American-Afghan War!!!
- Thread starter thecurly1
- Start date
Still no conspiracy here
With or with out an alternate source of energy we will rely on oil for many more years. Yes of course we do need an alternative source of energy. But for now oil we be big man on campus and we have known this for years.
Going back to your earlier post about a conspiracy. If the information was in the trade center, why the other targets. Why not just take out the WTC. Regardless of the other targets the finger was still going to point at these terrorist organizations. If these the people behind your theory are so smart they forgot one important thing. The more aspects involved(the two other planes) the more of a chance to be caught.
With or with out an alternate source of energy we will rely on oil for many more years. Yes of course we do need an alternative source of energy. But for now oil we be big man on campus and we have known this for years.
Going back to your earlier post about a conspiracy. If the information was in the trade center, why the other targets. Why not just take out the WTC. Regardless of the other targets the finger was still going to point at these terrorist organizations. If these the people behind your theory are so smart they forgot one important thing. The more aspects involved(the two other planes) the more of a chance to be caught.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the wheels of a helicopter fell off, the copter wasn't that old.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes was just a joke,like the Talliban showing old bits & saying they shot it down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you guys think of the reported civilian deaths?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I think its a pity but can not be helped,mind you your guys are good.
They are doing a good job,keeping the civilian deaths on the low side.
the wheels of a helicopter fell off, the copter wasn't that old.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes was just a joke,like the Talliban showing old bits & saying they shot it down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you guys think of the reported civilian deaths?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I think its a pity but can not be helped,mind you your guys are good.
They are doing a good job,keeping the civilian deaths on the low side.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
The apparent civiallian deaths!
No civvy has been hurt in my eyes. Lets look at it like this. The taliban said that they shot down one of our helicopters and we know that aint true. They also claimed when this whole thing started that they didnt know where Osama was, then they said about a day later that they knew where he was and was under there protection! So who do you think is telling the truth? The taliban are obviously using propaganda to keep there war effort going because with out believers then wont be any taliban. The taliban are trying to stop there "people" from leaving and going to pakistan. So look at it how you will they are LIARS!
No civvy has been hurt in my eyes. Lets look at it like this. The taliban said that they shot down one of our helicopters and we know that aint true. They also claimed when this whole thing started that they didnt know where Osama was, then they said about a day later that they knew where he was and was under there protection! So who do you think is telling the truth? The taliban are obviously using propaganda to keep there war effort going because with out believers then wont be any taliban. The taliban are trying to stop there "people" from leaving and going to pakistan. So look at it how you will they are LIARS!
Counterbalance
Registered Senior Member
~~~~~~~
From reports I've heard, our military has acknowledged that wheels were 'torn off' of one of our helicopters during a recent "take off" over there. I believe the report said the copter didn't quite clear a wall or something. Could be true. Could also be true that locals found scraps of one of our copters lying in the wilds (from an old accident or downing) and brought them in for inspection, and that a false story was fabricated by the Taliban.
Which is more likely? I lean toward the US story. We have plenty of young, under-experienced pilots capable of making mistakes during take-offs and landings. There have been several reports/complaints of copters stirring up dust and obscuring the pilots' view. We also have lots of evidence that the Taliban does not encourage truthful news reporting. (to put it nicely)
~~~
Recent civilian deaths were reported to have occurred in a hospital. A UN spokesperson has confirmed that civilians in a military hospital which was part of a military compound was hit along with other buildings during a recent attack. They could not confirm whether or not a "red crescent" (like the Red Cross) symbol was visible on this building.
There is already evidence to suggest that the Taliban and its military don't care much for their civilians anyway. Wouldn't be surprised to learn that there was no symbol marking the hospital.
Other reports may contradict this one later. For now that's all I've heard.
~~~~
Counterbalance
thecurly1
From the picture I saw it definitely looked like antiquated wreckage.
The taliban reporting 1000 civilians dead or injured is ridiculous. I don't think they have enough people in any one area to even tally a significant amount of casualties.
From the picture I saw it definitely looked like antiquated wreckage.
The taliban reporting 1000 civilians dead or injured is ridiculous. I don't think they have enough people in any one area to even tally a significant amount of casualties.
Have a look at this!
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/261001/detfor04.asp
and this.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/261001/detFOR20.asp
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/261001/detfor04.asp
and this.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/261001/detFOR20.asp
Last edited:
pilgermann
Registered Member
So the stuff about dead civilians in Afghanistan is all lies?
Possibly.
But don't forget - the US government has lied many times to cover its often dirty tracks. Of course 'collateral damage' ( you ever heard a more callous description of killing people? ) occurs in wars - but the way we just call reports of deaths 'taliban claims' is just pure propaganda.
The fact is - the US doesn't really care whether they kill civilians or not and you all know it. Revenge is revenge - kicking ass is kicking ass. Would it bother you if a hospital full of kids got blown up? No - not really. The US has done it before and denied it before in the past in several other countries. Then it admits its 'mistakes' later down the line when nobodies listening or cares.
And you people wonder where terrorists come from.
Next you'll be telling us that Osamar Bin ladin is an Afghani.
Possibly.
But don't forget - the US government has lied many times to cover its often dirty tracks. Of course 'collateral damage' ( you ever heard a more callous description of killing people? ) occurs in wars - but the way we just call reports of deaths 'taliban claims' is just pure propaganda.
The fact is - the US doesn't really care whether they kill civilians or not and you all know it. Revenge is revenge - kicking ass is kicking ass. Would it bother you if a hospital full of kids got blown up? No - not really. The US has done it before and denied it before in the past in several other countries. Then it admits its 'mistakes' later down the line when nobodies listening or cares.
And you people wonder where terrorists come from.
Next you'll be telling us that Osamar Bin ladin is an Afghani.
I disagree.
If we wanted revenge, we'd carpet bomb a major city a few times and get 5,000 deaths. There's no point in doing it with 2 million dollars cruise missiles. If we wanted revenge we'd get it.
Its unfortunate that civilians die, but until bullets know the difference between a civilan and terrorist, innocent people will die.
The Taliban have been using hospitals, UN and Red Cross facilites to keep themselves sustained during the war. If we have to hit them so be it. Not to mention they are hinding in mosques, and use civilan buses and cars to transport themselves.
I have a horrible fear that we may have to send ground troops into the cities to destroy the Taliban, even with the N. Alliance.
If so I hope we get help from the UK, Russia, and a few other countries.
If we wanted revenge, we'd carpet bomb a major city a few times and get 5,000 deaths. There's no point in doing it with 2 million dollars cruise missiles. If we wanted revenge we'd get it.
Its unfortunate that civilians die, but until bullets know the difference between a civilan and terrorist, innocent people will die.
The Taliban have been using hospitals, UN and Red Cross facilites to keep themselves sustained during the war. If we have to hit them so be it. Not to mention they are hinding in mosques, and use civilan buses and cars to transport themselves.
I have a horrible fear that we may have to send ground troops into the cities to destroy the Taliban, even with the N. Alliance.
If so I hope we get help from the UK, Russia, and a few other countries.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
thecurly1
Exactly! If we wanted to kill civillians then we would be doing that right now but were not!
If i hear one more person say "Well the USA bombed hiroshima and killed all those civvys" You guys need to take a history lesson on that one. We bombed hiroshima and nagasaki because had we not then the war would of went on for another 5 years and more death would of resulted from that then the actually bombing of the citys. Another thing is that we warned japan about our very "powerful weapon" and they didnt believe us. Another thing that we did was drop leaflits on the citys saying to leave or seek shelter and to warn there government, but did they believe us? No they didnt to bad for them and we did it to save lives.
So we dont plan on killing civvys we dont do it on purpose, we do by accident and eventually say "Hey we did that were sorry" and we are forgiven and all is forgotten and then people 40 years later bring it up again and forget why that happend. Learn your history before you decide to use it to prove a point because the US is all good.
Exactly! If we wanted to kill civillians then we would be doing that right now but were not!
If i hear one more person say "Well the USA bombed hiroshima and killed all those civvys" You guys need to take a history lesson on that one. We bombed hiroshima and nagasaki because had we not then the war would of went on for another 5 years and more death would of resulted from that then the actually bombing of the citys. Another thing is that we warned japan about our very "powerful weapon" and they didnt believe us. Another thing that we did was drop leaflits on the citys saying to leave or seek shelter and to warn there government, but did they believe us? No they didnt to bad for them and we did it to save lives.
So we dont plan on killing civvys we dont do it on purpose, we do by accident and eventually say "Hey we did that were sorry" and we are forgiven and all is forgotten and then people 40 years later bring it up again and forget why that happend. Learn your history before you decide to use it to prove a point because the US is all good.
Bin Laden's nuclear threat ?
<Img Src=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/images/timesLogo.gif>
<Img Src=http://www.budget.net/~jdnolan/invis/fireanim.gif>
Bin Laden's nuclear threat?
BY: PHILIP WEBSTER AND ROLAND WATSON
OSAMA BIN LADEN and his al-Qaeda network have acquired nuclear materials for possible use in their terrorism war against the West, intelligence sources have disclosed.
The Western sources say that the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks on America does not have the capability to mount a nuclear attack but fear he would do so if he could.
They believe that he obtained the materials illegally from Pakistan, which has a nuclear capability.
The knowledge that bin Laden has components for a nuclear weapons device in his arsenal is believed to lie behind the regular warnings from President Bush and Tony Blair that he would commit worse atrocities than the suicide assaults on New York and Washington if he were able to.
They may also explain the speed with which the decision was taken to go after bin Laden and his terrorist network, even if that meant toppling the Taleban regime in Afghanistan first.
The disclosure comes as MPs prepare to learn today the details of British troops earmarked for deployment to Afghanistan. They will include a commando group of about 1,000 Royal Marines, currently on exercise in Oman, as well as a large contingent of special forces and specialist support units. The force will be based on ships that have also been participating in the huge tri-Service exercise. They are expected to include the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, stripped of her Harrier jets so she can be used as a platform for helicopters, or HMS Ocean, a dedicated helicopter carrier, two anti-aircraft destroyers to protect the carrier, the assault ship HMS Fearless, and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels.
Yesterday Mr Blair sought to reassure Muslim leaders that the military action in Afghanistan should be over as quickly as possible. He told the Islamic Response to Terrorism Conference in North London: “I hope you understand that what is important is that we make sure at the same time we take the action necessary now in order to hold to account those who committed the actions of September 11.”
There has been clear evidence for several years that bin Laden’s agents have been trying to buy, steal or smuggle nuclear systems in order to attack the West. He has said that it was his “religious duty” to seek to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
An informed source has told The Times that bin Laden appeared to have amassed a “terrifying” range of weapons although he was insistent that he did not have the capacity to launch a nuclear attack.
Intelligence sources, however, have voiced concerns about bin Laden obtaining radioactive material for a “dirty bomb”. Rather than being used in an atomic weapon, the material would be dispersed in a way that would seriously contaminate a small area. In an urban environment hundreds of people could die and thousands more be exposed to radiation poisoning.
In 1993 a senior bin Laden operative, Jamal al-Fadi, met a Sudanese military commander in Khartoum to try to negotiate the sale of a cylinder of enriched South African uranium for a black market price of $1.5 million (£1.2 million). A separate al-Qaeda attempt to buy weapons-grade nuclear material through the Russian mafia was foiled in Prague when several kilograms of highly enriched uranium were seized, according to a German TV report last week.
Earlier this week two former government nuclear scientists in Pakistan were detained amid fears about their links with the Taleban. Bashir uddin Mahmood was project director in Pakistan’s nuclear programme before its 1998 tests. Since retiring from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission three years ago, he ran a group which carried out relief work in Afghanistan, and was known to be supportive of the Taleban. Chaudry Abdul Majid was a director of the commission in 1999.
Intelligence officials have long been aware of the potential for contraband uranium to be turned into an atomic “suitcase bomb”. An easier outcome is a radiological weapon — a conventional weapon with a radioactive core — which has the ability to contaminate large areas.
George Tenet, Director of the CIA, told the Senate Intelligence Committee last year that bin Laden was trying to obtain nuclear materials.
However, some are convinced bin Laden already has a nuclear capability. According to a book about the terrorist leader, The Man Who Declared War on America, Chechen rebels facilitated the sale of nuclear suitcase bombs in the late 1990s from a range of former Soviet republics including Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Russia.
Quoting Russian and Arab intelligence sources, the author, Yossef Bodansky, says that bin Laden’s go-betweens paid the Chechens $30 million in cash and gave them two tonnes of heroin with a Western street value of up to $700 million for a number of bombs.
In 1998 bin Laden issued a statement entitled “The Nuclear Bomb of Islam”, which said: “It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God.”
Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001350025-2001372097,00.html
<Img Src=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/images/timesLogo.gif>
<Img Src=http://www.budget.net/~jdnolan/invis/fireanim.gif>
Bin Laden's nuclear threat?
BY: PHILIP WEBSTER AND ROLAND WATSON
OSAMA BIN LADEN and his al-Qaeda network have acquired nuclear materials for possible use in their terrorism war against the West, intelligence sources have disclosed.
The Western sources say that the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks on America does not have the capability to mount a nuclear attack but fear he would do so if he could.
They believe that he obtained the materials illegally from Pakistan, which has a nuclear capability.
The knowledge that bin Laden has components for a nuclear weapons device in his arsenal is believed to lie behind the regular warnings from President Bush and Tony Blair that he would commit worse atrocities than the suicide assaults on New York and Washington if he were able to.
They may also explain the speed with which the decision was taken to go after bin Laden and his terrorist network, even if that meant toppling the Taleban regime in Afghanistan first.
The disclosure comes as MPs prepare to learn today the details of British troops earmarked for deployment to Afghanistan. They will include a commando group of about 1,000 Royal Marines, currently on exercise in Oman, as well as a large contingent of special forces and specialist support units. The force will be based on ships that have also been participating in the huge tri-Service exercise. They are expected to include the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, stripped of her Harrier jets so she can be used as a platform for helicopters, or HMS Ocean, a dedicated helicopter carrier, two anti-aircraft destroyers to protect the carrier, the assault ship HMS Fearless, and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels.
Yesterday Mr Blair sought to reassure Muslim leaders that the military action in Afghanistan should be over as quickly as possible. He told the Islamic Response to Terrorism Conference in North London: “I hope you understand that what is important is that we make sure at the same time we take the action necessary now in order to hold to account those who committed the actions of September 11.”
There has been clear evidence for several years that bin Laden’s agents have been trying to buy, steal or smuggle nuclear systems in order to attack the West. He has said that it was his “religious duty” to seek to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
An informed source has told The Times that bin Laden appeared to have amassed a “terrifying” range of weapons although he was insistent that he did not have the capacity to launch a nuclear attack.
Intelligence sources, however, have voiced concerns about bin Laden obtaining radioactive material for a “dirty bomb”. Rather than being used in an atomic weapon, the material would be dispersed in a way that would seriously contaminate a small area. In an urban environment hundreds of people could die and thousands more be exposed to radiation poisoning.
In 1993 a senior bin Laden operative, Jamal al-Fadi, met a Sudanese military commander in Khartoum to try to negotiate the sale of a cylinder of enriched South African uranium for a black market price of $1.5 million (£1.2 million). A separate al-Qaeda attempt to buy weapons-grade nuclear material through the Russian mafia was foiled in Prague when several kilograms of highly enriched uranium were seized, according to a German TV report last week.
Earlier this week two former government nuclear scientists in Pakistan were detained amid fears about their links with the Taleban. Bashir uddin Mahmood was project director in Pakistan’s nuclear programme before its 1998 tests. Since retiring from the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission three years ago, he ran a group which carried out relief work in Afghanistan, and was known to be supportive of the Taleban. Chaudry Abdul Majid was a director of the commission in 1999.
Intelligence officials have long been aware of the potential for contraband uranium to be turned into an atomic “suitcase bomb”. An easier outcome is a radiological weapon — a conventional weapon with a radioactive core — which has the ability to contaminate large areas.
George Tenet, Director of the CIA, told the Senate Intelligence Committee last year that bin Laden was trying to obtain nuclear materials.
However, some are convinced bin Laden already has a nuclear capability. According to a book about the terrorist leader, The Man Who Declared War on America, Chechen rebels facilitated the sale of nuclear suitcase bombs in the late 1990s from a range of former Soviet republics including Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Russia.
Quoting Russian and Arab intelligence sources, the author, Yossef Bodansky, says that bin Laden’s go-betweens paid the Chechens $30 million in cash and gave them two tonnes of heroin with a Western street value of up to $700 million for a number of bombs.
In 1998 bin Laden issued a statement entitled “The Nuclear Bomb of Islam”, which said: “It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorise the enemies of God.”
Copyright 2001 Times Newspapers Ltd.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2001350025-2001372097,00.html
I'm not sure that the "suitcase bombs" exist, if they did I have a feeling Osama would have used it by now.
As for making a dirty nuke, it would be relitivley easy. As long as you had some simple tooling machines, and explosives you could spread the contaminate over a large area. This would polute the area for years.
This is why we must get Bin Laden, I don't think the U.S. can afford any nuclear strike on NY, or DC, which would be the two most logical targets.
As for making a dirty nuke, it would be relitivley easy. As long as you had some simple tooling machines, and explosives you could spread the contaminate over a large area. This would polute the area for years.
This is why we must get Bin Laden, I don't think the U.S. can afford any nuclear strike on NY, or DC, which would be the two most logical targets.
The Smartest Move
This is Iraq's best weapon: the Scud B R-17 SRBM with a range of 300km, and a payload of 985 kgs. A nuclear bomb of a small yield could be carried by this SCUD.
While Iraq may not fire this at Israel or a U.S. base from its own country, Hussein or Bin Laden could drive one of these deep into another country, and launch the missile. Imagine if a nuclear Scud was driven to a remote location in Pakistan and fired into India.
Pakistan and India would nuke eachother, destroy any colation and dissrupting the war on terrorism.
P.S. Afghanistan has a SS-1 Scud which is identical to Iraq's, and operational. This isn't that far off.
I almost feel like e-mailing the Pentagon.
This is Iraq's best weapon: the Scud B R-17 SRBM with a range of 300km, and a payload of 985 kgs. A nuclear bomb of a small yield could be carried by this SCUD.
While Iraq may not fire this at Israel or a U.S. base from its own country, Hussein or Bin Laden could drive one of these deep into another country, and launch the missile. Imagine if a nuclear Scud was driven to a remote location in Pakistan and fired into India.
Pakistan and India would nuke eachother, destroy any colation and dissrupting the war on terrorism.
P.S. Afghanistan has a SS-1 Scud which is identical to Iraq's, and operational. This isn't that far off.
I almost feel like e-mailing the Pentagon.