Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Sundog said:
It's certainly is possible. I have started a new thread on that topic and I am looking forward to hear what you have to say.
It's certainly is possible. I have started a new thread on that topic and I am looking forward to hear what you have to say.
People seem to be using the fact that our war in Iraq was unpopular with the rest of the world as evidence that we were wrong. Well, popularity isn't all its cracked up to be.
Indeed so.
When you listen to a lot of the talk about how the war against terror might "succeed in the short run" but it is a mistake because it will "breed resentment towards the USA", it sounds really reasonable until you realize what it means: "don't win the war, it might make you unpopular with the enemy".
Indeed so.
When you listen to a lot of the talk about how the war against terror might "succeed in the short run" but it is a mistake because it will "breed resentment towards the USA", it sounds really reasonable until you realize what it means: "don't win the war, it might make you unpopular with the enemy".
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,863
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I believe that one of humanity's greatest follies is that agreement is taken as a sign of friendship and loyalty, and conversely disagreement is taken as a sign of hostility and disloyalty. It creates an environment where intellectual integrity takes a back seat to politics.
Those of you that wonder if France is really our friend... are you making this mistake?
Those of you that wonder if France is really our friend... are you making this mistake?
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
Perhaps what they're talking about is that such a war is unnecessary, and can't succeed in the long run. Like the mythical hydra, for every head you chop off, two more take it's place.
"Don't win the war"? How about something a little bit smarter: NOT fighting the war at all.
In other words: how can you fight a war when you have no enemy?
Do we want these people to be our enemy? I don't. When you stand next to a hornet's nest and constantly smack it with a stick, why are you shocked when one stings you?
Wouldn't be better to get the hell away from the nest?
Aw, whats the use. I've said my bit ten times before, and no one ever listens. Go ahead and keep blowing each other up and claiming revenge for the time you got blown up in retribution for when you blew them up in retribution for when they blew you up... ad infinitum, ad nausiam.
Hypocolius
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 538
Denise said:
F*ckin moron.
Number Six:
"I'm not offended at the book but rather I'm offended that it went to #1 on the bestseller list.
There's as much conclusive evidence that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the CIA as there is that they were carried out by the French government, but that doesn't mean a book claiming that the attacks were carried out by the French government should be given any credence, much less go to the top of the bestseller list.
And I think there is a pretty good chance that the US, UK, Afghanistan and lots of other nations knew who carried out the 9/11 soon as they happened."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claiming to know isn't the same as having evidence and, for the record, the US Government still does not officially know who carried out the attacks. Most likely (within the official paradigm), they were planned in Malaysia and Hamburg. The important point is that the US and UK killed thousands of people, ostensibly to force the handover of a man against whom they had no evidence. Terrorism, in a word.
An interesting article-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1125339.htm
quote:
Reuters
Taliban told US it would give up Osama: report
United States and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.
No agreement was reached and no further negotiations took place before the suicide hijackings in 2001, which bin Laden subsequently hailed in a videotape as the work of his Al Qaeda network.
ZDF television quoted Kabir Mohabbat, an Afghan-American businessman, as saying he tried to broker a deal between the Americans and the purist Islamic Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who were sheltering bin Laden.
He quoted Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil as saying: "You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him".
A German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, confirmed that he had helped Mr Mohabbat in 1999 to establish initial contact with the Americans.
"I was told [by Mohabbat] that the Taliban had certain ideas about handing over bin Laden, not to the United States but to a third country or to the Court of Justice in The Hague," Mr Brok said.
"The message was: 'There is willingness to talk about handing over bin Laden', and the aim of the Taliban was clearly to win the recognition of the American Government and the lifting of the boycott," he said, referring to the international isolation of the Taliban.
Mr Brok said he was not in a position to judge how credible the offer was but he passed it to the US ambassador to Germany, John Kornblum.
He said Mr Mohabbat was then summoned to Washington to be interviewed by US officials.
This led in turn to the German meeting, which ZDF said took place between Taliban ministers and US officials in a Frankfurt hotel in November 2000.
The documentary, broadcast on Thursday evening, said the Afghans put forward "several offers" and there was talk of holding further negotiations at the US embassy in Pakistan on where and when bin Laden would be handed over.
In fact, no more talks took place before September 11.
But negotiations did resume five days after the attacks, in the Pakistani city of Quetta, ZDF said. This meeting has been previously reported in US media.
Mr Mohabbat said the Americans pressed in Quetta for the handover of bin Laden within 24 hours, but the Taliban were unable to meet that demand.
Within weeks, US-led forces intervened in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban from power and kill, capture or disperse Al Qaeda fighters based in Afghan training camps.
Bin Laden still has not been captured.
Mr Brok said he had not personally taken part in either of the reported meetings between the Taliban and the United States but believed there had been a "political decision" not to pursue negotiations after the one in Frankfurt.
He told ZDF: "I have to say that I consider this offer [on bin Laden's handover] very much more seriously with hindsight than I did at the time".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the US does know bin Laden was behind them, doesn't there seem to be a rather striking ommission from this (taken from the FBI Ten Most Wanted Site):
'USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.'
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
PS: If you do some googling, I think you`ll find that the book you mention ( I assume you mean Thierry Meyssan's book "9/11 The Big Lie"?), only reached number seven in the French bestsellers list. Maybe it wasn`t quite such a "slap in the face" as you and Pentagon spokesman, Glen Flood, say it was.
"I'm not offended at the book but rather I'm offended that it went to #1 on the bestseller list.
There's as much conclusive evidence that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the CIA as there is that they were carried out by the French government, but that doesn't mean a book claiming that the attacks were carried out by the French government should be given any credence, much less go to the top of the bestseller list.
And I think there is a pretty good chance that the US, UK, Afghanistan and lots of other nations knew who carried out the 9/11 soon as they happened."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claiming to know isn't the same as having evidence and, for the record, the US Government still does not officially know who carried out the attacks. Most likely (within the official paradigm), they were planned in Malaysia and Hamburg. The important point is that the US and UK killed thousands of people, ostensibly to force the handover of a man against whom they had no evidence. Terrorism, in a word.
An interesting article-
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1125339.htm
quote:
Reuters
Taliban told US it would give up Osama: report
United States and Taliban officials met secretly in Frankfurt almost a year before the September 11 attacks to discuss terms for the Afghans to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a German television documentary.
No agreement was reached and no further negotiations took place before the suicide hijackings in 2001, which bin Laden subsequently hailed in a videotape as the work of his Al Qaeda network.
ZDF television quoted Kabir Mohabbat, an Afghan-American businessman, as saying he tried to broker a deal between the Americans and the purist Islamic Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, who were sheltering bin Laden.
He quoted Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil as saying: "You can have him whenever the Americans are ready. Name us a country and we will extradite him".
A German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, confirmed that he had helped Mr Mohabbat in 1999 to establish initial contact with the Americans.
"I was told [by Mohabbat] that the Taliban had certain ideas about handing over bin Laden, not to the United States but to a third country or to the Court of Justice in The Hague," Mr Brok said.
"The message was: 'There is willingness to talk about handing over bin Laden', and the aim of the Taliban was clearly to win the recognition of the American Government and the lifting of the boycott," he said, referring to the international isolation of the Taliban.
Mr Brok said he was not in a position to judge how credible the offer was but he passed it to the US ambassador to Germany, John Kornblum.
He said Mr Mohabbat was then summoned to Washington to be interviewed by US officials.
This led in turn to the German meeting, which ZDF said took place between Taliban ministers and US officials in a Frankfurt hotel in November 2000.
The documentary, broadcast on Thursday evening, said the Afghans put forward "several offers" and there was talk of holding further negotiations at the US embassy in Pakistan on where and when bin Laden would be handed over.
In fact, no more talks took place before September 11.
But negotiations did resume five days after the attacks, in the Pakistani city of Quetta, ZDF said. This meeting has been previously reported in US media.
Mr Mohabbat said the Americans pressed in Quetta for the handover of bin Laden within 24 hours, but the Taliban were unable to meet that demand.
Within weeks, US-led forces intervened in Afghanistan to drive the Taliban from power and kill, capture or disperse Al Qaeda fighters based in Afghan training camps.
Bin Laden still has not been captured.
Mr Brok said he had not personally taken part in either of the reported meetings between the Taliban and the United States but believed there had been a "political decision" not to pursue negotiations after the one in Frankfurt.
He told ZDF: "I have to say that I consider this offer [on bin Laden's handover] very much more seriously with hindsight than I did at the time".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the US does know bin Laden was behind them, doesn't there seem to be a rather striking ommission from this (taken from the FBI Ten Most Wanted Site):
'USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.'
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
PS: If you do some googling, I think you`ll find that the book you mention ( I assume you mean Thierry Meyssan's book "9/11 The Big Lie"?), only reached number seven in the French bestsellers list. Maybe it wasn`t quite such a "slap in the face" as you and Pentagon spokesman, Glen Flood, say it was.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,643
gnome said:
Hell no. It's not simple disagreement that makes France no longer our ally. It's the fact that they actively oppose our interests. Joint naval maneouvers with China to intimidate Taiwan had no basis in any principled stance. It was a cynical move for their own benefit, and against ours. This is the sort of thing that allies don't do. Opposing NATO planning to protect Turkey in case of attack is also not something allies do - again, it's about the actions, not simply the disagreement.
blackpriester
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 226
Elio said:
What Grammatron says is NOT true.
Germany never had an unprotected Western border in the entire war. Plus, the French thought it best to trust in the "inconquerable" Maginot line. I suggest reading Raymond Cartier's excellent strategic account of WWII.
blackpriester
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 226
Denise said:
Jesus Denise, what is WRONG with you?
Have you been "Bush-whacked"?
P.S.: Sorry for the late reply... just stumbled over this thread today...
ceo_esq said:
Also, if the book was classed as "non-fiction" (correctly or otherwise) it woul dhave been competing in the non-fiction category in which sales are typically much much lower than for fiction.
It often doesn't take very high sales at all to make it into the non-fiction bestseller lists.
Graham
Flo
Illuminator
ceo_esq said:
Certainly a lot less, mainly because the French press and TV did a good job demolishing Meyssan's crackpot theory from the outset.
That said, I had a great time reading this (mostly) hilarious thread
Number Six
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2001
- Messages
- 5,016
Although I qualified my post re. the French 9/11 book pretty heavily while asking politiely to be corrected if I was wrong, I'd still say going to #7 (or going anywhere in the top 1000 for that matter) was a pretty big slap in the face.
Hasn't it been established that the 19 men carried out the hijackings and that they were part of Al Qaeda? No? Really? Does Tim McVeigh have an alibi for 9/11?
Hasn't it been established that the 19 men carried out the hijackings and that they were part of Al Qaeda? No? Really? Does Tim McVeigh have an alibi for 9/11?