| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 9:41:23 AM | There were a lot of questions....almost too many to list here but I'll give it a go with some. This will probably lead to this thread being deleted however. Like I said in an earlier post, questions that go beyond the comfort zone often are dealt with angrily.
-WTC building # 7....Why did it fall? It wasn't hit by a plane.
-No steel framed building in history had ever collapsed due to fire...on 9/11 three did. One theory is that the steel core of the building melted. The pictures of people standing in the gaping wholes of the buildings however leads many to ask...'how could people be standing there when just behind them was a fire burning hot enough to melt steel. How many degrees kelvin would be required for a fire of that magnitude?
-There have been suggestions by many that the manner in which the buildings imploded...that it suggests a planned demolition. To do that would involve placing charges at strategic points throughout the towers and building #7. What company was in charge of security at the WTC buildings, and what was that companies connection to the Bush family?
-There were reports that short selling increased something like 2,000% prior to 9/11 on airlines and re-insurance companies. Who was behind that short interest? Which firm(s) were behind it?
-Shortly after 9/11 an instant messaging company called Odigo reported that some of their employees received IMs telling them not to go into work on 9/11....What was the result of that investigation?
-The anthrax letters that were inundating Capitol Hill in the wake of 9/11 were made to look like they were coming from Islamic extremists....it later turned out the anthrax was US military grade and was traced back to a US military base. What ever happened with that investigation?
-President Bush's itenerary for that day...it was posted on the Whitehouse web site. Why did his security team leave him in that Florida classroom? Woulnd't it be logical and reasonable to assume that the commander in chief of the US military would be a target?
-Why did Bush say he saw the first plane hit the WTC??? In a town hall meeting he was asked what was going through his mind on that day and he said he saw the 1st plane hit on a television....
There are a ton more reasonable questions....many of which came up in the aftermath of the event....and so many like the short interest and Odigo that got no follow up. There was certainly a rush to judgement however as we abandoned the rules of civilized society and assigned blame without a review of the facts.
All right, let the storm begin...at least until this thread goes down the memory hole. | |
|
| |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 9:58:42 AM | You're right bookworm....although I'd say only marginal as it is OBL who is alleged to have been the leader of the group which planned and directed the attacks.
Perhaps another reason they didn't go after him has something to do with professional courtesy. OBL and his meery band of mujahadeen (sp?) were supported originally by the US after all when the Soviets tried to gobble up all Afghan's oil/gas reserves. The Soviets wanted Afghanistan, now the US wants it....the USSR won the war but couldn't win the peace, looks like the US is suffering the same fate there. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 10:26:19 AM |
when the Soviets tried to gobble up all Afghan's oil/gas reserves
ahem, Afghsnistan has no appreciable petroleum assets - the Soviets were interested in using the country for it ports | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 10:27:13 AM | | I don't know if it was professional courtesy or not. The evidence strongly suggests that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld really wanted to invade Iraq, even before 9/11. Assets were pulled out of Afghanistan in preparation for the Iraq invasion starting in early 2002, fully a year before the invasion of Iraq started (and when the administration was still claiming "it isn't a foregone conclusion"). The removal of the military assets from Afghanistan made the hunt for UBL next to impossible. For whatever reason, the administration was more concerned about invading Iraq than actually finding the people responsible for the 9/11 attack. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 11:03:56 AM | gentlepatrick....Check out "Caspian Oil Basin" doing a google search, not to mention their natural gas reserves. Unocal, a US pipeline firm was in negotiations with the Taliban prior to 9/11 to build a pipeline through Afghanistan....there are wide reports that the US told the Taliban they could either accept the US offer and their streets would be paved with gold, or they could reject it an the streets would be strewn with bombs. The Taliban awarded the contract to an Argentian concern....not that it matters anymore.
I don't think the US was really interested in OBL....but very interested in Afghanistan. The Caspian oil basin at one time was believed to have something like 25 years worth of oil....global demand back in the 90s. Now however I think it's proven to be significantly less. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 11:48:05 AM | The USA wasn't interested in Bin Laden they wanted the oil. Cheney and his friends stood to make billions through Haliburton
Why did the USA and John Ashcroft allow the terrorists through the airport. The FBI knew about the plan July 25, 2001 before 911. (CBC)
They wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and control their oil.
Bush killed more Iraqis than Sadam ever did and in less time.
They chartered a plane out of the USA with 100's of millions of dollars and all of Bin Laden's family. (CBC)
They rigged the election twice in Ohio and Florida. Any other country USA would have invaded (CBC)
An Insurgent is a father whose kid or family member or relative or friend's kid who has been killed by a USA bullet or bomb
USA is a country that can't seem to mind their own business they currently occupy 50 countries
USA are the terrorists. The world terrorists. | |
|
favs
|
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 83 | |
| |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 12:10:15 PM |
ahem, Afghsnistan has no appreciable petroleum assets - the Soviets were interested in using the country for it ports
gentlepatrick....Check out "Caspian Oil Basin" doing a google search
Um... point 1, Afghanistan is landlocked. It has no ports.
Point 2, Afghanistan is not part of the Caspian Basin. It does have limited oil and gas reserves (very limited compared to the other producers in the world) from it's part of the Amu Darya Basin.
It's primary importance is as a pipeline route to the Pakistani ports (cutting out Russia and Iran). This may very well have been a part of the US interest in invading along with the need to be seen by the domestic population as responding to 9/11 from strength but I suspect they would have invaded Sudan if al Qaeda had still been based there at the time (and still not have bothered capturing bin Laden). Afghanistan was more of a "stepping stone" to Iraq and a domestic public relations gig. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 12:20:45 PM | | mungjoe....you're bang on about the pipeline Unocal was looking to build, and is now currently building I believe. The Caspian Basin is where I understand a good deal of the oil to be piped would come from... | |
|
| |
| |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:01:03 PM |
I guess you didn't see the 7th largest army in the world reduced to a bunch of smoldering junk in a matter of days during the first Iraq war?
To paraphrase the late great Bill Hicks - "after the first three biggest armies in the world, there is a real big drop off....the hare krishnas are the fourth biggest army, and they've already got control of the airports" | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:05:49 PM | gentlepatrick said:
since you claim special status as a historian, enlighten us then.
World War I had numerous causes. Anyone who thinks the assassination was the cause is completely misinformed as it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. It alone could not have caused the war (it can easily be argued that none of its causes, taken alone, were sufficient to start it).
Some of the factors that contributed to it were: militarism (misguided because of previous conflicts), nationalism, the alliance system, imperialism, various crises in the preceding years (and some unresolved disputes), the arms race (primarily a naval race between Germany and Britain), and economics.
Consider yourself enlightened. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:16:50 PM | | Sometimes looking at the result can give a hint as to the reasons behind a particular action. Many will say that WWI accomplished little....but it eradicated the Ottoman Empire, and resulted in the middle east being carved up into artificial countries made up of warring relgious/ethnic groups. Oil at the turn of the last century was just becoming a very important commodity....modern warfare relied on it. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 1:23:36 PM | | as long as bin laden is still free to roam, it's a great cover for the us to continue with there oil exploits.When bins caught the media pressure turns significantly back to the oil.Why catch him when the USA profits on exploiting the villan.Once USA has no more interest or falls out,they catch em. Personally i think the USA should mind their own bussiness and save there sons and daughters from this war while the still can.just my opinion. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:03:13 PM |
World War I had numerous causes. Anyone who thinks the assassination was the cause is completely misinformed as it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. It alone could not have caused the war (it can easily be argued that none of its causes, taken alone, were sufficient to start it).
Some of the factors that contributed to it were: militarism (misguided because of previous conflicts), nationalism, the alliance system, imperialism, various crises in the preceding years (and some unresolved disputes), the arms race (primarily a naval race between Germany and Britain), and economics.
Consider yourself enlightened
gasp I feel so enlightened. sheesh, we all knew all that. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:15:26 PM | We didn't win the War of 1812??OMG..we have been under British rule all this time??? GOOD..Blame all the dillusional conpiracy crap on them. You know so much, you are aware that our National anthem was written during an attack by the British Navy on us...EH?? Man, thats one big cover up to hide the fact we lost. At what point was O Canada written?? When the French planted their ass there and just stayed?? Now at the first sign of trouble you and France can both see who can say WE SURRENDER the fastest.
And we didn't get anything done in Korea?? Pull your head out of whatever hockey game your watching, and checkout what kind of life North Koreans have. Last time I checked, Nobody from South Korea risks Electrocution, or being shot , or having their family tortured and killed to get to the north.
Same ole Same Ole......yip..yap..yip ...yap from the little dog up north barking at the mail man in someone elses yard. | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 2:51:20 PM |
We didn't win the War of 1812??
Read a little history sometime.
British and Canadian troops pretty much had the US's ass whipped. They agreed to a "status quo ante bellum" treaty because they were tired of fighting wars after the Napoleonic Wars in Europe (which were concurrent with the War of 1812 and ended only a month before the Treaty of Ghent was signed).
I suppose though you also believe the US won Vietnam, are winning in Iraq and have bin Laden in custody (or at least definitively know where he is buried). | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:00:52 PM | As somebody alluded earlier, finding UBL would require the cooperation of Pakistan, and that is problematic. Going into the Waziristan region of Pakistan in force would require a large presence of US troops. That would be very unpopular, costly, and time-consuming. Plus, the US military doesn't have the troops to spare at this point, unless they were pulled out of Iraq. And even assuming that this started to happen, UBL and his henchmen would just leave, just as most of the Iraqi insurgents left Baghdad during the buildup for the currently ongoing surge in Baghdad. They could probably rely on the help of Pakistan's security service, the ISI, which is reported to have many members sympathetic to the Taliban/al-Qaeda cause.
In short, at this point the chances of finding UBL by anything other than blind luck are pretty slim.
________________________________
There's a correction that I think needs to be made.
ReligiousSinner, msg #34:
The oil/gas pipeline in Afghanistan is being built, Iraq's oil reserves are now locked up as well....Everything else in the game of RealPolitik is just noise....Like the murdr of Arch Duke Ferdinand started the first WW...it was just a good excuse. Study history, major wars are started with lies and deception.
Colchar, msg # 43:
As a historian I just have to point out that that is a hopelessly misinformed version of A) how major wars start and B) how WW I started.
Colchar, msg #90:
World War I had numerous causes. Anyone who thinks the assassination was the cause is completely misinformed as it was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. It alone could not have caused the war (it can easily be argued that none of its causes, taken alone, were sufficient to start it).
So, in your attempt to point out how "hopelessly misinformed" he is, you actually agreed with him. He did NOT state that the assassination started WWI. I would suggest that before you go around calling people ignorant, you first try to understand what they actually said.
| |
|
favs
|
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 96 | |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:06:06 PM | | pouhahah ^^^ i like when someone just killed those american like that!! but we should do it to ofthen they might want to invade us!! still so funny haha | |
|
favs
|
Joined: 3/13/2006
Msg: 97 | |
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:12:31 PM | hey rk thsi is from http://war1812.tripod.com/summary.html
In the end we ask who won and who lost the War of 1812. The clear loser in this conflict without any doubt is the Native People of North America. In the summer of 1815, the United States signed fifteen treaties with the tribes, guaranteeing their status as of 1811. But it did not return an acre of land. The dream of the Indian state never came true.
If any one could claim victory it was Canada. The United States declared war on Great Britain and set out to make Canada states in the union. Ten American armies crossed into Canada and all were driven out. so funny yeah u guys won the war of 1812 | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:43:36 PM | In my opinion the Lose change videos are SOOOO full of holes. they're not even a very GOOD conspiracy theory. They're coming out with a third edition now, apparently the truth changes enough that you need to release multiple version.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ | |
|
| Why didn't the US Army go after Bin Laden
Posted: 4/9/2007 3:58:59 PM | | OH Darn..we didn't get Canada. After the British got thier ass handed to them, they retreated to Canada. We no longer had to deal with them on our soil again...I call that a win. And even after the Ghent treaty was signed, they tried to invade through New Orleans and failed miserably. I know...they were trying to stop us from invading Canada coming in through Louisiana. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
