Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
tapirmusic

Al-Qaida's No. 2 KILLED!

222 posts in this topic

<p>

Oil makes the world go around, and to have a madman such as Saddam Hussein in control of all of the oil in the Persian Gulf would have been unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil makes the world go around, and to have a madman such as Saddam Hussein in control of all of the oil in the Persian Gulf would have been unacceptable.

I don't see how that might have happened. He went for the kuwait bait and got Iraq confiscated and himself hung. But, anyway, i respect your right to your opinion and your knowledge of the 'facts' as they have been presented. I'm skeptical of the whole convoluted mess. i'll just leave it at that

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, lightly, and forgive if you've already clarified this; what would you have done as president on 9/12/2001?

I wrote the below post over 2 years ago. There might be a few additional bullets now but the gist would be the same . It contains common sense steps that could have been taken post 9/11 to make America safer, bring those responsible for the attack to justice and reduce terrorism. I believe the suggestions made, compared to what actually happened, show the difference between the expected reaction of a President interested in the truth and concerned by terrorism and, well... President Bush using a staged pretext.

http://www.unexplain...0

The end point is that none of the common sense steps were taken, whilst the war was nonsensical and counterproductive to preventing terrorism.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how that might have happened. He went for the kuwait bait and got Iraq confiscated and himself hung.

Kuwait wasn't the bait you think it was. Saddam had plans to keep right on through Kuwait, into Saudi Arabia and beyond and the only thing that stopped him was when Saudi Arabia finally approved the stationing of our troops on its soil after the Saudis were shown satellite photos of Iraqi troops just across its border. The following time line pretty much spells Saddam's intentions.

May 28-30: Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein says that oil overproduction by Kuwait and United Arab Emirates was an "economic warfare" against Iraq.

That set the stage for invasions of the Gulf states. Iraq and Iran were both considered threats to the Persian Gulf region. We were aware Iraqi preparations for a new war in the Gulf, but as mentioned before, we had hoped our naval exercises would get Saddam to back off, but with his mindset, the only thing Saddam understood was that an opposing force much stronger than his army was not in Iraq's best interest and getting our aircraft on the ground in Saudi Arabia in the nick of time is what prevented Saddam from blasting across the border into Saudi Arabia and beyond at full steam ahead.

When dealing with dictators and terrorist, you have to make it known to them that you mean business. To understand Saddam's mindset, look how he gassed the Kurds in Halabja.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The end point is that none of the common sense steps were taken, whilst the war was nonsensical and counterproductive to preventing terrorism.

While the world sat back and watched, Serbs slaugthered and butchered thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Only after miltary interventon did the widescale butchery by the Serbs cease. This is what happens when terrorist determine you have no teeth to bite back.

The Folly Of The United Nations (U.N.) Peacekeeping

Bosnian Serbs swept into Muslim and Croat villages and engaged in Europe's worst atrocities since the Nazi Holocaust. Serbian thugs raped at least 20,000 women and girls. In barbed-wire camps, men, women and children were tortured and starved to death. Girls as young as six were raped while parents were forced to watch. In one case, three Muslim girls were chained to a fence, raped by Serb soldiers for three days, then drenched with petrol and set on fire.

While this was happening, the UNPROFOR troops stood by and did nothing to help. Designated military "observers" counted artillery shells — and the dead.

http://www.ourcivili...om/moral/un.htm

Now, let's turn to the next page when NATO took a bite out of the Serb terrorist.

NATO's Success in Kosovo

NATO's Kosovo operation was a major challenge in the history of the Atlantic alliance. For the first time, a defensive alliance launched a military campaign to avoid a humanitarian tragedy outside its own borders. For the first time, an alliance of sovereign nations fought not to conquer or preserve territory but to protect the values on which the alliance was founded. And despite many challenges, NATO prevailed.

http://www.foreignaf...ccess-in-kosovo

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oil makes the world go around, and to have a madman such as Saddam Hussein in control of all of the oil in the Persian Gulf would have been unacceptable.

Instead, it's so much preferable to have those bastions of free speech and democracy, Saudi Arabia, as the dominant oil producing power, isn't it.

What's that? They may be a state of medieval barbarity, but they aren't a threat to anyone else, so they don't have to be Taken Out? Well, of course, yes.

According to the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups... Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."[148]

:unsure2:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead, it's so much preferable to have those bastions of free speech and democracy, Saudi Arabia, as the dominant oil producing power, isn't it.

Much better than under the control of Saddam Hussein, a madman who planned to use his control of Persian Gulf oil to exert his power around the world.

According to the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups... Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."[148]

:unsure2:

Let's take another look.

Saudis emerge as key US ally against terrorists

WASHINGTON (AP) — A decade after hijackers mostly from Saudi Arabia attacked the United States with passenger jets, the Saudis have emerged as the principal ally of the U.S. against al-Qaida's spinoff group in Yemen and at least twice have disrupted plots to explode sophisticated bombs aboard airlines.

Details emerging about the latest unraveled plot revealed that a Saudi double agent fooled the terror group, known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, passing himself off as an eager would-be suicide bomber. Instead, he secretly turned over the group's most up-to-date underwear bomb to Saudi Arabia, which gave it to the CIA. Before he was whisked to safety, the spy provided intelligencethat helped the CIA kill al-Qaida's senior operations leader, Fahd al-Quso, who died in a drone strike last weekend.

http://news.yahoo.com/saudis-emerge-key-us-ally-against-terrorists-222306969.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you propose as a solution Coffey? Certainly can't sit idly by and just wait for the next attack to take place, right?

What's this then? "To all problems, there are exactly two solutions: 1) start an illegal war of retribution or 2) sit idly by and wait for the next attack"? If that's the case why do we even bother putting metal detectors in airports, removing dangerous weapons from carry on or employing CIA to investigate and prevent terror attacks? If any of those things had happened, 9/11 would not have. It was a failure of U.S. security, plain and simple.

...and please don't even try and argue that people shouldn't want to attack the U.S. in the first place because they have wanted to since the U.S. got involved with WWII (and probably before that)... not to mention the fact that the U.S. has been courting controversy in wartime ever since. If the American administration wants to bully the world, it can't afford to fall asleep on the watch. Ever.

Of course the alternative is that it can stop bullying the world and relax but who would ever realistically support that??

Edited by krone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better than under the control of Saddam Hussein, a madman who planned to use his control of Persian Gulf oil to exert his power around the world.

Let's take another look.

Saudis emerge as key US ally against terrorists

WASHINGTON (AP) — A decade after hijackers mostly from Saudi Arabia attacked the United States with passenger jets, the Saudis have emerged as the principal ally of the U.S. against al-Qaida's spinoff group in Yemen and at least twice have disrupted plots to explode sophisticated bombs aboard airlines.

Details emerging about the latest unraveled plot revealed that a Saudi double agent fooled the terror group, known as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, passing himself off as an eager would-be suicide bomber. Instead, he secretly turned over the group's most up-to-date underwear bomb to Saudi Arabia, which gave it to the CIA. Before he was whisked to safety, the spy provided intelligencethat helped the CIA kill al-Qaida's senior operations leader, Fahd al-Quso, who died in a drone strike last weekend.

http://news.yahoo.co...-222306969.html

yes, and don't anyone try to use the argument about the US being interested in spreading "Freedom" or "Democracy" or "liberating the oppressed peoples of ...." in its military adventures, if countries like that are a key US ally against terrorists.

.. and please, don't tell me you believe that Saddam wanted to rule the World ..... ? :unsure2:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, and don't anyone try to use the argument about the US being interested in spreading "Freedom" or "Democracy" or "liberating the oppressed peoples of ...." in its military adventures, if countries like that are a key US ally against terrorists.

.. and please, don't tell me you believe that Saddam wanted to rule the World ..... ? :unsure2:

Not to control the world, just control the oil the world uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to control the world, just control the oil the world uses.

I do agree that was so much safer in the hands of Pres. Bush, someone who had no ambitions at all of global dominance ....

:unsure2::innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times have we been told he has been killed? LOL!

I don't like lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times have we been told he has been killed? LOL!

I don't like lies.

I think it's just that that job does not seem to be noted for its job security.

Imagine getting the letter: "regarding your application for the position of Second in Command of the Global Terror Network and Chief henchman to the Evil mastermind*. We are pleased to inform you that this position has unexpectedly become vacant, and we are pleased to be able to offer you the position, starting at your earliest convenience." You'd run for the hills, wouldn't you.

* who is the Evil mastermind now, anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secrecy IS the hallmark of tyranny, no doubt.

RIP Robert Heinlein.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote the below post over 2 years ago. There might be a few additional bullets now but the gist would be the same . It contains common sense steps that could have been taken post 9/11 to make America safer, bring those responsible for the attack to justice and reduce terrorism. I believe the suggestions made, compared to what actually happened, show the difference between the expected reaction of a President interested in the truth and concerned by terrorism and, well... President Bush using a staged pretext.

http://www.unexplain...0

The end point is that none of the common sense steps were taken, whilst the war was nonsensical and counterproductive to preventing terrorism.

Well put together Q, there's very little there that I have any disagreement with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just that that job does not seem to be noted for its job security.

Imagine getting the letter: "regarding your application for the position of Second in Command of the Global Terror Network and Chief henchman to the Evil mastermind*. We are pleased to inform you that this position has unexpectedly become vacant, and we are pleased to be able to offer you the position, starting at your earliest convenience." You'd run for the hills, wouldn't you.

* who is the Evil mastermind now, anyway?

Run for the hills?! Bah!

All I would have to do is apply to the CIA to inquire about the job and I have the job!! LOL, but it isn't really that funny. But it is true.

For below: Yeppers, he has a lot to teach us, even about terrorism and government reactions to terrorism. The guy nearly knew it all.

Secrecy IS the hallmark of tyranny, no doubt.

RIP Robert Heinlein.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secrecy IS the hallmark of tyranny, no doubt.

Loose lips sink ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd run for the hills, wouldn't you.

predator-firing-missile4.jpg?w=300&h=225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the United States goes after terrorist, you see America as the bad guy, not the terrorist who killed thousands of innocent people.

if the U.S. did kill terrorists and only terrorists, and there was no doubt that they were terrorists, maybe the U.S. might be seen more charitably by many in other parts of the world. When we only have the U.S. Govt.'s word that whoever they kill are Terrorists, and the U.S. can, it seems, declare anyone at all who it might kill to be a Terrorist, or fires missiles into villages because somewhere in there is, or might be, a Terrorist, then some people do have difficulty having as much sympathy for the U.S. as they might do. I'm afraid the idea of retributive killing is something that was rather frowned upon by the US itself during WWII, for example, when the Germans did it in retalitation for attacks on their troops. i believe the phrase "War crimes" was one that was used. is there really any difference in a firing squad shooting a few dozen villagers, because among them may be one or two Resistance, and firing a SuperSlaughterer missile into a village because in there somewhere is a Terrorist?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the U.S. did kill terrorists and only terrorists, and there was no doubt that they were terrorists, maybe the U.S. might be seen more charitably by many in other parts of the world. When we only have the U.S. Govt.'s word that whoever they kill are Terrorists, and the U.S. can, it seems, declare anyone at all who it might kill to be a Terrorist, or fires missiles into villages because somewhere in there is, or might be, a Terrorist, then some people do have difficulty having as much sympathy for the U.S. as they might do.

We can gage the success of a mission by analyzing terrorist communications and their responses, but in many cases, the terrorist were tracked long before the first shot was fired by drone crews who are based thousands of miles away.

I'm afraid the idea of retributive killing is something that was rather frowned upon by the US itself during WWII, for example, when the Germans did it in retalitation for attacks on their troops. i believe the phrase "War crimes" was one that was used. is there really any difference in a firing squad shooting a few dozen villagers, because among them may be one or two Resistance, and firing a SuperSlaughterer missile into a village because in there somewhere is a Terrorist?

With boots on the ground, a captured terrorist can be soaked for intelligence information, which can be very valuable in the long run, so you don't want to go overboard and kill a terrorist who can provide valuable intelligence information if it can be avoided, which is why we have taken many, many prisoners rather than play 'shoot 'em up at the OK Corral,' however, that is a bit difficult when a group terrorist are firing on friendly troops with friendly airpower overheard.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can gage the success of a mission by analyzing terrorist communications and their responses, but in many cases, the terrorist were tracked long before the first shot was fired by drone crews who are based thousands of miles away.

With boots on the ground, a captured terrorist can be soaked for intelligence information, which can be very valuable in the long run, so you don't want to go overboard and kill a terrorist who can provide valuable intelligence information if it can be avoided, which is why we have taken many, many prisoners rather than play 'shoot 'em up at the OK Corral,' however, that is a bit difficult when a group terrorist are firing on friendly troops with friendly airpower overheard.

That's the problem with Uncle Sam's retributive justice by remote control, isn't it ; I do agree with your latter point, even though (like, it seems, with bin L), things can still go wrong in the heat of the action, but with remote robo-drone strikes from thousand of miles away, you have to rely on whatever information it was that put you on to them in the first place that they are indeed the Terrorist mastermind you want, and then you have to be sure that the one you're tracking (and don't they all look the same from 10,000 feet), is indeed the Terrorist mastermind you are bent on revenge on. And then, really, honeslty and truly, does anyone really beleive that, having fired your Hellhound missile, just your target and your target alone will be killed, and no one else will even be scratched? or is the attitude that "they were harbouring a Terrorist Mastermind, so if they didn't hand him over, well, I'm afraid they deserved it"? That really is an attitude no different from that of an SS squad torching a village because they were harbouring Terrorists, or as we'd call them, Resistance fighters, I'm afraid. The U.S. really has very, very shaky moral legs to stand on if it wants to dictate moral standards to the rest of the world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem with Uncle Sam's retributive justice by remote control, isn't it ; I do agree with your latter point, even though (like, it seems, with bin L), things can still go wrong in the heat of the action, but with remote robo-drone strikes from thousand of miles away, you have to rely on whatever information it was that put you on to them in the first place that they are indeed the Terrorist mastermind you want, and then you have to be sure that the one you're tracking (and don't they all look the same from 10,000 feet), is indeed the Terrorist mastermind you are bent on revenge on.

Altitude is no problem because the crew can focus on things close-up if there is a need, not to mention other assets available to them. And, in many cases before a strike is conducted, we have already built a large data base from other technological and human resources, In addition, a license plate can be read from more than two miles away.

predator-b-drone-mq-9-reaper.jpg

mq-9-reaper-control-center-pilots.jpg

mq-9-reaper-targeting-system.jpg

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6405

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.