Then, McChrystal was fired.

    True, neither was dismissed for reasons directly related to Yon’s reporting – though Menard’s negligent discharge of his rifle at Kandahar can hardly have helped any case he had for staying and McChrystal’s chances of remaining in post might have been greater had his Afghan war strategy not been facing excoriating criticism from the likes of Yon.

    But it might be wise for generals to keep on the right side of Yon, who was disembedded by McChrystal’s staff, in the future. Perhaps fortunately for him (though it’s no accident – he assiduously cultivates media opinion shapers), General David Petraeus has an excellent relationship with Yon.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected.

    Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan.
    The vast array of American military power, from sniper
    teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines.


    Instead, the U.S. command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack bin Laden and on Pakistan’s loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes. On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.


    UNITED STATES SENATE,
    COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
    Washington, DC, November 30, 2009

    ReplyDelete
  20. In retrospect, a conspiracy to prolong the "war" or incompetence and ineptitude, on the part of Mr Rumsfeld and General Franks.

    The failure at Tora Bora allowed the Federal Government to expand the "War on Terror" into Iraq and spend a trillion dollars of borrowed Chinese money.

    Pouring concrete and building "empires in the sand" across Iraq, for the "Warrior Princes", the pampered and permanent officer corps of the US military.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Blogger ate this one, with the link to the US Senate report this is cut and pasted from, which was to set up the next post, concerning the conspiracy or incompetence of the governing elites of the day.

    Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected.

    Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan.
    The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines.


    Instead, the U.S. command chose
    to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack bin Laden and on Pakistan’s loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal
    his escape routes. On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked
    unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bin Laden expected to die...

    But the Al Qaeda leader would live to fight another day. Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan. The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines. Instead, the U.S. command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack bin Laden and on Pakistan’s loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes. On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan’s unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

    The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency. Reversing the recent American military orthodoxy known as the Powell doctrine, the Afghan model emphasized minimizing the U.S. presence by relying on small, highly mobile teams of special operations troops and CIA paramilitary operatives working with the Afghan opposition. Even when his own commanders and senior intelligence officials in Afghanistan and Washington argued for dispatching more U.S. troops, Franks refused to deviate from the plan.

    There were enough U.S. troops in or near Afghanistan to execute the classic sweep-and-block maneuver required to attack bin Laden and try to prevent his escape. It would have been a dangerous fight across treacherous terrain, and the injection of more U.S. troops and the resulting casualties would have contradicted the risk-averse, “light footprint” model formulated by Rumsfeld and Franks. But commanders on the scene and elsewhere in Afghanistan argued that the risks were worth the reward.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The Invisible Man

    To this day he remains mystified by the Americans. “It would have been easy to get Bin Laden there,” he says. “I don’t know why there was no plan to block the passes. And why weren’t there more Americans? Believe me, there were more journalists than soldiers.”

    Mike Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden unit from 1996 to ’99, then was its special adviser from 2001 to November 2004, probably knows more about Bin Laden than any other westerner alive. He was on the receiving end in Washington of many of the cables from Tora Bora. “If you don’t do something when you have the chance, sometimes it doesn’t come back.”

    By the time of Tora Bora, Scheuer says, the US had already squandered 10 different opportunities to get their man (eight with cruise missiles, two using CIA assets) back in 1998 and ’99.

    Clinton had signed a secret directive in 1998 authorising the CIA to kill Bin Laden after Al-Qaeda bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But when it came to it, says Scheuer, he didn’t have the resolve. “He was worried about European opinion. He didn’t want to shoot and miss and have to explain a lot of innocent deaths. Yet the very same day we turned down one opportunity to kill Bin Laden, our planes were dropping thousands of bombs on the Serbs.”

    On one occasion in 1999, they had live video pictures of Bin Laden from a Predator spy plane. “But the drone wasn’t armed because the fools in Washington were arguing over which agency should fund the $2m installation of the Hellfire missile. It’s a very upsetting business.

    “I got into a slanging match with Clinton on TV because he claimed that he never turned down the opportunity to kill Bin Laden. That’s a very clear lie, and we’re all paying the price.

    “Similarly, at Tora Bora our generals didn’t want to lose a lot of soldiers going after him. They had seen what had happened to the Russians, who lost 15,000 men in Afghanistan. So it was easier to subcontract to Afghans.”

    We now know from the American journalist Bob Woodward’s book Plan of Attack that there was another reason for Washington’s reluctance to commit troops on the ground. As early as November 21, 2001, while the Taliban were still in southern Afghanistan and Bin Laden’s men were massing at Tora Bora, Bush took Rumsfeld aside after a national-security meeting and asked: “What kind of a war plan do you have for Iraq?”

    According to Woodward, when Gen Tommy Franks got the top-secret message asking for an Iraq war plan within a week, he was incredulous. “ ‘They were in the midst of one war in Afghanistan, and now they wanted detailed planning for another? Goddamn,’ Franks said, ‘what the f*** are they talking about?’ ”

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. That time it triple posted!
    Dare I delete one?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Why the outrage of what Ahmadman said? After all,some of our own countrymen have suggested similar and worse conspiracies.

    Did we expect him to take the podium and compliment all things U.S.?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bill Clinton coveted his place in history. It adversely affected his judgment. Ironically much of his future place will depend on the performance of the Obama administration. Maybe not so ironic. And that rather well funded foundation of his has how many billions from the Saudi Kingdom?

    ReplyDelete
  29. A crisis to good to miss.

    The invasion and subjugation of Iraq needed an excuse, the Saudi Princes and their Pakistani hired thugs gave US one.

    Mr Bush took the bait, and did the victory dance in Saudi Arabia. Shoulder to shoulder with the Saudi Prince, sword at the ready!

    One could argue Mr Bush was just a frat boy, in over his head, or think he was a fully empowered Skull and Boner working their deal, as planned.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Incompetent or corrupt, spending a trillion dollars he did not have, on an occupation that was not needed.

    When he stood in front of that "Mission Accomplished" banner, it had been. Saddam was deposed, the threat eliminated.

    That he choose to remain in Iraq, building sand castles, the turning point of the campaign.

    When the "War on Terror" was lost.

    Osama's strategic plan to bleed US dry, accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I Guess You Had To Be There

    The Barack Obama Celebrity Roast

    [snip]

    With Pyongyang funnyman Kim Jong-Il! Borscht Belt headliner Vlady Putin! Queen of Mean Liz Windsor! Saudi Sheik of Schtick King Abdullah! Beijing jokeslinger Hu Jintao! Wacky al Qaeda Caveman Ayman al-Zawahiri! Nick 'the Knife' Sarkozy! Sassy Wanda Sykes! South-of-the-border slapstick team Hugo Chavez and the Castro Brothers! Taliban Madman Mullah Omar! Jon Stewart! Lovable Libyan lush Muammar al-Ghadaffi! Grovelin' Guvner Gordy Brown! Bashar "The Chin" al-Assad! The Hamas Fattah Dancers! And starring your Master of Ceremonies -- that suntan man with a plan from Iran -- that Persian with a nuclear perversion -- Sheckyyyyyy Ahmedinejad!

    [h/t Josh@BC]

    ReplyDelete

  32. Democracy will have to wait, US tells Iraq


    By William Booth in Samarra and Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Baghdad
    June 30 2003


    United States military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, instead installing their own hand-picked mayors and administrators, many of them former Iraqi military leaders.

    The decision to deny Iraqis a direct role in selecting municipal governments is creating anger and resentment among aspiring leaders and ordinary citizens, who say the US-led occupation forces are not keeping their promise to bring greater freedom and democracy to a country dominated for by Saddam Hussein for 30 years.


    The turning point, when we denied the Iraqi to speak for themselves on a local level.
    Installing proxies, instead.

    The day we ignited the Iraqi insurgency.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Osama's strategic plan to bleed US dry, accomplished.

    It's much worse than that. The original plan was to disrupt the financial hub of the world and effectively shut down this country.

    That didn't happen. Instead we dithered to death in what must have been viewed as nothing short of a comical farce by bin Laden and his people.

    It almost reminds me of the scenes from the old Airplane comedy when the young pilot is obsessing over his lost love affair with Julie Newmar in long banal outpourings of personal grief while his seat mates commit ritual suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The Cleaning Lady delves into fantasy humor, when the reality of what we've done is so much less than comical.

    While Mr Bush was dancing the victory two-step with the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia. To the cheers of the "conservatives" here at home.

    Now we are selling those same Saudis $40 or $60 billion worth of attack helicopters and such.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Their plan was for a fly paper war in Afpakistan, to bleed US like the Soviets had been bled.

    Instead of one quagmire, we bogged down in two.

    Osama accomplished his mission, and got away.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Tbe dirty little secret om this thread is Rat's conspiracy mongering himself. He argued Building Three coming down pointed to a conspiracy. And look how he talks about the Jews. Everything is a conspiracy to Rat.

    ReplyDelete
  37. COMING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU:

    Another Gift from China:

    Smelly, pesky bugs known as stink bugs have been swarming the Washington, D.C. area -- and when you try to kill them, they just smell worse.

    "When you try to kill them, before death, they stink," said Michael Raupp, an entomology professor at the University of Maryland. "They want to find a place to chill out for the winter. They're not coming in for warmth, they're coming in for refuge.

    "They'll invade your attack and come in for the winter time. But on a nice warm day in February, they're going to say, 'Oh, spring,' and come down and be all over your windows and your baseboards and things like that."

    ReplyDelete
  38. As Osama himself told the whirled, in 1996:

    We have been pursued in Pakistan, Sudan and Afghanistan, hence this long absence on my part. But by the Grace of Allah, a safe base is now available in the high Hindukush mountains in Khurasan ; where--by the Grace of Allah-the largest infidel military force of the world was destroyed. And the myth of the super power was withered in front of the Mujahideen cries of Allahu Akbar (God is greater). Today we work from the same mountains to lift the iniquity that had been imposed on the Ummah by the Zionist-Crusader alliance, particularly after they have occupied the blessed land around Jerusalem, route of the journey of the Prophet
    ...
    it must be obvious to you that, due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted i.e using fast moving light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other word to initiate a guerrilla warfare, were the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it. And as you know, it is wise, in the present circumstances, for the armed military forces not to be engaged in a conventional fighting with the forces of the crusader enemy
    ...
    I say to Secretary of Defence: The sons of the land of the two Holy Places had come out to fight against the Russian in Afghanistan, the Serb in Bosnia-Herzegovina and today they are fighting in Chechenia and -by the Permission of Allah- they have been made victorious over your partner, the Russians. By the command of Allah, they are also fighting in Tajakistan.


    Interesting reading, Osama does tell US that Islam is not monolithic and that the Saudis are our allies in the "war".

    Osama's 1996 Declaration of War, against US and the Saudi King

    ReplyDelete
  39. Touche Duece and Ed.

    I took it seriously 16 years ago.

    Today the rhetoric is juvenile and I choose to treat it as such.

    I made reference to adults that Quirk labeled as smug.

    It seems to me that the public stage is noticeably lacking in adult behavior.

    Screaming and yelling ridiculous charges being the New Normal.

    ReplyDelete
  40. What A Perfect Way To Lose White Support

    From Ahmedinajad to Obama, whoever said politicians were smart? More likely to be psychotically humorous, until given the means to make trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  41. One of dotter's friends has gone missing. She got a call from the father, and the law office that represents her, etc. Been four days now, and her phone is now dead. Her back injured in a medical operation, she can hardly walk, she always checks in. Had been dating some whacko member of some cultish church, a heavy drinker, things don't sound good.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The United States ought to walk out of the United Nations and not come back.

    I didn't think that way in the past, but the whole thing is a farce nowdays.

    Let them take it to Zimbabwe.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Oregano To The Rescue

    Should be used with horses too.

    Dotter says the worst thing is when Shadow cuts a big one when she's cleaning the back hooves.
    Damned near knocks her over, she says.

    And I know Miss Marion doesn't feed the nags too much alfalfa.

    I know you're all dying to get a glimpse of Miss Marion, should have it figured out later this evening. Did I tell you she eats moose meat? Shot by herself?

    Stay off Quirk's stool.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Maybe should be thinking of plowing under the alfalfa, and planting oregano. It's a perennial too. Which means you can basically sit on your ass, a real priority in intelligently planned farming.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I see no way to argue with rat's analysis of our failures following 9/11.

    e.g. I've always looked at any foreign engagement thru the lens of the need to "bloody" the next generation of troops. And the concomitant need of the MI complex to justify increased spending.

    And I can see no good reason for not getting Osama when we had the opportunity...

    That said I'd appreciate some feedback on how I visualized (fantasized?) the mindset of Bush post 9/11


    Here's my take:

    Bush saw a Wilsonian opportunity to attempt to defuse Islamic extremists thru the introduction of democracy.

    Erroneous in my view, but also a necessary first step. Failure the only way alternative means could then proceed. Personally I think he was serious and not cynical. His et al maybe not so much...


    I believe Bush also had a couple of associated ideas.

    And here I disagree with with both Rufus and rat. I think Bush saw the threat from radical Islam as existential... The rest of the reasons important but incidental.

    First, for democracy, or an alternative to Islamic radicalism, in the ME he needed Iraq as the keystone in the arch. Saddam was a wild card and there were more than enough reasons to take him out. Plus there was the hope that Iraq still had "middle class memories."

    My belief is that Bush hoped for a quick flip of Iraq and a continued blitzkrieg on into Syria.


    And that the main goal of his mission was the take down of the Saudi Kingdom.

    By demonstrating his enfranchisement of the Shia populations in the countries he'd "liberated" he'd prompt that population in Saudi Arabia to rise against the King.

    The Shia population in Saudi Arabia, hugely oppressed, sits on top of the country's oil reserves. And would, if helped to power by US, become the next chapter in our relationship with Arabia. Now not "Saudi" Arabia.

    I believe Bush believed that by empowering the Shia he would, as with the Democratic party and blacks with civil rights, become forever their hero and the Shia, thusly, friends of the US.



    And, as in all fairy tales, everyone would live happily ever after...



    .

    ReplyDelete
  46. What a Day! Yikes.


    Interesting thread.


    Gnossos, I always thought the whole idea was to "protect" the Royal Family. But, I'm guessing, just like everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Obliterate Kandahar, start from scratch. Bomb Iran into submission. Use our strengths, or go home.

    _____


    What's more exciting than shopping for diamond?

    A wanton Lady with a skin like almond.

    What's more graceful than a young girl's hip?

    The mountain's curve on a Sierra trip.

    What's more arousing than cheering the Vandals?

    Betting even and red in one's winter sandals.

    What's more thrilling than a hot motorcar?

    Hearty humor and a middle-aged chukar.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Get out of the United Nations and form a real League of the Democracies, or some such. Support Israel, and quit listening to the whining of the muzzies.

    ________





    I feel like I'm going to college again. She just finished a test by the 2:00 o'clock deadline, sitting on the couch here, from her laptop.

    Everything is new and different.

    And, we're outta here.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Building seven, not three.

    I have watched the film and it appears to be a controlled implosion. True enough.

    I have thought that the ISI did the deed. And has recieved $10bn in tribute for it, since.
    I have stated that before, state it now. If it mattered.

    Not that it does, one way or the other.
    The reality is that the then the Director of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, visited in DC on 10SEP01, he was having breakfast with Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss on the morning of 11SEP01.

    I was taught, long ago, to suspect coincidences. Especially as it regards combat intelligence.

    But want would anon know of intelligence, as it is something that has evaded him his entire life.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There were/are three things that lead me to believe that Building 7 was sabotaged, by the ISI.

    1. It appeared to be an implosion on film.

    2. Diesel fuel does not burn hot enough to cause the simultaneous collapse of all the steel supports in the building. While it could cause the failure of some of the supports, the entire building would not have collapsed as it did, because of the diesel fire, alone.

    3. General Mahmoud Ahmad was in DC briefing the heads of the Congressional Intelligence Committees, as the attack was happening.


    The fourth item, which is seen in the hindsight of a decade. The Pakistani were promised and did received $10bn USD from US.
    There was never a follow on attack, while ALL the US leaders said there would be.

    The Pakistani extortion and US tribute payments to them worked.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Iran is now the greatest threat to the Sauds, and they are being demonized.

    Okay, the Iranians love the United States. Why do we scorn their affection?

    Neither Saddam nor Iran were complicit in 11SEP2001.
    The Saudis were.
    The Pakistani were.
    Those are both incontrovertible truths.


    No, they're only incontrovertible if you say that Some Saudis were. or Some Pakistanis were.

    As it is, you are judging every Saud or Paki by the actions of a few. You, yourself have admonished us many times not to do wrt Islam.

    ReplyDelete
  53. gnoss,

    I was pretty much with until you got to this leap:

    And that the main goal of his mission was the take down of the Saudi Kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The reality is that the then the Director of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad, visited in DC on 10SEP01, he was having breakfast with Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss on the morning of 11SEP01.

    Perhaps the death of Ahmad Shah Massoud on Sep 9 had something to do with Mahmoud Ahmad being in D.C. on the 11th.

    ReplyDelete
  55. There was a time that I agreed with gnossos and his appraisal of US policy with regards Mr Bush.

    I thought we should roll "On to Damascus" and advocated for that. Back in '03 & '04.
    Advocated for it, consistently. Until it became obvious that the US was not at war with the "State Sponsors of Terror".

    The destruction of the Syrian armor would have been easy enough, as exemplified in Iraq.

    The Baathists defeated and the King of Jordon empowered, along with local Syrian leaders. The pressure on Lebanon and Israel, from Iran, through Syria, would be eliminated and the radicals in Lebanon and Palestine set back accordingly.

    We bogged down in Iraq, instead.

    Instead of turning Iraq over to local indigenous administrators, we prolonged the process, building sand castles, while we waited for "change".

    Mr Yon documented the "Catch and Release" program that the 4/2 Mech Inf was operating around. Resulting in the wounding of their commanding officer, by a released mess hall bomber.

    The fact that the US continued to fund projects in Iran, through the auspices of the World Bank, was one of the straws that broke the back of my previously held view point.

    Our actions on the ground never matched the rhetoric emanating from the leaders in DC. Not in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia or Yemen.

    Especially not with regards the chief "State Sponsors of Terror".
    Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

    They are our allies, in fact.

    Learn it, Live it, Love it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Saying the Sauds attacked America on 9/11 is like saying
    The Americans robbed the Glendale Train

    ReplyDelete
  57. I agree though, they're both rotten and the sooner we're done with them, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I am judging the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whit.

    In Pakistan that was the Army, the Generals and their Intelligence network, the ISI.

    In Saudi Arabia, the Royal family is all that really matters. The bin Laden family is closely held by the Royals. The Royals of Saudi Arabia arranged that the only aircraft in the air, on 12 or 13 September 2001 was the one with the bin Ladens on board.

    Leaving the US before they were even interviewed by the FBI.

    Remember if you will, whit, that the murders of Ahmad Shah Massoud were the proxies of the ISI, the Taliban.

    Ahmad Shah Massoud was an anti-toxin to the Pakistani influence which the ISI and Pakistani Generals were creating in Afghanistan.

    From your link:
    When Hekmatyar failed to deliver for Pakistan, the administration began to support a new movement of religious students known as the Taliban."[27]

    With the strong support of Pakistan the Taliban took power in Afghanistan's southern provinces and proceeded to Kabul.
    ...
    When Massoud returned to Kabul unharmed the Taliban leader who had received him as his guest payed with his life. He was killed by other senior Taliban for failing to execute Massoud while the possibility was there. In the following weeks the Taliban lay siege to Kabul, but Massoud handed them their first major military defeat. Yet, some months later, now also with the financial support of Saudi Arabia as well as Osama Bin Laden the Taliban returned. Massoud ordered a retreat from Kabul on September 26, 1996.[28] Massoud and his troops retreated to the northeast of Afghanistan.


    It was proxies of the ISI that killed Massoud.

    After Pakistan had funded, directed and supported the Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan, Massoud and the United Front received some assistance from India.[44] India was particularly concerned about Pakistan's Taliban strategy and the Islamic militancy in its neighborhood; It provided US$70 million in aid including two Mi-17 helicopters, three additional helicopters in 2000 and US$8 million worth of high-altitude equipment in 2001.

    The strike on the US and the murder of Ahmad Shah Massoud were all orchestrated by the Director of the ISI, General Mahmoud Ahmad.

    ReplyDelete
  59. So, al-Qaeda had nothing to do with his death? It's merely coincidence that he was killed two days before 9/11?

    ReplyDelete
  60. General Mahmoud Ahmad, in DC briefing Porter Goss and Lynsey Graham on the morning of the attack.

    You are certainly correct, the attack upon the US and the murder of Ahmad Shah Massoud were connected.

    Connected by General Mahmoud Ahmad of the Pakistani Army and their Intelligence Agency, the ISI.

    ReplyDelete
  61. al-Queda is a proxy of both the Saudi royals and the ISI, whit.

    Funded by the "Golden Chain" in Saudi Arabia and armed and protected by the Pakistani Army, through the ISI.

    Osama is an agent of the Sauds, has been his entire life. His wealth and position were dependent upon his connections to the Royals.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The Golden Chain

    The "Golden Chain" or a list purported sponsors of al Qaeda that was seized in March 2002 raid by Bosnian police authorities of the premises of the Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo. The list includes at least 20 top Saudi and Gulf State financial sponsors including bankers, businessmen, and former ministers. Part of the list included computer file titles "Tarekh Osama" or "Osama History", but the appellation "Golden Chain" itself is due to al Qaeda defector Jamal al-Fadl, who vouched for its authenticity; the FBI later also pronounced the document as genuine.[citation needed]

    Most accounts are vague on what year the Golden Chain document was written; some say 1988.[1] but US government counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke says it dates from 1989
    ...


    Go to the Wiki page, glance at the names. They could not operate in Saudi Arabia without the knowledge and acquiescence of the King and Crown Prince.

    Same fellows that GW Bush was dancing, kissing and holding hands with.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Trails Lead to Saudis

    by Matthew Epstein
    National Review Online


    Read more

    ReplyDelete
  64. It was the Saudis that matched the US funds that were procured by Charlie Wilson, from the US Congress, for the Pakistanis.

    Dollar for dollar.
    Billions of them.

    Then the US left, but the Saudis stayed behind.

    Who do you think funded the Pakistani nuclear weapons program, other than the Saudis?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Stephen Colbert Gives Testimony In Front of Congress

    Congress confirms the fact that they are a complete joke.

    Nancy Pelosi looks a little nervous in trying to defend having Colbert testify.

    The Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert shtick is getting real old real fast. With Colbert it is the same shit day in and day out. The only mitigating circumstance is that the guy is quick and has wit and his writers continue to come up with the good ones. However, he was much better when he was fresher and every few rants were on the danger of "bears".

    Jon Stewart stopped being funny when he became obsessed politically. The Stewart and Colbert rallys on the Mall scheduled for the end of October would be nothing if it wasn't that a majority of the young people in the US prefer getting their "news" from Stewart rather than regular media. While neither can be trusted much, I think it still points to a dumbing down of America.

    When Stewart comes on, I turn on Chelsea Lately with Chelsea Handler.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  66. al-Qaeda is a front for both Saudi and Pakistani intelligence networks. A field proxy with deniability, but a proxy none the less.

    Look to the funding sources, in Saudi Arabia. Look at how long they have been able to remain in Pakistan, without detection or interference from the Government, there.

    The ISI is pervasive, in Pakistan, that's their job. They are good at it. Trained by the Brits of MI-6.

    A branch of their military, not answerable to the civilian government, which did not even exist, in 2001.
    Pakistan was a military dictatorship, in 2001.
    Selling nuclear technology to anyone with cash money.

    Dr Kahn was never even allowed to be interviewed by US investigators.

    They were delivering nuclear product to NorK, in Pakistani military C-130 transport planes.

    The Generals knew and approved.

    ReplyDelete
  67. With regard to 9/11 and our going into Iraq, who knows what evil lurks within the hearts of men (I mean other than me and that Shadow guy)?

    However, rather than conspiracy theories, I would probably opt for Occams Razor and the clear pattern established by the neocons throughout the nineties and up to the time we went into Iraq.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  68. Recall, if you will, that whenever the US raises a ruckus, with the Pakistani, a terrorist gets arrested or some intel "surfaces" and a Predator can strike.

    The Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the fella that looks like a bear, the perfect example.

    He was was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on March 1, 2003, by the Pakistani ISI.
    They knew where he was and when they needed him, scooped him up and delivered him to US.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Occams Razor, Quirk, is the argument for incompetence on the part of our policy and decision makers.

    It may well be the accurate reasoning with regards to what happened.

    ReplyDelete