The US may have been warned. The US did request and recommend that the UN improve the security around their facility, using concrete baracades, zig-zag entrances etc. The UN refused, citing the desire to not put forth a military image, but a human and humanitarian image. Public image won out over security...how can you blame the US for this..this was a UN decision.
In full agreement..this is what Cofe Annan said as well..He did not blame the USA per se, he merely suggested both the UN and USA made bad decisions & in retrospect he felt the US army should not have given the UN the option of the level of security on offer..
In some respects it does sound a bit like back pedalling to me..but then I don't blame the US or the UN...
I only hope that this attack sets the teeth of many Iraqis on edge and that they might start turning against these disruptive fundamentalists...
The US may have been warned. The US did request and recommend that the UN improve the security around their facility, using concrete baracades, zig-zag entrances etc. The UN refused, citing the desire to not put forth a military image, but a human and humanitarian image. Public image won out over security...how can you blame the US for this..this was a UN decision.
I don't blame the US, it's just what I read. What I read suggested that the US didn't give the specific info they had, so I'll assume the 'suggestions' they gave were not tied to a direct threat. Or, the article was wrong.
Are you really going to try to tell me that this is the action of a radical fundamentalist muslim who believd he was going to paradise as a martyr ?
Nothing really unusual about this. Religious zealots don't consider themselves zealots. The consider themselves right. As Aqua pointed out, they could have received an A-OK from their clerics telling them to cut loose and taste their upcoming delites. Atta may have rationalized it himself, believing he was about to commit such an act of honour and rightousness, that his misdeeds would be forgiven.
A friend of mine from pakistan has lived here for about 8 years. His is a pretty secular muslim, but considers himself somewhat devout. He considers his recently arrived brother as a near-fundamentalist, who pressured him to attend religious converences, meetings and to associate with other more devout Muslims. I had coffe with him last week and he was telling me that his brother has started asking him to take him to strip clubs and has started smoking and drinking a little. I asked how this jives with his brother's holier-than-thou attitude he arrived with. My friend said "he still has the attitude, but he says that so long as his faith is true and strong, then he now feels free to live to today and repent his actions later"
Deviant catholic priests, who I am sure consider themselves quite pious, somehow justify pedophilia.
Point is, no matter how devout and pious one considers oneself of any faith, many can rationalize their behaviours that go against their believes. It's human nature.
I don't blame the US, it's just what I read. What I read suggested that the US didn't give the specific info they had, so I'll assume the 'suggestions' they gave were not tied to a direct threat. Or, the article was wrong.
I think your assumpt is probably right. But, given the environment this UN was operating in, I don't think they were wise to require direct threat information to take the security of their personnel more seriously.
In the end, I only blame the bombers. This wasn't an act of resistance. This wasn't an act or war. This was terrorism and murder, plain and simple.
Saudi Arabia. Apart fromthe links to bin laden and the fund raising for and promotion of martyrs, they've taken to arbitrarily arresting certain westerners and putting them on death row without cause and holding them as pawns in negotiation. It's abstracted a few levels from kidnapping, disguised as it is under a pretence of law, but it's really a diplomatic manouver used from time to time.
You routinely bring up two issues. One, the money to families of suicide bombers. Two, direct cash from the government to the hijackers.
On the first note, it's money given to support the families that lose a patriarch. We don't like it, but we pay money to the families of solders lost in combat.
On the second, I've asked for some evidence before but you don't ever put any forth. I'd love to see it. Yeah, there's one instance where someone asked for money for surgery and it was siphoned off for terrorists. If this is the main instance, virtually the only instance, then it's no proof. If there's a history of stuff like this, or a pattern, then you have a case.
I don't blame the US, it's just what I read. What I read suggested that the US didn't give the specific info they had, so I'll assume the 'suggestions' they gave were not tied to a direct threat. Or, the article was wrong.
" Don't let the truth stand in the way of a good story "
This led to the infamous Spanish-American war of 1898..
Nothing really unusual about this. Religious zealots don't consider themselves zealots. The consider themselves right. As Aqua pointed out, they could have received an A-OK from their clerics telling them to cut loose and taste their upcoming delites. Atta may have rationalized it himself, believing he was about to commit such an act of honour and rightousness, that his misdeeds would be forgiven.
I think a conversation on this would be pretty interesting, but it would have to start with you backing up your claim that "Atta" (hell, let's throw in all 19 people fingered by the FBI as 9.11 hijackers) was a "religious zealot." This would include recognition of all available evidence, which is an exchange I am more than willing to engage in.
Segovious, learn the phrase "common enemy" Saudi Arabia has been playing both side for a while now. Over the last few years they have increasingly bowed to the will of the clerics. While they may have legitimately severed ties with Bin Laden at one point, and Bin Laden may have wanted to oust them, things change when you need a friend, do you think all Saudi Royals think with the same mind? Bin Laden has support in the royal family, no doubt, and whether he is ideologically copacetic with the Royals takes a back seat when you need money. The links between the Saudis and terror have been established by academics, and intelligence communities around the world. Also, the position of the Saudi Royals is a precarious one. They face a real risk of fundamentalist revolt. While they are against fundamentalism, they are more against losing power (aren't we all) and will make quite a few concessions to fundamentalism if that cements their power. Ie, the position of Women, westerners and non-muslims has quietly been getting worse for the last decade, as it has Egypt aswell.
As for Iraq, a "/" generally means "or" not "and" though that's my own fault for not explaining it clearly. Plenty of anti infidel rhetoric has whipped up various groups in Iraq, all of whom imagine their own reasons for this attack. But again, the phrase "common enemy" crops up. The Shiite (hahaha!!!) are even more vehemently opposed to western incursion. The Ba'aath were headed by a psychopath, but were much more secular. Shiites cheered when they though they could grab power and are growing antsy now that they can't, yet.
Bunge, the difference between my rantings and those of socialist crack pots is that mine are more fun, and accurate.
80m which he used to fund a wide ranging war effort. Today, a great many of his assets are frozen. How does he ellude capture so successfully without friends in high places?
..I presume your saying this is how to spell his name?
For the record I actually did check the spelling..
ABC had it as Acofi..
& SBS had it as Akofi..
I chose Acofi..but I did post pretty late at night...
I do not recall ever seeing it with the spelling you have given it...
\
I'm just going to assume that every line of this post was written while you were sleep-walking. But here's a couple google searches in case you really do live in a cave, ackoaphyr:
I'm just going to assume that every line of this post was written while you were sleep-walking. But here's a couple google searches in case you really do live in a cave, ackoaphyr:
80m which he used to fund a wide ranging war effort. Today, a great many of his assets are frozen. How does he ellude capture so successfully without friends in high places?
Sitting in a cave in a remote area of Afghanistan.
thanks, segovius, for pointing out the blatantly obvious to mr. hooked on phonics up there.
I guess it is that he lives in a cave, after all. Next thing you know he's going to start talking about invading Saudi Jordaniastan and how everything in international politics can be understood just be reading those swell articles in Teen People.
Just a little FYI for all the folks buying into the neo-con anti-saudi propaganda, this from josh marshall paraphrasing an interview with the author of Holy War Inc:
Quote:
According to Bergen, the current Saudi crackdown against Islamic militants is actually quite fierce. And he says that many of them are fleeing Saudi Arabia because of it. Ironically, the crackdown on Islamist militants in Saudi Arabia may be leading to an upsurge of their numbers in Iraq.
And how can anyone go around attacking the saudi royals without attacking the bushes? I like how one person put their relationship in The Atlantic: near familial.
Here's a little story about the relationship between the bush's and Bandar's wife, haifa (of 'saudi royal sends money to the hijackers' fame):
Quote:
When George and Barbara Bush visited the troops in Saudi Arabia during the Thanksgiving holiday in 1990, Bush called Bandar, who was in Saudi Arabia at the time. Bandar went to the private quarters in the royal palace where the Bushes were staying. Bush had tears in his eyes, and Bandar, worried, asked what had happened. Bush explained that Dorothy, their recently divorced daughter, was alone at the White House with her children. They had called her from the airplane and learned that Bandar's wife, Haifa, had invited Doro and her children to spend Thanksgiving with her. ("I don't have parents now," Haifa told me. "The Bushes are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them.")
And how can anyone go around attacking the saudi royals without attacking the bushes? I like how one person put their relationship in The Atlantic: near familial.
Absolutely, the devils and the devils that made them, those two clans.
Absolutely, the devils and the devils that made them, those two clans.
Well, then you are saying (if you are in the 'Haifi funded 9.11' school, and you affirmed a few posts above that you are) that the bush's are clearly and closely connected to 9.11 funding.
I do also have to address an error you made in an earlier post:
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
America's own neo-con attitudes, so often mentioned here are just another layer of proof that the intel communities ahve decided that the Saudis are rapidly becoming an unmanageable risk.
This is fundamentally incorrect. Perhaps the biggest split in the US government right now is that between the neo-cons and the intel community. So extreme is this split that if the neo-cons believe something, then you can assume that the intel community is on the opposite end of the issue. It's already clear, and clearer every day, that the neo-cons have everything wrong, and openly believe in the use of misinformation when implementing policy. That's why it's so funny that their name shortens to 'neo-con' It's the big 'new con.'
Hopefully someday it can just be 'con' and we can throw away the key.
Comments
Originally posted by Tulkas
The US may have been warned. The US did request and recommend that the UN improve the security around their facility, using concrete baracades, zig-zag entrances etc. The UN refused, citing the desire to not put forth a military image, but a human and humanitarian image. Public image won out over security...how can you blame the US for this..this was a UN decision.
In full agreement..this is what Cofe Annan said as well..He did not blame the USA per se, he merely suggested both the UN and USA made bad decisions & in retrospect he felt the US army should not have given the UN the option of the level of security on offer..
In some respects it does sound a bit like back pedalling to me..but then I don't blame the US or the UN...
I only hope that this attack sets the teeth of many Iraqis on edge and that they might start turning against these disruptive fundamentalists...
Originally posted by Tulkas
The US may have been warned. The US did request and recommend that the UN improve the security around their facility, using concrete baracades, zig-zag entrances etc. The UN refused, citing the desire to not put forth a military image, but a human and humanitarian image. Public image won out over security...how can you blame the US for this..this was a UN decision.
I don't blame the US, it's just what I read. What I read suggested that the US didn't give the specific info they had, so I'll assume the 'suggestions' they gave were not tied to a direct threat. Or, the article was wrong.
Originally posted by segovius
Are you really going to try to tell me that this is the action of a radical fundamentalist muslim who believd he was going to paradise as a martyr ?
Nothing really unusual about this. Religious zealots don't consider themselves zealots. The consider themselves right. As Aqua pointed out, they could have received an A-OK from their clerics telling them to cut loose and taste their upcoming delites. Atta may have rationalized it himself, believing he was about to commit such an act of honour and rightousness, that his misdeeds would be forgiven.
A friend of mine from pakistan has lived here for about 8 years. His is a pretty secular muslim, but considers himself somewhat devout. He considers his recently arrived brother as a near-fundamentalist, who pressured him to attend religious converences, meetings and to associate with other more devout Muslims. I had coffe with him last week and he was telling me that his brother has started asking him to take him to strip clubs and has started smoking and drinking a little. I asked how this jives with his brother's holier-than-thou attitude he arrived with. My friend said "he still has the attitude, but he says that so long as his faith is true and strong, then he now feels free to live to today and repent his actions later"
Deviant catholic priests, who I am sure consider themselves quite pious, somehow justify pedophilia.
Point is, no matter how devout and pious one considers oneself of any faith, many can rationalize their behaviours that go against their believes. It's human nature.
Originally posted by bunge
I don't blame the US, it's just what I read. What I read suggested that the US didn't give the specific info they had, so I'll assume the 'suggestions' they gave were not tied to a direct threat. Or, the article was wrong.
I think your assumpt is probably right. But, given the environment this UN was operating in, I don't think they were wise to require direct threat information to take the security of their personnel more seriously.
In the end, I only blame the bombers. This wasn't an act of resistance. This wasn't an act or war. This was terrorism and murder, plain and simple.
Originally posted by Matsu
Saudi Arabia. Apart fromthe links to bin laden and the fund raising for and promotion of martyrs, they've taken to arbitrarily arresting certain westerners and putting them on death row without cause and holding them as pawns in negotiation. It's abstracted a few levels from kidnapping, disguised as it is under a pretence of law, but it's really a diplomatic manouver used from time to time.
You routinely bring up two issues. One, the money to families of suicide bombers. Two, direct cash from the government to the hijackers.
On the first note, it's money given to support the families that lose a patriarch. We don't like it, but we pay money to the families of solders lost in combat.
On the second, I've asked for some evidence before but you don't ever put any forth. I'd love to see it. Yeah, there's one instance where someone asked for money for surgery and it was siphoned off for terrorists. If this is the main instance, virtually the only instance, then it's no proof. If there's a history of stuff like this, or a pattern, then you have a case.
Originally posted by bunge
I don't blame the US, it's just what I read. What I read suggested that the US didn't give the specific info they had, so I'll assume the 'suggestions' they gave were not tied to a direct threat. Or, the article was wrong.
" Don't let the truth stand in the way of a good story "
This led to the infamous Spanish-American war of 1898..
Originally posted by Tulkas
Nothing really unusual about this. Religious zealots don't consider themselves zealots. The consider themselves right. As Aqua pointed out, they could have received an A-OK from their clerics telling them to cut loose and taste their upcoming delites. Atta may have rationalized it himself, believing he was about to commit such an act of honour and rightousness, that his misdeeds would be forgiven.
I think a conversation on this would be pretty interesting, but it would have to start with you backing up your claim that "Atta" (hell, let's throw in all 19 people fingered by the FBI as 9.11 hijackers) was a "religious zealot." This would include recognition of all available evidence, which is an exchange I am more than willing to engage in.
Originally posted by Aquafire
...this is what Cofe Annan said as well...
I'm sorry, but do you think you could try to get his name at least remotely correct? Please, ackoaphyr?
Originally posted by giant
I'm sorry, but do you think you could try to get his name at least remotely correct? Please, ackoaphyr?
" ackoaphyr "
..I presume your saying this is how to spell his name?
For the record I actually did check the spelling..
ABC had it as Acofi..
& SBS had it as Akofi..
I chose Acofi..but I did post pretty late at night...
I do not recall ever seeing it with the spelling you have given it...
As for Iraq, a "/" generally means "or" not "and" though that's my own fault for not explaining it clearly. Plenty of anti infidel rhetoric has whipped up various groups in Iraq, all of whom imagine their own reasons for this attack. But again, the phrase "common enemy" crops up. The Shiite (hahaha!!!) are even more vehemently opposed to western incursion. The Ba'aath were headed by a psychopath, but were much more secular. Shiites cheered when they though they could grab power and are growing antsy now that they can't, yet.
Bunge, the difference between my rantings and those of socialist crack pots is that mine are more fun, and accurate.
Originally posted by Aquafire
" ackoaphyr "
..I presume your saying this is how to spell his name?
For the record I actually did check the spelling..
ABC had it as Acofi..
& SBS had it as Akofi..
I chose Acofi..but I did post pretty late at night...
I do not recall ever seeing it with the spelling you have given it...
I'm just going to assume that every line of this post was written while you were sleep-walking. But here's a couple google searches in case you really do live in a cave, ackoaphyr:
akofi annan:
http://www.google.com/search?q=akofi...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
26 hits, 4 displayed
acofi annan
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search
2 hits
kofi annan
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search
383,000
Originally posted by giant
I'm just going to assume that every line of this post was written while you were sleep-walking. But here's a couple google searches in case you really do live in a cave, ackoaphyr:
akofi annan:
http://www.google.com/search?q=akofi...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
26 hits, 4 displayed
acofi annan
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search
2 hits
kofi annan
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...=Google+Search
383,000
And " Ackoaphyr Annan " BIG Fat Zero on Google...
Gnat picking again...
Originally posted by Matsu
80m which he used to fund a wide ranging war effort. Today, a great many of his assets are frozen. How does he ellude capture so successfully without friends in high places?
Sitting in a cave in a remote area of Afghanistan.
Links please....
Originally posted by Aquafire
And " Ackoaphyr Annan " BIG Fat Zero on Google...
Gnat picking again...
thanks, segovius, for pointing out the blatantly obvious to mr. hooked on phonics up there.
I guess it is that he lives in a cave, after all. Next thing you know he's going to start talking about invading Saudi Jordaniastan and how everything in international politics can be understood just be reading those swell articles in Teen People.
According to Bergen, the current Saudi crackdown against Islamic militants is actually quite fierce. And he says that many of them are fleeing Saudi Arabia because of it. Ironically, the crackdown on Islamist militants in Saudi Arabia may be leading to an upsurge of their numbers in Iraq.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/aug0303.html#082003755pm
Originally posted by giant
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/aug0303.html#082003755pm
Matsu, paging Matsu, will you please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Here's a little story about the relationship between the bush's and Bandar's wife, haifa (of 'saudi royal sends money to the hijackers' fame):
When George and Barbara Bush visited the troops in Saudi Arabia during the Thanksgiving holiday in 1990, Bush called Bandar, who was in Saudi Arabia at the time. Bandar went to the private quarters in the royal palace where the Bushes were staying. Bush had tears in his eyes, and Bandar, worried, asked what had happened. Bush explained that Dorothy, their recently divorced daughter, was alone at the White House with her children. They had called her from the airplane and learned that Bandar's wife, Haifa, had invited Doro and her children to spend Thanksgiving with her. ("I don't have parents now," Haifa told me. "The Bushes are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them.")
http://www.saudi-american-forum.org/...2003_04_30.htm
Originally posted by giant
And how can anyone go around attacking the saudi royals without attacking the bushes? I like how one person put their relationship in The Atlantic: near familial.
Absolutely, the devils and the devils that made them, those two clans.
Originally posted by Matsu
Absolutely, the devils and the devils that made them, those two clans.
Well, then you are saying (if you are in the 'Haifi funded 9.11' school, and you affirmed a few posts above that you are) that the bush's are clearly and closely connected to 9.11 funding.
I do also have to address an error you made in an earlier post:
Originally posted by Matsu
America's own neo-con attitudes, so often mentioned here are just another layer of proof that the intel communities ahve decided that the Saudis are rapidly becoming an unmanageable risk.
This is fundamentally incorrect. Perhaps the biggest split in the US government right now is that between the neo-cons and the intel community. So extreme is this split that if the neo-cons believe something, then you can assume that the intel community is on the opposite end of the issue. It's already clear, and clearer every day, that the neo-cons have everything wrong, and openly believe in the use of misinformation when implementing policy. That's why it's so funny that their name shortens to 'neo-con'
Hopefully someday it can just be 'con' and we can throw away the key.