2485 replies to this topic

[Q24]

redhen, on 05 February 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

This is a think tank doing a defense review. They are surmising that the changes they would like to see that keeps the U.S. military in it's preeminent position will be slow, unless there's a major military challenge. What's controversial about that?

It‘s like you don’t know... are you aware that a considerable number of that specific think tank, including signatories of the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document quoted, took up prominent positions (many military) in the Bush administration in 2001?  Here we are talking Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Eliot Cohen, etc, i.e. the top tier, the same individuals who had written of the benefit that a “new Pearl Harbor” would bring.

The controversy is in the fact that the “new Pearl Harbor” which they had recently foretold would propel their policy, so happened to arrive the very same year of their coming to power in 2001 – how very fortunate for them.  Some would like to call it coincidence whilst others, I think wisely, question the convenience of that timing.  At a minimum there is no denying that it reveals a motive to assist an attack.

You think these guys aren’t ruthless enough to scaremonger, use propaganda and outright lie in the killing of thousands?  Look at their record, philosophy and wars – their orders have directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

So when we then find, as has been discussed, that the CIA bin Laden unit, headed by Cofer Black who is clearly on the same page as these PNAC Neocons, was responsible for holding off the FBI and granting at least two of the 9/11 hijackers free passage inside the United States, the level of coincidence and convenience inherent to maintain the ‘official story’; that it was a random ‘sneak attack’, becomes too much to bear.

We have a motive, we have an action which realised it, we have a benefit.  The investigation had to get a hold of these guys, question where the orders came from and/or decisions made and uncover the rationale for it.  Heads should have rolled even if it were not by some miracle an ‘inside job’ - there is no doubt that rules and laws were not adhered.  A professional lawyer would have had a field day with it.  Imagine Cofer Black questioned on the stand: -

• As the standard procedure to block the terrorists from the country had failed, why did you not rectify the situation when it later became apparent?
  
• Why did the CIA consistently prevent the FBI from taking action?
  
• If the intention was to recruit or gather intelligence from these terrorists, then were they under surveillance?
  
• If they were under surveillance then why didn’t you act even when they undertook flying lessons?
  
• If they were not under surveillance then why did you allow the presence of a known terrorist threat in the country unchecked?
  
• Either way, just what were you waiting for?  And how long were you prepared to wait?
  
• Were any or all of these decisions of your own making or order from a higher source?

Instead we get some damp squib of an ‘investigation’ where neither Black or agents of the bin Laden unit are thus questioned, where the Saudi agent who directly assisted the hijackers is given a free pass, where Cheney testified behind closed doors and not under oath.  What a farce.  However did the 9/11 Commission hope to secure the whole truth?  The only reason we know about all this is due to the FBI agents who have spoken out in defence of the unjust criticism they received and a few brave senators who attempted to investigate further but were stonewalled.

I don’t believe that anyone can honestly miss the controversy in all of this.  There is nothing uncontroversial at any step of the way.

redhen, on 05 February 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

That sounds like a reasonable goal to me. Except I would have told the Saudis and OPEC to go **** themselves, and buy oil elsewhere. Or better yet, wean ourselves off of oil.

An excellent plan.  I already backed you for CIA director, it’ll be President next!  Though it matters not what you’d do, but what those in power would do – those who achieved and extended their objective due to 9/11.

redhen, on 05 February 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

Sure, the U.S. is addicted to cheap oil. They will look everywhere to find reliable supplies. But I don't think Afghanistan is what you might call "stable", regardless of what historical period you refer to.

The requirement to open the oil route was an “internationally recognized Afghanistan Government” with whom to carry out agreeable negotiation.  Afghanistan had faced two decades of foreign and civil war.  The most powerful group, the Taliban, holding most of the country, were refused a seat at the U.N. and internationally recognised by only three countries... and would not play the oil game with the United States.  So again, how fortunate that it was necessary to impose regime change upon Afghanistan to depose the mastermind of 9/11.  Although the project is currently stalled due to the stability issues you mention, the new internationally recognised Afghanistan government, in contrast to the Taliban, agreed to the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline in 2002 – another gift of 9/11.

redhen, on 05 February 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

I said it's possible, not plausible. Kudos for you though for not buying into the thermite demolition,  non-existent flight 77 (it was actually a missile dont'cha know) delusions. You believe the attacks were planned and carried out by Al Qaeda, with the tacit approval and cooperation from U.S. intelligence agencies. That's much more persuasive than people pointing to a video of a collapsing building and spitting out "how does steel turn to dust?!"

Based upon the full body of background information, circumstances and other facts, an ‘inside job’ element is a more plausible solution than the ‘official story’ which relies only on a selective viewing to cast a blind eye on all of the above and more; a half-truth, nothing more.

You nearly got my view correct.  I actually believe vice versa - the evidence indicates that the attacks were planned and carried out by intelligence agencies, with approval and cooperation from ‘Al Qaeda’.  Just look at our hijackers.  15 of them turn up on bin Laden’s doorstep all of a sudden only in 1999/2000... Westernised men, not particularly religious, at just the time a major CIA infiltration operation is launched.  This is not the expected profile of lifelong, diehard Jihadists... because they were not... even the 9/11 Commission showed some disconcertion at their backgrounds.  And after the Bojinka plot, which before its ultimate failure had to be scaled back for a distinct lack of suicidal volunteers, all of these new appearances in contrast pledged their lives for the cause.  It appears to be a setup – the failed desire of ‘Al Qaeda’ for such an attack was well known in intelligence circles, and so the operation was presented/enabled by intelligence agents (those 15 hijackers), and bin Laden I’m sure gave his blessing.  With his foreknowledge, contact with the hijackers and approval, the trap was set.  This is not the theory of a freely wandering mind, but fitting of an ever greater body of evidence, too much to mention here.

I should mention that the other 4 hijackers, they appear to be genuine bin Laden recruits – demonstrating longterm connection to ‘Al Qaeda’ and previous attacks.  It was 2 from this group, Mihdhar and Hazmi, who required a helping hand from the Saudi government agent inside the U.S. and received that protection from the CIA which has been discussed here.

It appears at a minimum we are looking at a grand entrapment which suited Neocon geopolitical aims.  It is not just a plausible answer, but the only answer that incorporates the full body of evidence.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 07 February 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

What are you talking about, “can’t be done”?

It was done.

• As the standard procedure to block the terrorists from the country had failed, why did you not rectify the situation when it later became apparent?
  
• Why did the CIA consistently prevent the FBI from taking action?
  
• If the intention was to recruit or gather intelligence from these terrorists, then were they under surveillance?
  
• If they were under surveillance then why didn’t you act even when they undertook flying lessons?
  
• If they were not under surveillance then why did you allow the presence of a known terrorist threat in the country unchecked?
  
• Either way, just what were you waiting for?  And how long were you prepared to wait?
  
• Were any or all of these decisions of your own making or order from a higher source?

Were you aware that President Clinton unleashed the CIA on the terrorist, particularly, Osama bin Laden? Were you aware the CIA had warned President Bush on a possible terrorist attack upon the United States? Were you also aware the CIA and the FBI admitted to dropping the ball in regards to 911? Nothing there regarding a government conspiracy, especially when Israel and other nations had warned the United States of an impending terrorist attack.

Quote

C.I.A. Lays Out Errors It Made Before Sept. 11

A report released Tuesday by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency’s missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to assess fully the threats streaming into the C.I.A. in the summer of 2001.

The 19-page report, prepared by the agency’s inspector general, also says 50 to 60 C.I.A. officers knew of intelligence reports in 2000 that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, may have been in the United States. But none of those officers thought to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation about the potential domestic threat, the report says, evidence of what it calls a systemic failure.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

Were you aware that intelligence mistakes continued even after the 911 attacks? In other words, there is not a shred of evidence that implicates the U.S. government in the 911 attacks and you continue to place the pieces of the picture puzzle in the wrong places.

In other words, the picture you see is not what the actual puzzle box depicts.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 February 2013 - 03:34 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 07 February 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

It‘s like you don’t know... are you aware that a considerable number of that specific think tank, including signatories of the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document quoted, took up prominent positions (many military) in the Bush administration in 2001?  Here we are talking Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Eliot Cohen, etc, i.e. the top tier, the same individuals who had written of the benefit that a “new Pearl Harbor” would bring.

Let's take a look at the reality of what the benefit the "new Pearl Harbor" has done for the military.

Quote

Navy to pull aircraft carrier from Persian Gulf over budget worries




Budget constraints are prompting the U.S. Navy to cut back the number of aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf region from two to one, the latest example of how contentious fiscal battles in Washington are impacting the U.S. military.

According to Defense Department officials, the USS Harry S. Truman, which was set to leave for the Persian Gulf region on Friday, will now remain stateside, based in Norfolk, Virginia.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the change to the department’s “two-carrier policy” in the Persian Gulf region early Wednesday.

Under sequestration, the Navy would lose $4 billion over the next six months, the last half of fiscal year 2013. The Navy was already $4.6 billion in the hole for this year because the continuing resolution for 2013 was budgeted at 2012 rates.

http://usnews.nbcnew...et-worries?lite

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Panetta to recommend pay cut for military

Panetta will recommend to Congress that military salaries be limited to a 1% increase in 2014. The Pentagon has calculated that the Labor Department's 2014 Employment Cost Index is expected to be above 1% but wants to still cut back on pay because of "budget uncertainties," a department official told CNN. In 2013, a 1.7% increase was approved, based on the index, which has been the basis for military pay for the last several years.

The recommendation is tied to the Defense Department's 2014 budget recommendation, which was expected to be sent to Congress this month, one of the officials said. But the officials acknowledge it is going to be seen as an effort to push Congress to stop the automatic budget cuts that could go into effect if no deal is reached on spending reductions.

http://security.blog...tary/?hpt=hp_t1

So much for the benefit of a "new  Pearl Harbor."

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 February 2013 - 03:38 AM.

[Q24]

Liquid Gardens, on 06 February 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

Hmm, you seem a little choosy yourself about what questions of mine you answered 'straight', but regardless, as I alluded to but will now put straight:  I declined to answer your question because it's a leading question ("have you stopped beating your wife yet?") and incomplete.  Let's try an analogy that might illustrate the issue I have with the spin you occasionally put on your points.  I'll assume you are familiar in general with the serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, and perhaps you are aware of the following (from wiki, I snipped a couple of the disgusting details):



So, as I'm sure you see coming:

"What might cops attempting to prevent murder have done?
What might cops attempting to allow murder have done?
Then compare this to actions in reality – the answer to which question above provides best match?

There is no escaping it."

When I posed the questions, it is upon the specific basis, “given CIA information that existed pre-9/11 on the terrorists”.  Now I’m not familiar with the Dahmer case but I’d hazard a guess that what the police knew at the time is incomparable to that which the CIA knew of the terrorists prior 9/11.  For example, if you could fill me in, did the police know that Dahmer had murderous tendencies, perhaps hung out with serial killers and had the appearance of preparing for a killing?  Did a police colleague inform them that “someone will die” if Dahmer were not taken in, and complain that Dahmer received “protection”?  I doubt it.  Though the CIA knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were terrorists and connected to previous attacks, illegals inside the country, attended ‘Al Qaeda’ meetings, in all likelihood that they were undertaking flying lessons and the FBI had warned that, “someone will die” and complained that the terrorists received “protection”.

With this background information I can answer the questions I posed.  Please answer the questions above to fill me in on the Dahmer case so that I can best respond to yours.  I think the answer to your first question, “What might cops attempting to prevent murder have done?”, could well be, “Nothing, because they did not have sufficient intelligence available.”  From there, the argument falls apart, as the answer to the third and final question becomes, “both/neither”.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 February 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

Maybe that's where we disagree the most on this, the question, 'what would you have done in their position?'.  I am not an intelligence agent, are you?  Are you privy to all or most of all of the classified information that these agents were privy to at the time, you do agree that info forms part of the basis for their decision-making, as it should.  At some level asking me what I would have done in their position is about as relevant as asking me the first 10 things I'd do to begin brain surgery.  Had our intelligence agencies stopped other potential attacks prior to 9/11 by pouncing on AQ agents as soon as they discovered them, only to find that strategy was not stopping at all the continued attempts, so they had moved on to other strategies?  Again, how many threats are being made simultaneously, how many threats had turned out to be nothing at all, how many agents were available to pursue the leads, how specific is the threat; why don't you think the answers to these questions are directly relevant when judging their actions?  

I cannot abide your argument here at all, you are passing the buck.  Come on, this is not difficult – comparing it to brain surgery is poppycock.  As FBI agent Rossini said, “I'm talking basic, logical investigation”.  I do find the questions relevant and have incorporated them into my conclusions.

Ok.  Let it be known, that because ‘Al Qaeda’ would not stop their attempts of an attack, LG would tolerate the presence of such terrorists on U.S. soil (figure that one out).  Further, that although his colleagues are straining at the leash to intervene and it would take all but a handful of agents a morning to apprehend said terrorists, LG would declare lack of manpower (even though he could muster the manpower in Kuala Lumpur to monitor, break into the terrorists apartment and lead them to the accommodation of a U.S. informant inside the United States).  And despite such terrorists, connected to ‘Al Qaeda’ and previous attacks, illegally inside the United States, with warnings that “someone will die” LG would not find this specific enough to act upon.  Even when the terrorists are known to take flying lessons, LG would allow them to board civilian airliners!

That is truly a blinding level of incompetence to admit to LG, you need to be fired for the most gross negligence imaginable.  I mean, really?  There’s no way you are getting my backing for CIA director, I’ll stick with redhen who kindly highlighted the obvious and rational approach to take – we detain these men at the first opportunity.  But honestly, I don’t believe you agree to any of the above at all.  I think you only attempt to back the CIA action that took place; an attempt to reason that the blatantly irrational is somehow rational, such is the path that OCTs must take.

So let me put your theory together: the CIA prevented the FBI from taking action against the terrorists on numerous occasions because the CIA wanted to take credit for some operation, but then the CIA decided there was not the manpower nor that dangerous terrorists inside the country were specific enough to act upon.  Just how selectively brain dead must we believe the CIA are?

Liquid Gardens, on 06 February 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

The Challenger disaster investigation likewise showed that at least one engineer was jumping up and down about the catastrophic risk of the O-rings in the cold prior to the launch.  Was the Challenger mission leader insane to ignore it?  Was he even irrational?  That depends on how you look at it, lots of systemic issues were uncovered after Challenger such as I believe pressure put on the team to reduce launch delays due to cost.

The Challenger is an interesting case for comparison...

In contrast to the 9/11 case, that engineer was not prevented from investigating nor attempting to rectify the O-ring problem, as the FBI were prevented from investigating or rectifying the terrorist problem.  An apparent similarity is that the Challenger higher-ups ignored the engineer warning for political and financial reasons, namely that the mission was time critical... it follows there may have been similar political pressure for the CIA to ignore the FBI warning.

Here is a big area which highlights the difference between a genuine mistake, where all parties are interested in getting to the truth of the matter to prevent a recurrence, and an event where politicians are not interested in the truth:  In the case of Challenger, two investigations were completed, which identified not just cause of the disaster but the reasons behind it, holding those areas responsible to account and all within 7 months of the event.  Yet in the case of 9/11, under protest of the Bush administration, it took over a year just to establish an investigatory committee, reasons for the failure and those responsible were not questioned and the report took nearly 3 years to see light of day.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 February 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

At the time of their obstruction of the FBI, did the CIA know when and where the attacks were to occur?  And you skipped right over my point:  "You haven't shown that the CIA's actions here are anything but 'business as usual' for the time, and I don't know how without a much higher security clearance you can know differently. So how are you separating these specific 9/11 actions/inactions from the noise? You haven't shown that there's anything unusual about the CIA's actions here, as you haven't differentiated these actions from what they usually do, and that goes directly to how 'suspicious' this actually is."

You say you disagree, but then you don't really say specifically with what.  You disagree that showing that their actions and inactions are not 'business as usual' goes directly to how suspicious it is?

I disagree with your claim that it’s 20/20 in this case – the argument is based on facts that were known at the time/pre-9/11, not with hindsight.  Of course the CIA did not know when and where the attacks were to occur.  I have been repeatedly listing broadly what the CIA did know (you just quoted it), and it was more than enough to act upon, to end the threat right there.  We can add this to the President’s daily brief, which in August 2001 did mention these specifics: -

• “Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to carry out terrorist attacks in the US”
  
• “his followers would follow the example of World Trade Centre bomber Ramzi Yousef”
  
• “Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington”
  
• “Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US”
  
• “Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft”
  
• “FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings”

Here are the specifics described again from former FBI agent, Sibel Edmonds: -

“Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That’s an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it’s a lie.”

“President Bush said they had no specific information about Sept. 11, and that’s accurate,” says Edmonds. “But there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001. They should’ve alerted the people to the threat we’re facing.”

How much more do we need before we detain bin Laden’s operatives with access to the U.S. who are taking flying lessons?

I also think your attempt to claim that allowing terrorists, connected to ‘Al Qaeda’ and previous attacks, illegal and indefinite entry to the country, watching them take flying lessons and board civilian airliners, whilst preventing the FBI from doing their job, is ‘business as usual’, well, what is the point in having a CIA or FBI at all if their business is to permit terrorist attack??

It is your argument – I can Google numerous cases where the FBI have detained terror suspects and those connected to previous attacks (proving that CIA protection to terrorists is not ‘business as usual’) – can you find me cases were the CIA have given protection to terrorists as they did Mihdhar and Hazmi?  This should be easy for you, given that it’s normal business.

Here, listen to Richard Clarke, U.S. counter-terrorism chief 1998-2003: -

“To this day, it is inexplicable why, when I had every other detail about everything related to terrorism, that the director didn’t tell me, that the director of the counterterrorism center didn’t tell me,” Clarke said in the interview for the documentary, referring to Tenet and Cofer Black. “They told us everything—except this.”

He said that if he had known anything about Hazmi and Mihdhar even days before 9/11, he would have ordered an immediate manhunt to find them—and that it would have succeeded, possibly disrupting the 9/11 plot.

“We would have conducted a massive sweep,” he said. “We would have conducted it publicly. We would have found those *******s. There’s no doubt in my mind, even with only a week left. They were using credit cards in their own names. They were staying in the Charles Hotel in Harvard Square, for heaven’s sake.” He said that “those guys would have been arrested within 24 hours.”

http://www.thedailyb...-up-charge.html

Clarke certainly does not accept this situation was ‘business as usual’.

And you wouldn’t dare challenge him would you?  Not being a brain surgeon and all.

Liquid Gardens, on 06 February 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

Ha!  Yea, he saw me coming alright.  Based on what he thought in 2009...in hindsight!  

For someone who won't challenge anything the CIA did, you seem very quick in your attempt to undermine the word of an FBI agent.  It is not hindsight when the FBI wanted to act before 9/11, attempted to act before 9/11, and were blocked before 9/11.  These are the actual acts that took place - it doesn't matter that it was reported in 2009.  It does not take hindsight to know that under normal procedure terrorists should be hindered, not provided free passage.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 07 February 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

• “Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to carry out terrorist attacks in the US”
  
• “his followers would follow the example of World Trade Centre bomber Ramzi Yousef”
  
• “Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington”
  
• “Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US”
  
• “Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft”
  
• “FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings”

That is a clear indication why American forces went after bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 February 2013 - 03:43 AM.

[Gummug]

Ummmm...I was going to post something, but realize I am way out of my league here.... *tiptoes slowly towards the door*

[redhen]

Gummug, on 11 February 2013 - 02:28 AM, said:

Ummmm...I was going to post something, but realize I am way out of my league here.... *tiptoes slowly towards the door*

Ah c'mon, it's just an Internet forum. There's no prerequisites to join in, just the ability to think logically.

[Gummug]

This isn't a case for proof, just a case for possibility:
p1 Governments have historically killed their own citizens (think of Hitler, Stalin, etc.). There is actually a name for it, called "Democide" I believe.
p2 USA has a government (well, duh)
conclusion: At least there is the possibility that, as our society continues to corrode, and the politicians/government along with it, that our government could be guilty of democide.
Like I said, I know you were looking for proof (or maybe I should say a logically consistent argument), of which I have none, but this at least would seem to open the door to the possibility.
Unless one were to posit the US government were impervious to corruption...would that it were so...

[acidhead]

Q24, on 07 February 2013 - 03:01 AM, said:

We have a motive, we have an action which realised it, we have a benefit.  The investigation had to get a hold of these guys, question where the orders came from and/or decisions made and uncover the rationale for it.  Heads should have rolled even if it were not by some miracle an ‘inside job’ - there is no doubt that rules and laws were not adhered.  A professional lawyer would have had a field day with it.  Imagine Cofer Black questioned on the stand: -

• As the standard procedure to block the terrorists from the country had failed, why did you not rectify the situation when it later became apparent?
  
• Why did the CIA consistently prevent the FBI from taking action?
  
• If the intention was to recruit or gather intelligence from these terrorists, then were they under surveillance?
  
• If they were under surveillance then why didn’t you act even when they undertook flying lessons?
  
• If they were not under surveillance then why did you allow the presence of a known terrorist threat in the country unchecked?
  
• Either way, just what were you waiting for?  And how long were you prepared to wait?
  
• Were any or all of these decisions of your own making or order from a higher source?

Instead we get some damp squib of an ‘investigation’ where neither Black or agents of the bin Laden unit are thus questioned, where the Saudi agent who directly assisted the hijackers is given a free pass, where Cheney testified behind closed doors and not under oath.  What a farce.  However did the 9/11 Commission hope to secure the whole truth?  The only reason we know about all this is due to the FBI agents who have spoken out in defence of the unjust criticism they received and a few brave senators who attempted to investigate further but were stonewalled.

I don’t believe that anyone can honestly miss the controversy in all of this. There is nothing uncontroversial at any step of the way.

And the worst part about it is it's being carried out in every American or Westerners name whether they support the War on Terror or not.  It's a breach against individual liberty and most of all a crime against humanity as a whole.

[skyeagle409]

acidhead, on 11 February 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

And the worst part about it is it's being carried out in every American or Westerners name whether they support the War on Terror or not.

Those pesky terrorist need to be dealt with.

[acidhead]

skyeagle409, on 11 February 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

Those pesky terrorist need to be dealt with.

If that's what you believe then you go do the job for yourself.  Leave me and my family out of your plans. It's an infringement on my liberty.

[skyeagle409]

acidhead, on 11 February 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

If that's what you believe then you go do the job for yourself.  Leave me and my family out of your plans. It's an infringement on my liberty.

Freedom is not free.

[acidhead]

skyeagle409, on 11 February 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

Freedom is not free.

whatever

[acidhead]

what you advocate is pre-emptive war which is proven to breed more resentment.  It's a no-win situation.

[skyeagle409]

acidhead, on 11 February 2013 - 07:03 AM, said:

what you advocate is pre-emptive war which is proven to breed more resentment.  It's a no-win situation.

Of course not, however, but must remember that the war of terror began when terrorist attacked the United States, that, after bin Laden declared war on America.