There was a Conspiracy to mislead US citizens into war with Afghanistan and Iraq

[ConspiracyKiller]

Oh stop with the "one old man" crap, he was younger than me. They had a whole terrorist network to deal with. They needed to disable it starting at its head. NO ONE believes that capturing or killing the "one old man" as you call him in your word play to diminish his capacity to fund, plan, and initiate terror on a world wide scale, would cripple AQ

If Bush would have killed OBL the day he took office that would NOT have stopped 9/11.

If Bush would have killed OBL the day after 9/11 do you think it would have destroyed Al Qaeda and ended the war on terror?

Bush said many times that he didn't think Bin laden was important.

“bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.”

Barnes said Bush told him that capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

Bin Laden was just “one person,” whom Bush said, “I really just don’t spend that much time on“

There has to be at least twenty famous quotes from Bush and his officials saying they did not care or were concerned with OBL.

Bush is the one who first implied that OBL was just one man who wasn't that important so GO SCOLD BUSH not the messenger.

 

[NoahFence]

Yawn.....

 

[A W Smith]

If Bush would have killed OBL the day he took office that would NOT have stopped 9/11.

If Bush would have killed OBL the day after 9/11 do you think it would have destroyed Al Qaeda and ended the war on terror?

Bush said many times that he didn't think Bin laden was important.

“bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.”

Barnes said Bush told him that capturing bin Laden is “not a top priority use of American resources.”

Bin Laden was just “one person,” whom Bush said, “I really just don’t spend that much time on“

There has to be at least twenty famous quotes from Bush and his officials saying they did not care or were concerned with OBL.

Bush is the one who first implied that OBL was just one man who wasn't that important so GO SCOLD BUSH not the messenger.

It would have been IDEAL to start at the organizations head, But not imperative. So they took out AQ targets as they became available. So you are agreeing with me? They needed to dismantle or cripple the ability for the AQ network to plan, fund, execute terror on a world wide scale. THATS why we were there, not some natural gas pipeline. Again, as I said up thread, NO ONE believed that taking out OBL would immediately stop future attacks but it would have been a start.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Funny that he starts off with Jewish persecution yet if you go back to the 14th of May 1948and the formation of the jewish State, That was the match that lit the fuse in MODERN DAY middle east. Christian Zionists support Israel because they recognize an ancestral right of Jews to this land, as suggested, for instance, by Paul in Romans 11. Some also believe that the return of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflict

So what were you saying conspiracy killer?

I knew it; you’re one of those religious believers/fundamentalists.

So you believe some all-powerful man in the sky told some Roman citizen, (Paul), that the Jews own the land and everyone else can pick up and move out including the large number of Palestinian Christians.

But then Rome was more powerful then god and sacked Jerusalem killing all the Jews who were there and burnt the man in the sky’s temple to the ground?

Doesn’t that prove that the other peoples gods were more powerful and made Paul’s god look like a fool? How do you see who’s god is right?

I think my god can kick all the other gods butts and SHE says that Eskimo’s own the land and everyone else needs to pack up and move.

Since you’re a fundamentalist you’re probably are not aware that MOST Christian secs don’t believe in Zionism.

The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Church of Christ have all criticized Christian Zionism.

The Reformed Church in America at its 2004 General Synod found "the ideology of Christian Zionism and the extreme form of dispensationalism that undergirds it to be a distortion of the biblical message noting the impediment it represents to achieving a just peace in Israel/Palestine."

The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Catholic), the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land, have recently joined together in order to proclaim and to publish the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism (August 22, 2006). This Declaration rejects Christian Zionism for substituting a political-military program in place of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The General Assembly of the National Council of Churches in November 2007 approved a resolution for further study which stated that the "theological stance of Christian Zionism adversely affects:
• justice and peace in the Middle East, delaying the day when Israelis and Palestinians can live within secure borders
• relationships with Middle Eastern Christians {prior reference to the Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism}
• relationships with Jews, since Jews are seen as mere pawns in an eschatological scheme
• relationships with Muslims, since it treats the rights of Muslims as subordinate to the rights of Jews
• interfaith dialogue, since it views the world in starkly dichotomous terms"

The Mennonite Church published an article that referenced what is called the ongoing illegal seizure of additional Palestinian lands by Israeli militants, noting that in some churches under the influence of Christian Zionism the "congregations 'adopt' illegal Israeli settlements, sending funds to bolster the defense of these armed colonies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism#Disapproval_by_other_Churches

 

[A W Smith]

I knew it; you’re one of those religious believers/fundamentalists.
So you believe some all-powerful man in the sky told some Roman citizen, (Paul), that the Jews own the land and everyone else can pick up and move out including the large number of Palestinian Christians.

But then Rome was more powerful then god and sacked Jerusalem killing all the Jews who were there and burnt the man in the sky’s temple to the ground?

Doesn’t that prove that the other peoples gods were more powerful and made Paul’s god look like a fool? How do you see who’s god is right?

I think my god can kick all the other gods butts and SHE says that Eskimo’s own the land and everyone else needs to pack up and move.

Since you’re a fundamentalist you’re probably are not aware that MOST Christian secs don’t believe in Zionism.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism#Disapproval_by_other_Churches

Wait! what? Are you lost in your delusions? How do you come to that conclusion? I post a link showing some christians are allied with Israel and their interests and you attach me to this? I could care less if Israel vanished in a nuclear vapor cloud. I think you are purposely glossing over that fact that radical Muslims are blowing up people regardless of faith if they show any alliance however remote or imagined with Israel. Your "disapproval by other churches" is just a blip on the screen. I am not aware of any protests or demonstrations with people up in arms over the existence of a Jewish state, well except for the truthers who attach every conspiracy to them.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

It would have been IDEAL to start at the organizations head, But not imperative. So they took out AQ targets as they became available. So you are agreeing with me? They needed to dismantle or cripple the ability for the AQ network to plan, fund, execute terror on a world wide scale. THATS why we were there, not some natural gas pipeline. Again, as I said up thread, NO ONE believed that taking out OBL would immediately stop future attacks but it would have been a start.

We know that the Iraq war was not for the stated reasons so why not Afghanistan as well?

The US weighed the option to invade with the many available options not to invade.

Do you think that the US stated goal to oust the Taliban, for supposedly not wanting to hand over OBL, has made the US safer and outweighs the cost of having used any of the other available methods to make the US safer?

Or do you think the invasion has cost the US more in blood and treasure than it was worth and has pissed off far more Afghans to join the Taliban and be inspired by how well the outgunned, outnumbered, Taliban hillbillies are doing with their outdated weapons, against the worlds largest and most sophisticated military force, as they continue to resist the over a decade long occupation?

US officials new the risk of invading and occupying the graveyard of empires and I do not think the US would just blindly blunder into Afghanistan for reasons that were not worth the costs.

When you look into the other geo-political goals that the US had/has it makes more since than simply saying the US is ran by fools.

Many people just want to say that Bush was a fool but Obama has continued the war when he could have ended it years ago does that mean he is a fool as well?

And the are MANY advisers to Bush and Obama so you cant say ALL of them are fools.

 

[BStrong]

Do you remember the wounded American soldier who crawled to the Taliban village in Afghanistan because he new that by their strict Muslim tradition the people of the village would have to take care of him and protect him with their lives because once he entered the village he became a "GUEST" but had they found him outside the village he would have been killed?

These people live by an old tradition involving a strict code of honor and Muslim law. Most afghans would rather "DIE" than violate their Muslim traditions and laws. Even if that means dieing to protect their enemy who is their "GUEST".

The people of Afghanistan would have turned against the Taliban if they were to openly betray the great Afghan war hero who helped defeat the Soviet empire.

The Taliban had to have their OBL problem dealt with in such a way that did not make the Taliban look like they were ignoring and denying their Muslim duty of protecting their "GUEST".

How can Mullah Omar be the "leader of the FAITHFUL" if he wont adhere to Muslim tradition?

Oh and speaking of motives that "make no sense at all long term or even short term, they just don't pan out to any significant benefit when you weigh cost/benefit."

So you think there are enough good reasons that far outweighed the US deciding NOT to use any one or more of the many other, much cheaper, easier, legal, and less likely to piss the Muslim world off methods to apprehend or kill OBL instead of invading and occupying the grave yard of empires for over a decade?

What are those good reasons that far outweighed having done anything else BUT INVADING THE GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES?

Because at this point the US motives to invade and occupy "make no sense at all long term or even short term, they just don't pan out to any significant benefit when you weigh cost/benefit."

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

Luttrell was brought into the village by Afghan civilians.

 

[Robrob]

Do you remember the wounded American soldier who crawled to the Taliban village in Afghanistan because he new that by their strict Muslim tradition the people of the village would have to take care of him and protect him with their lives because once he entered the village he became a "GUEST" but had they found him outside the village he would have been killed?

No but I do remember the Navy SEAL who was brought to an Afghan village by Afghans. A Navy SEAL who admitted he didn't know about "Pashtun Wali" or their code to care for guests. The same code which prevented the Taliban from surrendering Bin Ladin.

The people of Afghanistan would have turned against the Taliban if they were to openly betray the great Afghan war hero who helped defeat the Soviet empire.

Massoud was already dead before 9/11.

So you think there are enough good reasons that far outweighed the US deciding NOT to use any one or more of the many other, much cheaper, easier, legal, and less likely to piss the Muslim world off methods to apprehend or kill OBL instead of invading and occupying the grave yard of empires for over a decade?

The Taliban said they weren't going to turn OBL over. You just explained in depth the reasons the Taliban were not going to turn him over. Al Qaeda was ensconced in the Afghan mountains. We had already launched many futile missile attacks against them. Your point would be...?

What are those good reasons that far outweighed having done anything else BUT INVADING THE GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRES?

Defeating the Taliban and ensuring Afghanistan never again became a terrorist safe-haven?

Because at this point the US motives to invade and occupy "make no sense at all long term or even short term, they just don't pan out to any significant benefit when you weigh cost/benefit."

Argument from ignorance.

In later articles the US intelligence officials called it house arrest but that's not accurate either as it was not OBL's house but was an isolated house in the mountains so that the US could conduct a missile strike without much collateral damage.

Which you know, how?

Regarding your second question is the fact that the Bush administration was already preparing for war in Afghanistan but others on JREF have said that it was because Bush wanted to apprehend OBL for the USS Cole attack but that was incorrect for the US was still conducting the investigation on the USS Cole before 9/11.

The administration was already preparing for war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. And yes, OBL was wanted for both the attack on the USS Cole as well as 9/11.

Because Bush did not care about OBL but was preparing for ware means there had to be other motives that far outweighed any reasons for not invading.

Since all the evidence indicates Bush was preparing to invade Iraq, not Afghanistan, your point would be?

So the question is what other motives could their possibly have been that would justify invading the graveyard of empires rather than simply use any one of the many available methods the US could have used to apprehend or kill one old man.

Begging the question.

We know that the Iraq war was not for the stated reasons so why not Afghanistan as well?

Argument from ignorance.

Do you think that the US stated goal to oust the Taliban, for supposedly not wanting to hand over OBL, has made the US safer and outweighs the cost of having used any of the other available methods to make the US safer?

When was the last domestic al Qaeda attack?

US officials new the risk of invading and occupying the graveyard of empires and I do not think the US would just blindly blunder into Afghanistan for reasons that were not worth the costs.

Argument from ignorance.

Many people just want to say that Bush was a fool but Obama has continued the war when he could have ended it years ago does that mean he is a fool as well?

You do realize we have withdrawn from Iraq and are in the process of withdrawing from Afghanistan, right?

And the are MANY advisers to Bush and Obama so you cant say ALL of them are fools.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[Travis]

The fact that you do not know this is NOT proof that you are an “IDIOT” but it is PROOF that you, like many other Americans, have been intentionally misinformed and MISLEAD.

Um, that was meaningless. There is no evidence that the US actually sold any WMD's to Iraq at any point. That Iraq misused material sent there for peaceful purposes is not a black mark on the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapo...n_Iraq#Western_help_with_Iraq.27s_WMD_program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq–...use_chemicals_and_biological_material_to_Iraq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq–...use_chemicals_and_biological_material_to_Iraq

The UN said: “chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian forces.”

The US was the only UNSC nation to vote against this statement (the UK abstained from voting). Throughout the Iran/Iraq war, the US also supplied intelligence and tactical help to Iraq.

Yeah, Iraq was an ally at the time because Iran was a huge threat with it being run by religious nutbags. That does not prove the USA supplied Saddam with actual WMD's.

In 1984, the US gave Iraq access to intelligence information that allowed Iraq to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops, and in 1988 approved technological exports to Iraq's missile procurement agency to extend their missiles' range. More than 60 US Defense Intelligence Agency officers provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. (source - NYT, August 17, 2002) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/w...despite-use-of-gas.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Everyone already knows the USA gave them financial, tactical and intelligence support. They were allies at that point in time.

Did you have a point to make with this?

 

[Animal]

Since all the evidence indicates Bush was preparing to invade Iraq, not Afghanistan, your point would be?

Just a minor note. I would be quite surprised if the US DID NOT HAVE an invasion plan / attack plan for every remotely hostile or potentially hostile country in the world. It is called being prepared.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Just a minor note. I would be quite surprised if the US DID NOT HAVE an invasion plan / attack plan for every remotely hostile or potentially hostile country in the world. It is called being prepared.

Heck, the US has, or had at one point, a war plan for the United freaking Kingdom, our closest ally.

 

[swright777]

Wow! Do you really think that Iraq having mobile anthrax labs and possible nuclear weapons where we "don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud" are the same thing as some old buried, since 1992, pile of rusted and useless chemical weapons that the US sold to Iraq and are no longer potent as they far exceeded their shelf life as the same thing?

Do you REALLY?

What does this have to do with your two contradictory statements?

 

[Travis]

Just a minor note. I would be quite surprised if the US DID NOT HAVE an invasion plan / attack plan for every remotely hostile or potentially hostile country in the world. It is called being prepared.

The United States not only has battle plans but has actually wargamed an amphibious invasion of Israel.

So, yeah, there are battle plans for invasions of all sorts of countries with different scenarios such as deposing a leader, rescuing a leader or preempting a major assault.

 

[Robrob]

So we have proven the OP doesn't know what he is talking about, now what?

 

[twinstead]

So we have proven the OP doesn't know what he is talking about, now what?

He will continue to hold on to his beliefs unabated. That's what an ideologue does when confronted with evidence that his beliefs could possibly be guided by politics and world view instead of objective, rational thought; he ignores it.

 

[ozeco41]

So we have proven the OP doesn't know what he is talking about, now what?

[/THREAD]

 

[BCR]

[/THREAD]

Ditto. This is getting very painful to watch.

 

[NoahFence]

He will continue to hold on to his beliefs unabated. That's what an ideologue does when confronted with evidence that his beliefs could possibly be guided by politics and world view instead of objective, rational thought; he ignores it.

I'm going with the "disappear for a year and a half again until a new crop of users arrives, making my arguments fresh again"

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

So far what I have learned on this thread is that anyone who believes that Americans were misled into the Iraq and Afghanistan war is considered by JREF a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and will have their thread moved to the 9/11 conspiracy forum.

Most JREFers on this thread believe that the US had no other options but to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and that the invasions have created LESS terrorists while making the US SAFER.

Also most JREFers on this thread believe that Americans were NOT intentionally misled with knowingly false information in order to justify the invasions and/or that the US had NO other geo-political interests for invading Iraq and Afghanistan other than the stated reasons.

And finally most JREFers believe that the costs in both blood and treasure have been worth the supposedly successful results gained from the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Therefore the majority of JREFers on this thread assume all Americans are either “idiots” or “conspiracy theorists”.

How can you guys call 30% of Americans “idiots” for believing the Bush lies while at the same time calling the 60% of Americans who believe they were “intentionally mislead” into war crazy conspiracy theorists?

what do you call the 10% in the gray area, in-between what you guys call “IDIOTS” (for believing Bush) and “CONSPIRACY THEORISTS” (for NOT believing Bush)?

As more and more evidence is released, through the freedom of information act, more and more Americans believe they were “intentionally mislead” into war reaching to a majority opinion as far back as 2005 and growing ever since.

Here is just a “SMALL” sample demonstrating the growth:

52% Say Bush "Intentionally Misled The American Public" Into Iraq War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll062705.pdf

CBS/NYT: In making its case for the war with Iraq, do you think members of the Bush Administration intentionally misled the public or not?
52% believe they were intentionally misled. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

CNN/USA/Gallup: Do you think the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?
53% believe they were intentionally misled. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

ABC/Washington Post: In making its case for war with Iraq, do you think the Bush Administration told the American public what it believed to be true, or intentionally misled the American public?"
55% believe they were intentionally misled. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

NBC/WSJ: Do you think that President Bush gave the country the most accurate information he had before going to war with Iraq, or do you think that President Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq?
57% believe they were intentionally misled. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

And you guys call yourselves skeptics yet you can’t see how Americans were misled while the majority of the US public and the rest of the world can? WOW!

Despite all the books and all the news stories and all the declassified documents most JREFers on this thread are unable to except the FACT that Americans were misled into war and the mere suggestion causes this thread to be moved to the 9/11 forum while making many JREFers agitated and foam at the mouth with anger and contempt as they desperately try to nail to the cross any who believe that Americans were MISLED into war.

Sorry guys but do to the overwhelming evidence most Americans and the world believes that "Americans were intentionally misled into war". Maybe in a couple years you guys will catch up with everyone else.

 

[Robrob]

So far what I have learned on this thread is that anyone who believes that Americans were misled into the Iraq and Afghanistan war is considered by JREF a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and will have their thread moved to the 9/11 conspiracy forum.

Classic strawman sour grapes.

Most JREFers on this thread believe that the US had no other options but to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and that the invasions have created LESS terrorists while making the US SAFER.

Strawman. Not "most" of those posting on this topic, much less "most" of those posting on JREF. Many posters on JREF (myself included) feel the US had many options other than invading Iraq.

Also most JREFers on this thread believe that Americans were NOT intentionally misled with knowingly false information in order to justify the invasions and/or that the US had NO other geo-political interests for invading Iraq and Afghanistan other than the stated reasons.

1) You continue to conflate the reasons for going to war in Afghanistan and the reasons for going to war in Iraq.

2) The second half of your sentence is a logical fallacy (Correlation does not Imply Causation).

And finally most JREFers believe that the costs in both blood and treasure have been worth the supposedly successful results gained from the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Strawman.

Therefore the majority of JREFers on this thread assume all Americans are either “idiots” or “conspiracy theorists”.

Claim based on facts not in evidence.

How can you guys call 30% of Americans “idiots” for believing the Bush lies while at the same time calling the 60% of Americans who believe they were “intentionally mislead” into war crazy conspiracy theorists?

You continue to conflate Iraq and Afghanistan. You do realize they are different countries, right?

what do you call the 10% in the gray area, in-between what you guys call “IDIOTS” (for believing Bush) and “CONSPIRACY THEORISTS” (for NOT believing Bush)?

Undecided?

As more and more evidence is released, through the freedom of information act, more and more Americans believe they were “intentionally mislead” into war reaching to a majority opinion as far back as 2005 and growing ever since.

Continued conflation.

Here is just a “SMALL” sample demonstrating the growth:

Argument from Popularity.

52% Say Bush "Intentionally Misled The American Public" Into Iraq War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll062705.pdf

OK, that's Iraq - so what about Afghanistan?

CBS/NYT: In making its case for the war with Iraq, do you think members of the Bush Administration intentionally misled the public or not?
52% believe they were intentionally misled. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

CNN/USA/Gallup: Do you think the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?
53% believe they were intentionally misled. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

ABC/Washington Post: In making its case for war with Iraq, do you think the Bush Administration told the American public what it believed to be true, or intentionally misled the American public?"
55% believe they were intentionally misled. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

NBC/WSJ: Do you think that President Bush gave the country the most accurate information he had before going to war with Iraq, or do you think that President Bush deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq?
57% believe they were intentionally misled. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq2.htm

And you guys call yourselves skeptics yet you can’t see how Americans were misled while the majority of the US public and the rest of the world can? WOW!

One thing I can see is your tap dancing argument between Iraq and Afghanistan. Two different wars, two different causes.

Despite all the books and all the news stories and all the declassified documents most JREFers on this thread are unable to except the FACT that Americans were misled into war

Which war? You keep changing.

the mere suggestion causes this thread to be moved to the 9/11 forum

Since your argument incorporates 9/11, it's certainly more appropriate in that forum than in with the Bigfoot and debates about creationism.

while making many JREFers agitated and foam at the mouth with anger and contempt as they desperately try to nail to the cross any who believe that Americans were MISLED into war.

So it's our fault you can't provide a coherent POV or evidence/facts to support it?

Sorry guys but do to the overwhelming evidence most Americans and the world believes that "Americans were intentionally misled into war". Maybe in a couple years you guys will catch up with everyone else.

Continued conflation as well as claim based on facts not in evidence.