"Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

[Facial_King]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Yes, when we initially invaded Iraq/Afghanistan, our media was very supportive. Everybody was. We televised the bombing for crying out loud. That's how much we wanted to see our revenge happen. Then, when Bush made his little "mission accomplished" statement, there was a brief moment of support...until the next morning came and every news and media outlet started ripping Bush and our government apart, listing a long list of reasons why the US needed to withdraw it's troops.

But, other than that, our media has slammed the US for being overseas.

Could the fact that Bush and Co. declared "mission accomplished" possibly be one reason why anyone (including people in the media) might suppose that a troop withdrawal would be the next step? Mission accomplished, so can the troops come home now?

As for your claim that "our media has slammed the US for being overseas" - what media have YOU been reading/watching/listening to??? Are you talking about some Wobbly newspaper with a national circulation of like 5,000, or are you talking about actual mainstream media?

What about the positive things that have come out of the "war" in Iraq? Why doesn't the media ever talk about those things, yet, it focuses on all of the negatives on a constant basis?

I've seen plenty of stories about troops building schools, painting schools, meeting local tribal leaders and getting them to shake hands, rebuilding power and water plants (that the US blew up - see my previous post; did you even READ it?). Plenty.

When have you ever watched the news or picked up a newspaper and seen, "Since the United States first invaded Afghanistan, there have been no terrorist attacks in the US". Not once have I seen a newscaster that has said anything remotely close. Not once have I read a newspaper article that has said anything remotely close.

Sorry, I gotta make the "Absurd!" call again. You are committing a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - you are assuming a causal connection (our invasion of Afghanistan prevented further terrorist attacks) simply based on the time order of events. You haven't established a causal link. So, sorry, no dice on that bogus claim. Any decent news outlet shouldn't be spouting off with such faulty logic, either.[/QUOTE]

Our media talks about whatever will get ratings. That's why all you ever hear about on the news is soldiers dying, children getting shot, old people getting mugged, apartment buildings catching on fire, etc. The news hardly ever talks about how little Billy from around the corner donated his allowance to a homeless shelter, or how Joe Schmo pulled an old lady out of the way of a runaway bus. It's always negative, negative, negative, no matter what they discuss, including President Bush, our government and our military tactics.

Sorry, what news are you taking in again? It's not just the local news outlets that often end their broadcast with feel-good stories about firemen rescuing kittens from trees and Joe Schmos pulling grannies to safety. Yes, there is a lot of negative news reported, but since when is - or should - the newsworthiness of any event determined by what kind of emotions it might elicit from readers/viewers/listeners???? Do you honestly think that this should be the standard? As far as the ratings thing goes, what do you expect? News corporations are corporations, which means they are for-profit, so it's no surprise that they chase ratings. Journalistic integrity takes a back seat to profits all the time. This shouldn't surprise anyone who knows the basic of how private businesses operate. So, are you with me in being opposed to the corporate media?

Personally, I consider commercials to be 100% part of the media. A Pepsi commercial is part of the media, so why wouldn't political commercials be? :dunno:

If we are talking about news media - and I thought we were - then no, I don't consider commercials to be part of the news media. That said, they are often as worthless as the news is.

Once again, I've stated that when we initially went overseas, our media was supportive. Other than that, our media has done nothing but make the US look like the big bad wolf. Not once have I watched the news or picked up a newspaper and seen something that hasn't ripped our government apart.

I don't know why you are giving me all sorts of "rolling eyes" and laughing at my point of view, but if you sincerely believe that our media doesn't tear our own country apart, I would really like you to show me something from the media in the past few years that would make me think otherwise.

www.foxnews.com ????

That should suffice.

:hatsoff:

 

[AFA]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

The saddest thing is the damage done to US crediblity after the Bush administration passes into history next year. The US lost what trust it had around the world and in the Arab nation where it was on "thin ice" at best, there is now zero.

Iraq which had been operating rather well despite UN sanctions is now a graveyard for over 100,000 dead, lacks even basic sanitary and waste facilities or clean water, with the result that there is virtually no popular support for the US left there at all. Despite this, the US raves about the appearance of success in Iraq, which is actually getting back a fraction of the stability which was there in the first place around the time of the invasion.

But one unique statistic comes to mind. Americans take in far less solid news than Europeans and seem satisified with a love it or leave it approach to politics, or, if you're not with us, you're against us reaction. Certainly an attitude not conducive to intelligent discussion or independent thought. Other cultures around the world have a much greater regard for higher education and on it's obsession with money, I was reading that CEO's in America routinely reward themselves with salaries in the ratio of 531:1 of the average worker, while in Germany, Japan and the U.K. that ratio is a meager `10 or 12:1. In fact, I believe it was this year that 3 CEO's were rewarded with a yearly salary of $1 - $3 billion dollars.

 

[LBP 76]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

The saddest thing is the damage done to US crediblity after the Bush administration passes into history next year. The US lost what trust it had around the world and in the Arab nation where it was on "thin ice" at best, there is now zero.

That can change. Quickly if the powers that be wish it.

The world longs for a more righteous America. And most of it will forgive the past 8 years (when it was run by the spoiled brat) to help to achieve it.

 

[AFA]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Sorry Chef,

The US paid Afghanistan very little attention despite the fact that Bin Laden was known to be there, by far all the troops and equipment were sent to Iraq to topple Hussein. (Virtually nothing was done at that time in Afghanistan by any US troops. The responsibility was handed over to Afghani war lords who let him go). It was known at the time Iraq had no WMD's the reason for going there, so despite the coverups and falsified information and outright ignoring of facts. There was no reason to go. In fact Bush hungry for war was briefed on this earlier on the day he gave the final speech about the need to take immediate action against Hussein and WMD's, but as usual the repeated truth of this revealed to him by even by his own George Tenet was buried in bureacracy.

The media should have exploded on that story, and relentlessly hounded the administration over it. But basically they were handled with kid gloves. "The good in Iraq", is a desperate attempt to fix some of the things that were broken as the country was slowly devestated.

That can change. Quickly if the powers that be wish it.

The world longs for a more righteous America. And most of it will forgive the past 8 years (when it was run by the spoiled brat) to help to achieve it.

Doubtful and simplistic. IMO. The US has worn out it's welcome a long while ago, and this fiasco will take generations to resolve simply by the fact of the enormous national debt, the generations of taxpayers paying for it. The health and educational systems in the US are deplorable. Other technical countries like China and India coming on line could be sending jobs making small plastic toys to factories in the US, because the labor is cheaper.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Sorry, I gotta make the "Absurd!" call again. You are committing a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - you are assuming a causal connection (our invasion of Afghanistan prevented further terrorist attacks) simply based on the time order of events. You haven't established a causal link. So, sorry, no dice on that bogus claim. Any decent news outlet shouldn't be spouting off with such faulty logic, either.

How is that a logical fallacy? :dunno:

For conversation's sake, let's imagine that in this scenario, we have a dorky school student (the US) and a school bully (terrorists).

The dorky school student is getting picked on by the school bully on a constant basis. The bully picks on him every day, giving him swirlies, stealing his lunch money and pushing him to the ground. The dorky school student, afraid of confrontation, doesn't fight back. Knowing that he can get away with it, anytime he wants to, the bully continues to pick on the dorky school student.

Now, let's say that the dorky school student decides to fight back one day. As the bully starts to pick on him, the dorky school student starts wailing on the bully, punching him as hard as he can. From this point on, due to fear of getting beaten up again, the bully stops picking on the dorky school student.

How can you not see the connection? The retaliation (bombing of Iraq/Afghanistan) from the dorky school student (the US) has clearly deterred the school bully (terrorists) from future bullying.

Also...

Apparently we are looking at different news sources. Either that, or we both have complete opposite points of view on what's positive and what's negative. This is going absolutely nowhere.

FYI - Fox News has never been shown on my TV before. I watch the Oxygen Network more than I watch Fox News.

 

[LBP 76]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

^^to AFA's reply...

How is it 'simplistic'? I stated a hope and/or an objective. Not a means to obtain it.

And my post was in reference to your point about US world standing. My comment had nothing to do with America's domestic problems. So why you included references to them in your reply is curious.

 

[semaaxeru]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Be cautious, young jedi. Into his trap might you be lured. Keep your commonsense saber at the ready.

Ha ha Torre you crack me up dude..lol

That can change. Quickly if the powers that be wish it.

The world longs for a more righteous America. And most of it will forgive the past 8 years (when it was run by the spoiled brat) to help to achieve it.

Well at least we both agree Bush is a tool. I think Americans long for a more rightous America much less the rest of the world.

 

[AFA]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

^^to AFA's reply...

How is it 'simplistic'? I stated a hope and/or an objective. Not a means to obtain it.

And my post was in reference to your point about US world standing. My comment had nothing to do with America's domestic problems. So why you included references to them in your reply is curious.

My apology to sounding critical.

I sadly feel so much damage has been done the past 8 years it will probably never be resolved. A McCain win shows the rest of the world and the US that nothing will change. Bush a draft dodger said the lesson of Vietnam was never give up! What an incredible fool. McCain a Vietnam vet that knows the history of S.E. Asia can't make the distinction from Bush and says, we will have victory in Iraq just has his head up his ass. That one sentence is proof he has no intention of getting out of Iraq, can't see or probably won't admit the similiarity to Vietnam where the US fought people protecting their homeland from the much larger more powerful aggressor nation. He is clearly a spokesperson for the party.

 

[LBP 76]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

My apology to sounding critical.

No problem.

I sadly feel so much damage has been done the past 8 years it will probably never be resolved. A McCain win shows the rest of the world and the US that nothing will change. Bush a draft dodger said the lesson of Vietnam was never give up! What an incredible fool. McCain a Vietnam vet that knows the history of S.E. Asia can't make the distinction from Bush and says, we will have victory in Iraq just has his head up his ass. That one sentence is proof he has no intention of getting out of Iraq, can't see or probably won't admit the similiarity to Vietnam where the US fought people protecting their homeland from the much larger more powerful aggressor nation. He is clearly a spokesperson for the party.

As bad as McCain might be. And as HIDEOUS as Bush is. They pale in comparison to the INCREDIBLE ignorance of the people that keep voting for these men. Especially those that re-elected Bush.

 

[AFA]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

As bad as McCain might be. And as HIDEOUS as Bush is. They pale in comparison to the INCREDIBLE ignorance of the people that keep voting for these men. Especially those that re-elected Bush.

That I agree with. That's absolutely true. It's either/or with/or against if there's a flag waving somewhere. It leaves no room for questioning the loss of control the American people have over the government that is supposed to represent them. People are so fixated on 9/11 and Iraq, they can't see how they were led by a pack of well documented lies all along, and Bush purposely went after Saddam while turning away from Bin Laden. I read something today quoting Bush in early 2002, when he said Bin Laden wasn't of much interest to him.

The Vincent Bugliosi book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush" brought it all home again. Of all the books and documentaries I've talked about here, that one book was without a doubt the most scathing thing I've seen or read about G.W. Bush the man. I thought Fred Goldman was angry at the O.J. Trial. Bugliosi a prosecutor is angry and prepared an air tight case, and offers his services to anyone who brings charges against GWB.

 

[LBP 76]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

^After the '04 Presidential election, I lost all respect for the American electorate.
They are, for the most part, ignorant sheep.

But they are not the first in world history. Nor the last.

 

[Facial_King]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

How is that a logical fallacy? :dunno:

Ok, I'll explain. You were originally lamenting that you had never seen anyone in the media reporting that ""Since the United States first invaded Afghanistan, there have been no terrorist attacks in the US."

The problem is that you are fallaciously connecting the lack of terrorist attacks on the US with the American invasion of Afghanistan. The American invasion/attack of Afghanistan has neither destroyed nor stopped Al Qaeda, the group behind the 9/11 attacks. Now, if it was true that terrorist attacks in the U.S. were occurring on a regular basis BEFORE our invasion of Afghanistan, but then CEASED after our invasion, then you'd have the start of a good case. But this is not the situation. The last terrorist attack in the U.S. (by Islamic fundamentalists - let's not forget American McVeigh's attack in Okla. City in '95), from what I recall, was the 1st attack on the World Trade Center in '93. Thus, it was 8 years between attacks by international terrorists on U.S. soil. So, it's been just over 7 years since the attacks of 9/11. Perhaps they are planning something even more elaborate? Perhaps they are still celebrating their major hit of 9/11, the far-reaching effects of which are still, arguably, making an impact to this day. It's not as though Al Qaeda had an attack SCHEDULE that was clearly (indisputably) interrupted by our invasion of Afghanistan (or Iraq). To make the claim that you want journalists to make, it's comparable to saying that a lucky rabbit's foot has kept you free of illness for the last year. Maybe you wouldn't have become ill even without the rabbit's foot. Maybe there's no evidence at all that rabbit's feet prevent illness.

For conversation's sake, let's imagine that in this scenario, we have a dorky school student (the US) and a school bully (terrorists).

The dorky school student is getting picked on by the school bully on a constant basis. The bully picks on him every day, giving him swirlies, stealing his lunch money and pushing him to the ground. The dorky school student, afraid of confrontation, doesn't fight back. Knowing that he can get away with it, anytime he wants to, the bully continues to pick on the dorky school student.

Now, let's say that the dorky school student decides to fight back one day. As the bully starts to pick on him, the dorky school student starts wailing on the bully, punching him as hard as he can. From this point on, due to fear of getting beaten up again, the bully stops picking on the dorky school student.

How can you not see the connection? The retaliation (bombing of Iraq/Afghanistan) from the dorky school student (the US) has clearly deterred the school bully (terrorists) from future bullying.

First of all, it's sort of amusing that you liken the U.S. to a "dorky school student." We're talking about the world's sole superpower with the greatest military force on Earth and the largest nuclear weapons stockpile. It's the only country that's ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation, and we have a long record of various military invasions and interventions. How you translate that to the schoolyard equivalent of the "dorky school student" is beyond me. Maybe that title should go to Canada or Sweden, but not the USA. If you want to call Al Qaeda the "school bully" I can accept that, but I think it doesn't really work. Al Qaeda is an asymmetrical enemy, and they are not a NATIONAL entity. They've operated in a wide range of countries, including the U.S. They have neither the numbers nor ANY real military strength to speak of, so are not capable of invading the U.S. They can only hope to pull off these secretly devised attacks. Let's also keep in mind that the U.S. opted to retaliate for 9/11 by attacking countries, not by attacking the terrorist entities themselves. The Taliban govt. in Afghanistan could be said to have been a legit. target for supporting Al Qaeda, but not Iraq. Neither Iraq nor the regime of Saddam Hussein had any links to Al Qaeda or 9/11. I would equate Al Qaeda to a particularly aggressive and nasty hornet in the locker room, and the U.S. as the meatnecked bully/jock who, after getting stung, freaks out and lashes out with his fists and whatever else is handy by smashing the first dude he comes across who looks like he might not have trimmed his fingernails recently.

Secondly, it is nuts, at this point (esp. for someone who claims to have never had FoxNews on his tv before) to claim, as you did, that the "bombing of Iraq" was a "retaliation." You can't possibly mean a retaliation for 9/11, can you????? Again, neither Iraq nor the Saddam Hussein regime had any connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. NONE of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq. So, what sort of retaliation were you talking about?

Also...

Apparently we are looking at different news sources. Either that, or we both have complete opposite points of view on what's positive and what's negative. This is going absolutely nowhere.

FYI - Fox News has never been shown on my TV before. I watch the Oxygen Network more than I watch Fox News.

The fact that you never watch FoxNews does not mean that it's not, at this point, part of the mainstream media. I believe it's the highest-rated, most popular cable news network in the U.S. - surely that must make it mainstream. Check it out for a few hours and then let's review again your claims that the U.S. media does nothing but bash America.

:hatsoff:

 

[AFA]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

I think most of the world sees the big bully, getting it's ass kicked by a group of just as sneakey little kids.

I'm afraid that logic that all this survelliance, airport security, invasions of foreign countries, (that were never favorable to Bin Laden), color coded alert systems, Homeland security slitting open my soft mylar bag from freeones with a razor blade and ruining my T-shirt, doing any good is like me saying;

Since I've been getting my whites cleaner and brighter with Clorox, I haven't wrecked my car!

Or, because I prefer Diet Coke, no planets in our solar system have crashed into the Sun.

Or, it doesn't hurt anymore when I pee. :rofl:

:dunno:

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Ok, I'll explain. You were originally lamenting that you had never seen anyone in the media reporting that ""Since the United States first invaded Afghanistan, there have been no terrorist attacks in the US."

The problem is that you are fallaciously connecting the lack of terrorist attacks on the US with the American invasion of Afghanistan. The American invasion/attack of Afghanistan has neither destroyed nor stopped Al Qaeda, the group behind the 9/11 attacks. Now, if it was true that terrorist attacks in the U.S. were occurring on a regular basis BEFORE our invasion of Afghanistan, but then CEASED after our invasion, then you'd have the start of a good case. But this is not the situation. The last terrorist attack in the U.S. (by Islamic fundamentalists - let's not forget American McVeigh's attack in Okla. City in '95), from what I recall, was the 1st attack on the World Trade Center in '93. Thus, it was 8 years between attacks by international terrorists on U.S. soil. So, it's been just over 7 years since the attacks of 9/11. Perhaps they are planning something even more elaborate? Perhaps they are still celebrating their major hit of 9/11, the far-reaching effects of which are still, arguably, making an impact to this day. It's not as though Al Qaeda had an attack SCHEDULE that was clearly (indisputably) interrupted by our invasion of Afghanistan (or Iraq). To make the claim that you want journalists to make, it's comparable to saying that a lucky rabbit's foot has kept you free of illness for the last year. Maybe you wouldn't have become ill even without the rabbit's foot. Maybe there's no evidence at all that rabbit's feet prevent illness.

SIGH, once again, this is going nowhere.

First of all, it's sort of amusing that you liken the U.S. to a "dorky school student." We're talking about the world's sole superpower with the greatest military force on Earth and the largest nuclear weapons stockpile. It's the only country that's ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation, and we have a long record of various military invasions and interventions. How you translate that to the schoolyard equivalent of the "dorky school student" is beyond me. Maybe that title should go to Canada or Sweden, but not the USA. If you want to call Al Qaeda the "school bully" I can accept that, but I think it doesn't really work. Al Qaeda is an asymmetrical enemy, and they are not a NATIONAL entity. They've operated in a wide range of countries, including the U.S. They have neither the numbers nor ANY real military strength to speak of, so are not capable of invading the U.S. They can only hope to pull off these secretly devised attacks. Let's also keep in mind that the U.S. opted to retaliate for 9/11 by attacking countries, not by attacking the terrorist entities themselves. The Taliban govt. in Afghanistan could be said to have been a legit. target for supporting Al Qaeda, but not Iraq. Neither Iraq nor the regime of Saddam Hussein had any links to Al Qaeda or 9/11. I would equate Al Qaeda to a particularly aggressive and nasty hornet in the locker room, and the U.S. as the meatnecked bully/jock who, after getting stung, freaks out and lashes out with his fists and whatever else is handy by smashing the first dude he comes across who looks like he might not have trimmed his fingernails recently.

SIGH, once again, this is going nowhere.

I was making a very easy to understand comparison. I think you may be looking a little too deep into what I'm saying because you are trying really hard to "discredit" my comparison of the US and terrorists to nerdy students and bullies, even though the comparison is undeniably simple.

You fight me + I don't fight back and you kick my ass = You fight me all the time

You fight me + I do fight back and kick your ass = You stop fighting me

(Obviously, I don't mean you and I personally. :glugglug

Secondly, it is nuts, at this point (esp. for someone who claims to have never had FoxNews on his tv before) to claim, as you did, that the "bombing of Iraq" was a "retaliation." You can't possibly mean a retaliation for 9/11, can you????? Again, neither Iraq nor the Saddam Hussein regime had any connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. NONE of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq. So, what sort of retaliation were you talking about?

SIGH, once again, this is going nowhere.

Once again, I think you're looking a little too deep into what I'm saying. We attacked Afghanistan as a direct retaliation for 9/11. While we were busy bombing Afghanistan, we decided, "Hey, since we're already out here fighting the War on Terror, why don't we just go after Saddam while we're at it?" :dunno: We then invaded Iraq, which was an indirect retaliation for 9/11. If it wasn't for 9/11, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

The fact that you never watch FoxNews does not mean that it's not, at this point, part of the mainstream media. I believe it's the highest-rated, most popular cable news network in the U.S. - surely that must make it mainstream. Check it out for a few hours and then let's review again your claims that the U.S. media does nothing but bash America.

:hatsoff:

I thought you were being sarcastic with the Fox News comment, so that's why I mentioned it. Obviously it's a mainstream news source. It's just that 99% of the posts that mention Fox News on this forum are somewhat insulting it's credibility, saying that Fox News is a joke (which I agree with). That's why I thought you were being sarcastic. That's why I mentioned that I don't watch Fox News.

Once again, this is going nowhere. I think our media blasts the US. You don't. That is that.

 

[TunnelOfLove]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Dorky school student (arabs) vs. School bully (U.S.A.) result = 9/11

 

[Facial_King]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

SIGH, once again, this is going nowhere.

SIGH, once again, this is going nowhere.

SIGH, once again, this is going nowhere.

Once again, this is going nowhere. I think our media blasts the US. You don't. That is that.

Well, it's true this is going nowhere. The primary reason for that is that you're being evasive and shifting around your claims without conceding the points that I make, and how they largely debunk your assertions.:wave2:

Could you, at least, explain how invading Iraq was an "indirect retaliation for 9/11"? I mean, just how generous can one get in defining "indirect"?

 

[don_equis]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Not evil but definatly the bad guys of the story.

If my country (Canada) or your country (USA) had a foreign country army all over, the good guys would be the people fighting the invader. And if my or your neighboor country coming to help against the invaders, they will be considered as well the good guys.

Being good or bad, good or evil is totally relative and doesnt mean much in my opinion.

There is no good, bad or evil in a war : there is only broken lifes, dead corpses and lots of mournings.

Yeah I see everything is relative these days, yep...Well you all have your democrat president and super majority so now let's see how better than the repubes you all can run this.

Get them people some houses and let's spread the wealth with them to make it right.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Well, it's true this is going nowhere. The primary reason for that is that you're being evasive and shifting around your claims without conceding the points that I make, and how they largely debunk your assertions.:wave2:

I'm not evading anything and you're not debunking anything. We just don't see things the same way and it's causing this to go nowhere. It's like one of those little train tracks you see in the mall, that little kids ride. Sure, when you first get on it, you're like "WEEEE, this is fun", but after the 2nd time around the loop, you begin to see that it's pointless and that you're just going in circles.

Could you, at least, explain how invading Iraq was an "indirect retaliation for 9/11"? I mean, just how generous can one get in defining "indirect"?

I already kind of explained it, but, to elaborately answer your question...

After 9/11 happened, the US invaded Afghanistan with "Shock and Awe". That was a direct retaliation for what Bin Laden and his cronies did to the World Trade Center. They took down the Twin Towers and killed a bunch of innocent people, so we directly retaliated by dropping a storm of bombs all over Afghanistan.

During that time, our government slowly shifted it's focus on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

At this point, I will take a brief moment to acknowledge the fact that Saddam Hussein was a target of George H.W. Bush when he was still President.

Anyway, the US was already in Afghanistan fighting the War on Terror. Obviously the message has changed (significantly), but initially, we went into Afghanistan, sending a message to the world that terrorism would not be tolerated. During this whole "uproar" of "taking a stand against terrorism", the US decided to rekindle it's search for Saddam Hussein, as he was one of the highly known threats, not only to the US, but to the world as well (as we believed he had WMDs). The US then decided to go after Saddam Hussein and invaded Iraq.

If 9/11 never happened, we never would've invaded Afghanistan.
If 9/11 never happened, we never would've started our War on Terror.
If 9/11 never happened, we never would've went after Saddam Hussein.
If 9/11 never happened, we never would've invaded Iraq.

If 9/11 never happened, the fuse wouldn't have been lit that would end up igniting the flame that rekindled our search for Saddam Hussein. I don't think that's being "generous" at all by saying that our invasion of Iraq was a indirect retaliation of 9/11.

 

[don_equis]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

I'm not evading anything and you're not debunking anything. We just don't see things the same way and it's causing this to go nowhere. It's like one of those little train tracks you see in the mall, that little kids ride. Sure, when you first get on it, you're like "WEEEE, this is fun", but after the 2nd time around the loop, you begin to see that it's pointless and that you're just going in circles.



I already kind of explained it, but, to elaborately answer your question...

After 9/11 happened, the US invaded Afghanistan with "Shock and Awe". That was a direct retaliation for what Bin Laden and his cronies did to the World Trade Center. They took down the Twin Towers and killed a bunch of innocent people, so we directly retaliated by dropping a storm of bombs all over Afghanistan.

During that time, our government slowly shifted it's focus on Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

At this point, I will take a brief moment to acknowledge the fact that Saddam Hussein was a target of George H.W. Bush when he was still President.

Anyway, the US was already in Afghanistan fighting the War on Terror. Obviously the message has changed (significantly), but initially, we went into Afghanistan, sending a message to the world that terrorism would not be tolerated. During this whole "uproar" of "taking a stand against terrorism", the US decided to rekindle it's search for Saddam Hussein, as he was one of the highly known threats, not only to the US, but to the world as well (as we believed he had WMDs). The US then decided to go after Saddam Hussein and invaded Iraq.

If 9/11 never happened, we never would've invaded Afghanistan.
If 9/11 never happened, we never would've started our War on Terror.
If 9/11 never happened, we never would've went after Saddam Hussein.
If 9/11 never happened, we never would've invaded Iraq.

If 9/11 never happened, the fuse wouldn't have been lit that would end up igniting the flame that rekindled our search for Saddam Hussein. I don't think that's being "generous" at all by saying that our invasion of Iraq was a indirect retaliation of 9/11.

Obama and Biden's big plan is a memory erasor machine wait till they use it in six months and people's mind will not remember any of those things...oh wait they already forgot.

 

[AFA]

Re: "Vast majority" of Gitmo prisoners "never posed any real risk to America at all"

Obama and Biden's big plan is a memory erasor machine wait till they use it in six months and people's mind will not remember any of those things...oh wait they already forgot.

Is that true is there really such a thing? Ah come on, you're pulling my leg!