Jump to content


- - - - -

Pres Obama is making an unscheduled address to the nation(crap is about to get real)


#121 Magus8472   The Sudden Stop CAGiversary!   1408 Posts   Joined 12.1 Years Ago  

Magus8472

Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:38 AM

The text I offered is the exact text of a bill offered after September 11, 2001, as an alternative to the outright warmongering that was going on at the time. There also wasn't even an official investigation into who was behind 9/11 at that time, so clear action under that guise was elusive.


You quoted the bill summary. Here's the text:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) That the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 upon the United States were acts of air piracy contrary to the law of nations.

(2) That the terrorist attacks were acts of war perpetrated by enemy belligerents to destroy the sovereign independence of the United States of America contrary to the law of nations.

(3) That the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were actively aided and abetted by a conspiracy involving one Osama bin Laden and others known and unknown, either knowingly and actively affiliated with a terrorist organization known as al Qaeda or knowingly and actively conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both of whom are dedicated to the destruction of the United States of America as a sovereign and independent nation.

(4) That the al Qaeda conspiracy is a continuing one among Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and others known and unknown with plans to commit additional acts of air piracy and other similar acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(5) That the act of war committed on September 11, 2001, by the al Qaeda conspirators, and the other acts of war planned by the al Qaeda conspirators, are contrary to the law of nations.

(6) That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.

(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

© No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.


Even in this thread, I offered it as an alternative to warmongering, and in later posts referenced only the act of passing a letter, not the exact text from the 2001 bill. Also cute that you keep referencing thugs, when you could just as easily hire local police force.


I just tend to think thugs are the kind of people motivated by large cash bounties. Though I fail to see how using foreign police changes anything. We'd still be running around the world paying people to become agents of our government and effect our policy. With guns.

But really, I don't know why you're bothering. You were trolling for the war in Libya, did something change?


I'm sorry, you're right. Because I thought one military action was legal, I therefore must think all unrelated quasi-military actions are legal. How silly of me.

#122 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3251 Posts   Joined 9.4 Years Ago  

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 03 May 2011 - 07:18 AM

I just tend to think thugs are the kind of people motivated by large cash bounties. Though I fail to see how using foreign police changes anything. We'd still be running around the world paying people to become agents of our government and effect our policy. With guns.


Scale of escalation:

Diplomacy - asking a foreign body to capture someone and bring them to trial, either in their country our the US. With force (you used guns, I'll be more pacifist and simply offer force. How do you arrest people, with contracts of consent?). This is clearly the best choice available.

Letter of Marque and Reprisal - less diplomatic, but if talks with said nation fall through the cracks or if the country is unwilling to apprehend the alleged criminals, this is certainly preferable to doing this in secret. It's also in standing with our legal system. Conceivably, trained pros could be hired for this. Nothing would preclude us from sending a trained CIA or other team under such an action.

CIA or other undercover government directive - at best, could be equated with Letter of Marque and Reprisal. Extremely damaging at worst (I'm referencing dohdough's remarks w/r/t Bush/Cheney again. Hope you don't mind, dohdough).

Declaration of war - misguided to declare a war on a small group of people unaffiliated with a country, let alone a tactic. Technically constitutional, but not moral in the least.

What US policy has been - outright disaster.

I'm sorry, you're right. Because I thought one military action was legal, I therefore must think all unrelated quasi-military actions are legal. How silly of me.

Not sure why you have a bug in your pants over something positioned fairly low on a scale of escalation (that could even be pre-empted by diplomatic activity) when you're cool with bombing a country that is no threat to our national security.

I've offered my take on what we should do in response to an attack on our country by a non-government entity. My first preference is diplomacy and rule of law, with Letters my next choice and undercover CIA-type activity as last resort. Feel free to offer your own.

#123 Magus8472   The Sudden Stop CAGiversary!   1408 Posts   Joined 12.1 Years Ago  

Magus8472

Posted 03 May 2011 - 08:36 AM

I understand that you think issuing letters of marque are a sensible intermediary step in escalating conflict against a non-state actor. It's not. The entire point of such letters is to simply pay private parties to cross borders in order to prosecute armed conflict so that the military doesn't have to. At best, it's sending non-state actors to fight non-state actors. At worst, it's tantamount to endowing mercenaries with the capacity to prosecute a war in the name of the United States. And in either case, I can't imagine anyone is going to care that these particular commandos aren't wearing uniforms with mirrored US flags on the shoulder.

And that's assuming we get past the fact that Paul's bill is unconstitutional.

Not sure why you have a bug in your pants over something positioned fairly low on a scale of escalation (that could even be pre-empted by diplomatic activity) when you're cool with bombing a country that is no threat to our national security.


I'm not sure why you think an argument that the President has the legal authority to do something is the same as an argument that he should do it. In any event, that's not the topic at hand.

I've offered my take on what we should do in response to an attack on our country by a non-government entity. My first preference is diplomacy and rule of law, with Letters my next choice and undercover CIA-type activity as last resort. Feel free to offer your own.


I think I'd start with one that doesn't incorporate relics of 19th Century maritime law.

#124 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3251 Posts   Joined 9.4 Years Ago  

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 03 May 2011 - 10:55 AM

I understand that you think issuing letters of marque are a sensible intermediary step in escalating conflict against a non-state actor.


Provided diplomacy fails. Diplomacy encompasses a vast array of options that are too numerous to list.

It's not. The entire point of such letters is to simply pay private parties to cross borders in order to prosecute armed conflict so that the military doesn't have to. At best, it's sending non-state actors to fight non-state actors. At worst, it's tantamount to endowing mercenaries with the capacity to prosecute a war in the name of the United States.

Historically, anyone applying to carry out the action would produce a bond promising adherence to national and international laws, treaties, and customs. A Letter calling for action on land would thus take on a different form than one commissioned for international waters. I grant that the possibility exists that the group carrying out the action could overstep its bounds, either by way of the written agreement or violation of national or international law. Such abuses should be opposed and the perpetrators brought to justice.

And in either case, I can't imagine anyone is going to care that these particular commandos aren't wearing uniforms with mirrored US flags on the shoulder.

Certainly, which is yet another point in diplomacy's column.

And that's assuming we get past the fact that Paul's bill is unconstitutional.

I earlier mistook the summary of the bill as being its full text; if that were the complete scope of the bill, I would likely agree. However, after reading in its entirety, the bill is textbook constitutional form. Congress outlines the scope and purpose of the action described in authorizing Letters, and the president is tasked with signing the Letter and deciding who carries out the operation. Congress abdicating its responsibility to declare war to the president in a resolution would be unconstitutional. The comparison between War and a Letter is that the president, as commander-in-chief, directs troops once appropriate action has been taken by Congress.

I'm not sure why you think an argument that the President has the legal authority to do something is the same as an argument that he should do it. In any event, that's not the topic at hand.

I do not. I am questioning why you feel an unconstitutional act of war is acceptable under US law, while a Letter of Marque and Reprisal is not.

I think I'd start with one that doesn't incorporate relics of 19th Century maritime law.

On this we are in agreement, provided that you are referring to diplomatic actions.

#125 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 9.2 Years Ago  

Posted 03 May 2011 - 11:43 AM

Did we or did we not go into Iraq because of misleading information based on Al Qaeda? Did we or did we not train AND arm them with our tax dollars? Do/Did we or do/did we not install AND support AND ARM dictators in that area? What am I lying about? Absolutely nothing.

Billions for millions rhymes better than 100's of 1000's. If you're going to make a little word play the backbone of your argument, keep on going, but it still doesn't change the fact that we are mostly and directly responsible for the current situation in the MidEast.

The only thing you're concerned is about the lives of US citizens and not the ones killed by US citizens before 9/11. A lot more than 5000 people died because of the US since we've been fucking around in the desert. This did not start when 20 people flew planes into buildings no matter how many times you say it or how loudly you protest.


Whitey Bulger is probably living across the street from the Queen of England. Somebody call the FBI and raid his ass.


.......What the hell? Did you really just try and flip every point as if it was your own? You most certainly directly said that the US has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in afghanistan (and iraq). That was not word play. You lied here.

Everyone talks about bringing Bin Laden to justice and that he was responsible for the thousands of innocent deaths, but what about the hundreds of thousands that we killed after that as well as the tens of thousands we killed before it?


We went into iraq because of misleading information on weapons of mass destruction. A minor few people spoke of iraq harboring al qaeda and noone said bin laden was there, which again you DIRECTLY stated. You lied here.

edit: And let's not forget that we went into Iraq because of Bin Laden.


We made a mistake in afghanistan. Now that mistake is biting us in the ass, and you determine that "haha, thats what we get" is a good enough solution.

Also where is your venom for the russians continuing to provide weapons in that area against us TODAY?

As for your whole queen of england deal.....it just doesn't make sense. Joke or not, explain to me how any of those things does not lead you to believe that pakistan is a) incapable of tracking al qaeda anywhere in its own country, or b) particular elements of the pakistani government knew of bin ladens where abouts and decided to take a hands off approach.

#126 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 9.5 Years Ago  

Posted 03 May 2011 - 08:43 PM

.......What the hell? Did you really just try and flip every point as if it was your own? You most certainly directly said that the US has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents in afghanistan (and iraq). That was not word play. You lied here.

So you're saying that the AP is not a reliable source and those people would've killed each other if we weren't there? Whether we pulled the trigger or not, the blood is still on our hands.

We went into iraq because of misleading information on weapons of mass destruction. A minor few people spoke of iraq harboring al qaeda and noone said bin laden was there, which again you DIRECTLY stated. You lied here.

Al Qaeda was the intro, the WMD's were the hook. We all knew this shit was fishy from the beginning and I bet you didn't say shit then.

We made a mistake in afghanistan. Now that mistake is biting us in the ass, and you determine that "haha, thats what we get" is a good enough solution.

Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of your idealogy, but I'm not surprised that it's all bullshit anyways. And yes, we will be paying for Afghanistan and Iraq for decades to come in human lives. Some of that blood will be ours. You either accept that we created these problems and try to fix them or you decide that we're completely innocent of any wrong doing and stick your thumb up your ass and hope for the best. Looks like you'd rather stick your thumb up your ass.

Throwing my hands up and saying "that's what we get" isn't what I'm doing either, but we can't exactly address the problem if you keep throwing your hands in the air saying that we're the victims with no culpability.

You can't even get to step 1 and admit that we have a problem.

Also where is your venom for the russians continuing to provide weapons in that area against us TODAY?

Lolz, simple economics. AK-47's are cheaper and easier to maintain than M-4's. Not to mention that the US has been in the arm-dealing business longer than the USSR existed.

As for your whole queen of england deal.....it just doesn't make sense. Joke or not, explain to me how any of those things does not lead you to believe that pakistan is a) incapable of tracking al qaeda anywhere in its own country, or b) particular elements of the pakistani government knew of bin ladens where abouts and decided to take a hands off approach.

Are you saying that they have the wealth and infrastructure to set up surveilence like England? You have know fucking clue about anything.

tl:dr: Yeah, I lied about everything:roll:

#127 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 03 May 2011 - 08:52 PM

Knoell:
Were you by chance at Obama's Addess with Rep, "you lie" Wilson?

We went into iraq because of misleading information on weapons of mass destruction. A minor few people spoke of iraq harboring al qaeda and noone said bin laden was there, which again you DIRECTLY stated. You lied here.

Sorry buddy, but are members of the Bush admin, "a minor few people"??? They regurgitated that lie over and over again. Here's something for starters:
http://en.wikipedia....eney.27s_claims


And a number of points that you seem strangely ignorant of.
Per int'l law, the occupying power is responsible for providing security for the population it OCCUPIES and is therefore also responsible for civilian deaths.

And you need to familiarize yourself with the CIA term "blowback." 9/11 was blowback for our involvement in Afghanistan. Per President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, we wanted the USSR to have their own Vietnam and create an "Afghan trap." So what did we do? Use Afghansitan as our chessboard in a a game with the USSR and Afghan were our pieces. We armed religious zealots and trained them to wage an terror campaign which included bombing public places including schools which taught girls. We called them freedom fighters. The gov't then called the Soviets in for assistance and they ended up staying. We created bin Laden and got blowback. Read a little history before you throw all your uninformed assumptions out there likely influenced by Rambo and Michael Bay movies.

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.globalres...es/BRZ110A.html

AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992 America's Jihad
http://killinghope.o...lum6/afghan.htm

And here are more chapters from his expertly researched book:
http://www.thirdworl...gHope_page.html

Edited by joeboosauce, 03 May 2011 - 09:19 PM.


#128 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3815 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 03 May 2011 - 09:22 PM

http://www.mediaite....on-was-illegal/

Shep Smith is on your side FtA.

It's really disappoint to hear how the WH lied about the circumstances of the assassination. They acted like he was armed and firing back and used his wife as a human shield. Then they had to clarify that not only was he not armed but he didn't use the woman (who was not his wife) as a human shield.

Sorry buddy, but are members of the Bush admin, "a minor few people"??? They regurgitated that lie over and over again. Here's something for starters:


Facts aren't allowed to enter their bubble. I don't even know why you bother.

#129 UncleBob  

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:01 AM

All the news around this seems to be getting interesting. Clarifying the details of the actual assault, the follow-up... Hm..

#130 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 9.5 Years Ago  

Posted 04 May 2011 - 01:44 AM

All the news around this seems to be getting interesting. Clarifying the details of the actual assault, the follow-up... Hm..

That's putting it lightly.

#131 UncleBob  

Posted 04 May 2011 - 04:01 AM

Agreed.

#132 cindersphere   Running on no sleep CAGiversary!   1618 Posts   Joined 11.6 Years Ago  

cindersphere

Posted 04 May 2011 - 04:24 AM

Is the coverage creeping anybody else out?

#133 UncleBob  

Posted 04 May 2011 - 05:28 AM

I don't understand this obsession for the photos to be released. If you're inclined to believe this is all a government cover-up (not saying it is, not saying it isn't), then would it be too far fetched to believe that any photos taken could be faked?

Would any good come from releasing such photos?

#134 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3815 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 04 May 2011 - 10:59 AM

You can't fight irrationality with empirical evidence. I thought we learned our lesson with the birth certificate.

#135 4thHorseman   The New God CAGiversary!   2454 Posts   Joined 8.8 Years Ago  

4thHorseman

Posted 04 May 2011 - 04:07 PM

I don't understand this obsession for the photos to be released. If you're inclined to believe this is all a government cover-up (not saying it is, not saying it isn't), then would it be too far fetched to believe that any photos taken could be faked?

Would any good come from releasing such photos?


Violent death videos/pics intrigue people. I don't think it's much more than that.

#136 panzerfaust  

panzerfaust

Posted 04 May 2011 - 06:43 PM

No photo, good decision IMO.

#137 nasum   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3480 Posts   Joined 14.5 Years Ago  

Posted 04 May 2011 - 07:05 PM

And now we enter that diabolical void of conspiracy vs reality vs morbid curiosity vs martyrdom vs etc...

#138 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 13.9 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 04 May 2011 - 07:25 PM

No photo, good decision IMO.


Agreed. It wouldn't shut up the conspiracy theorists, and would likely offend many and maybe rile up some of his supporters more. Just no reason to release it.

#139 KillerRamen   OMG Lilac PSP! CAGiversary!   3649 Posts   Joined 9.2 Years Ago  

Posted 04 May 2011 - 07:29 PM

I want to see it. I watched thousands of americans die on live television in my High School social studies class, so the least they could do is release a photo of his dead body. Closure: I wants it!

This photo can't be any worse than the concentration camp photos we saw in middle school and I'm certain it's a lot less worse than watching people jump from the World Trade Center which I also watched live during school.

#140 panzerfaust  

panzerfaust

Posted 04 May 2011 - 07:39 PM

They said it will ultimately be released, probably when things die down or maybe you'll see it in some documentary in 20 years. But right now it's not really necessary, and while I doubt it would cause big problems, if any, it's better to play it safe than to release a photo that doesn't really do anything for you, compared to what it could do against you.

Who's scared of conspiracy theories, anyways?

#141 nasum   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3480 Posts   Joined 14.5 Years Ago  

Posted 04 May 2011 - 08:17 PM

As much as I hate to give any validity to information heard on right wing radio...
How much is left of al-Qaeda anyways? There are some who believe that the actual organization is down to maybe 50-100 people and that there are many splinter groups that make up maybe another 600-700 hardcore terrorists that want to Fuck shit up. Others of course think there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims that are nuts and want to blow up anything not adherring to Shaira law.

I'm more inclined to believe that we're down to enough hardcore terrorists to maybe fill a medium sized apartment complex and that's what makes them so dangerous. They're not centrally located and they're looseknit at best. I'd also think that it's a safe assumption that we've taken care of 75% of the people that are really into the whole deal.

Edited by nasum, 04 May 2011 - 08:54 PM.


#142 joeboosauce   Snarf! Get in the... CAGiversary!   826 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

joeboosauce

Posted 04 May 2011 - 11:17 PM

Agreed. It wouldn't shut up the conspiracy theorists, and would likely offend many and maybe rile up some of his supporters more. Just no reason to release it.


Because of an excellent campaign to demonize the term "conspiracy theorist", I don't think people really understand what they are saying when they lob it around. (I think they may have watched the Mel Gibson movie Conspiracy Theory way too much.)

The U.S. government has historically been quick to deceive when it comes to wartime photos, as evidenced in the cover-up of Abu Ghraib in 2004, and the government’s efforts to suppress photograph$s published by Rolling Stone in March of U.S. soldiers standing over the mutilated bodies of unarmed civilians. And before people label me and others who simply question as "conspiracy theorists," need I remind you of the conspiracy to push the nation to war against Iraq with WMD/AQ lies? All for the interests of the oil companies… I would think that critical thinking skills might have gone up after that. Did people forget this ALREADY from only 2 weeks ago???

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
http://www$.independ...-$2269610.ht$ml

Our gov't has a HISTORY of lying to the public and creating bogeymen to push through agendas. Maybe we shouldn't be so pliant and complacent. Then again that is the easier thing to do. There are such things as conspiracy fact (Iran-Contra revealed a shadow gov't). I suggest folks look up the definition of conspiracy in a dictionary.

#143 panzerfaust  

panzerfaust

Posted 05 May 2011 - 12:10 AM

You're upset because we used the term loosely, so for that I apologize.

We very well know what the strict definition is, but just like so many others (as you said), we like to toss it around when talking about current events involving irrational arguments.

#144 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 9.2 Years Ago  

Posted 05 May 2011 - 06:03 PM

Knoell:
Were you by chance at Obama's Addess with Rep, "you lie" Wilson?
Sorry buddy, but are members of the Bush admin, "a minor few people"??? They regurgitated that lie over and over again. Here's something for starters:
http://en.wikipedia....eney.27s_claims


And a number of points that you seem strangely ignorant of.
Per int'l law, the occupying power is responsible for providing security for the population it OCCUPIES and is therefore also responsible for civilian deaths.

And you need to familiarize yourself with the CIA term "blowback." 9/11 was blowback for our involvement in Afghanistan. Per President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, we wanted the USSR to have their own Vietnam and create an "Afghan trap." So what did we do? Use Afghansitan as our chessboard in a a game with the USSR and Afghan were our pieces. We armed religious zealots and trained them to wage an terror campaign which included bombing public places including schools which taught girls. We called them freedom fighters. The gov't then called the Soviets in for assistance and they ended up staying. We created bin Laden and got blowback. Read a little history before you throw all your uninformed assumptions out there likely influenced by Rambo and Michael Bay movies.

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.globalres...es/BRZ110A.html

AFGHANISTAN 1979-1992 America's Jihad
http://killinghope.o...lum6/afghan.htm

And here are more chapters from his expertly researched book:
http://www.thirdworl...gHope_page.html



See now you are being ignorant of a few things.

1) Like I said before we try very hard to protect the civilian populations of both countries (at the cost of our soldiers lives) and if we could prevent all of them from killing each other in afghanistan we would. Dohdough seems to believe that our forces are murdering hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians. (He has since fallen back to the point I said I wouild accept at the very beginning of all this. Quoted below.) So do not try to devolve my argument iinto a "it ain't our problem thing".

We did not kill 100,000s of thousands of civilians. If you want to clarify that us being there forced the civilians to start killing each other, I might let you slide. But DO NOT paraphrase a point that must be spelled out. This is why people are going around saying US forces are killing 100,000s of thousands of civilians. It is simply in no way true. Could we have stopped civilians from killing each other we would have. Better to leave the tyrants to their own killing though right? :roll:



2) You again completely miss my argument. I was not arguing that we were not hunting al qaida in iraq. I was disputiing dohdoughs announcement that we went to iraq to find bin laden. Quoted below.

edit: And let's not forget that we went into Iraq because of Bin Laden.


3) Thirdly, when have I denied that there was blow back? I have said we made a mistake in afghanistan.

#145 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3815 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:09 PM

Knoell, do you concede you were wrong about 'a minor few people'?

Sorry buddy, but are members of the Bush admin, "a minor few people"??? They regurgitated that lie over and over again. Here's something for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.....ney.27s_claims



#146 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 9.2 Years Ago  

Posted 05 May 2011 - 10:42 PM

Knoell, do you concede you were wrong about 'a minor few people'?


The main reason we went into iraq was because our government insisted that iraq was actively working against us through the development of wmds, and al qaida. We went into iraq to take iraqs government down. A secondary objective was to locate al qaida targets taking refuge in the country. Regardless of whether either was true or not, we were there for iraqs government. They were the threat cheney was highlighting in the link, and they were the threat we went there to eliminate.

Poor choice of words? Sure, you got me. I did not mean minor as in low level officials. I meant minor as in it was secondary rather than primary, an incentive to go in if you will. If you remember I was discussing whether or not we went there to get bin laden.

Edited by Knoell, 05 May 2011 - 10:57 PM.


#147 Msut77   Occam's Shank CAGiversary!   6251 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

Posted 06 May 2011 - 10:46 AM

http://www.metatube....-final-moments/

#148 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3815 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 06 May 2011 - 01:32 PM

That's not what you said. You said the number of people who did it were 'few', and their position was 'minor'. It wasn't a poor choice of words, it was just a flat out lie.

#149 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 9.2 Years Ago  

Posted 06 May 2011 - 01:42 PM

That's not what you said. You said the number of people who did it were 'few', and their position was 'minor'. It wasn't a poor choice of words, it was just a flat out lie.


I cleared up for you what I meant. Sorry that isn't good enough for you. It really is so curious how you seem so intent on attacking me for that, yet you were oddly mute when dohdough was slandering our military. Noone attempted to correct him there. But you got me man, you proved that I said something contrary to what you, me and everyone else in this forum believes.

#150 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3815 Posts   Joined 10.5 Years Ago  

Posted 06 May 2011 - 04:37 PM

So not addressing some stupid shit = condoning it? You're so full of shit.

Look, you lied. No one denies that. I'm glad you're at least admitting it.