Brother-in-law of 9-11 hijacker charged with terrorism
US News
Mar 1, 2008, 16:15 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1 2
I respectfully request that monsters and critics correct the typographical error made in citing Al-Darbi's nationality. We all know that he could not possibly have been a Saudi, and in fact he was from Iraq, just like most of the other 9/11 terrorists. Please make this correction to the article immediately, so that the moronic libtard worshippers of the biased MSM
do not get the wrong impression about where the terrorists came from.
i rezpektfully wantz montstez and kritics to fix the story kuz we all know it was bush's fault and the so kalled 'war on terror' (notize that i used the so called and the quotes kuz i am smart like that) is all hiz idea and if we would just shuddup an give them what they want they would go away. this is all a rethyglican plot to keep amerikkka a-skeered so they will keep chimpy in kuz i heard that on the internet when i should have been doing my homework. if you wuz edukated like me you would know it mr neokon.
...let's pretend that terrorists never benefited from Saddam Hussein's help.
People like Abu Nidal, who retired in Iraq, after an utterly stellar career in terror. Or Al-Zarqawi, a bona fide member of Al Queda.
That and all the safe passage, safe harbor, money to Hamas, etc. that ol Saddam spent for the good of the republic.
Let's just sit and hope it all goes away. Oh yeah, I forgot...
they came here, right?
... we could say that George Bush gave support to the hijackers of 9-11.
We all know that they lived in the US prior to the attack.
So if we apply SP4s reasoning, then we can only conclude Bush was in colusion with them, eh?
Pure nonsense.
And as baseless as SP4s conclusions.
It has been last almost eight years, we have been hearing lots of stories, one day this man is accused next day another one, so who are the real operatves.
MY PERSONAL FEELING IS THAT CIA PLANS AND EXECUTES WITH BUSH APROVAL.
Instead of hiding in the west.
... Not really what could be called 'intelligent.'
And you call others stupid?
Bwahahaha!!!!
War is always ugly. Let's look at a bit of history (From the Wikiepedia):
'LeMay commanded subsequent B-29 combat operations against Japan, including the massive incendiary attacks on sixty-four Japanese cities. This included the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9–March 10, 1945. For this first attack, LeMay ordered the defensive guns removed from 325 B-29s, loaded each plane with Model E-46 incendiary clusters, magnesium bombs, white phosporus bombs and napalm, and ordered the bombers to fly in streams at 5,000–9,000 feet over Tokyo.
The first pathfinder planes arrived over Tokyo just after midnight on March 10. Following British bombing practice, they marked the target area with a flaming 'X.' In a three-hour period, the main bombing force dropped 1,665 tons of incendiary bombs, killing more than 100,000 civilians, destroying 250,000 buildings and incinerating 16 square miles (41 km˛) of the city. Aircrews at the tail end of the bomber stream reported that the stench of burned human flesh permeated the aircraft over the target.'
General LeMay said of his actions in Japan:''I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. Fortunately, we were on the winning side.''
Radio Tokyo complained about these actions and here was the official answer from the US Air Force:
''...a spokesman for the Fifth Air Force categorized 'the entire population of Japan [as] a proper military target.' Colonel Harry F. Cunningham explained the US policy in no uncertain terms: 'We military men do not pull punches or put on Sunday School picnics. We are making War and making it in the all-out fashion which saves American lives, shortens the agony which War is and seeks to bring about an enduring Peace. We intend to seek out and destroy the enemy wherever he or she is, in the greatest possible numbers, in the shortest possible time. For us, THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN.''
When you compare what we did during WWII (Tokyo was no exception) to what these men and women have seen:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3444835.ece
today's fights have been fairly easy on civilians.
It does no look to me as though this 'kinder and gentler' form of war we use today is particularly effective in bringing about the changes we desire. Clearly, our opponents would have no problems with burning down entire cities. They do not see any 'civilians' in the United States. I think they are right. We are fighting for the survival of our nation and culture.
If you're going to use my logic....well..that would mean you have none of your own to employ...at least try to use it correctly.
The State Department, under Colin Powell, granted the visa's to the 9/11 hijackers. They were never vetted, individually, by the White House in any way.
I realize it's a fine point, but then again, reasonable people, like myself, correctly apply facts to their thesis. After all, we think logically.
This is why we recognize Saddam's enabling of Al Qaeda i.e. safe passage, passports, soft money, safe haven, etc. On the other hand, we have people like you who do not.
We also realize that Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden, on a platter by Somalia, and refused his extradition.
Now, apply my logic to THAT or yours if you have any and, by all means, get back to us!
Bush said publicly he 'doesn't think about Osama, much'
What happened to his 'Dead or Alive' threat?
That's a big shift ... or more accurately, a big backing down.
He had him cornered in Tora Bora, why did Bush run away from Osama there? He had him cornered! (his intelligence sources told him so) ... Then Bush gave up, and let him go!
Some Commander and Chief, eh? ... 'Heck of a job, Bushie'
So here we are nearly 7 yrs later and Osama still enjoys his freedom, under Bush's leadership of the world's most powerful military ...
And all SP4 can do is repeat his rhetorical attacks on the guy who was president before the attacks of 9-11.
(and don' get your panties in a wad spewing your usual dribble response SP4 ... We all know that Bush was warned about Osama's threat BEFORE the attacks, and he did nothing! - clinton did try to get him and missed - at least he tried to do something. - And we also know that in late 2000 and very early 2001, Clinton tried to meet with Bush to specifically talk about threat Osama posed, and both Bush and Cheney refused to meet with him ... they sent an underling staffer instead ... and still did nothing. - Heck of a job, Bushie)
So get a friggin clue SP4 ... your repetitve dribble makes you look silly ... still.
First, that does not make me wrong.
Clinton WAS offered Osama on a platter, and that doesn't change with the fact that he passed the buck to Bush. The fact is not contested, and Clinton only went after him, with one useless missile attack, AFTER the US Embassy attack, not before.
Second, warning Bush about a terrorist you had in your grip, and let go, is just about what I'd expect for an excuse of a libnazi.
Third, while Bush never took terror as seriously as he should have, someone would have to explain to me how that washes the 30 years of time wasted to get a president who, now, actually is asserting an effort to do so, and being pilloried by the same folks who let them go!
By the way, Bush has had more Al Qeada operatives plugged than all other presidents combined, and Bush's real goal is to make sure NO other president will, politically, be able to back off, ever again. This is the beauty of Bush: he made sure we'd never quit chasing him. Every president, from now on, has to have SOME kind of plan to thwart these assholes.
Yes, dickhead, you now have a president who, like his methods or not, is willing, for the first time in 30 years, to engage these murderers on THEIR turf. Instead of lauding that, you, like the rest of the dems who greenlighted the war(s) are now using it to pillory him. Furthermore, he has set us, politically, on a course where we will be unable to just quit.
Me? I picked a side long ago.
So go wrap your (lack of) logic around that set of plums and get back to us.
A cave in Pakistan is still a jail.
... and Osama still makes a mockery of him to this day - nearly 7 years latter.
As you correctly mention, 'their own turf' is in Pakistan. What or who 'prohibits' us from going there?
Bush lives in the White House and Osama in a cave, probably wounded and definitely not comfortable, or, dead.
That being the case, who's mocking who here?
One other point: Why would Bush even want to get him? By Osama being at large, it perpetuates the will to get him and his buddies. Think about it: if he's dead,no one knows. As long as we think he's alive, each president will be tasked with finding him.
If I were Bush, I'd make sure we never got him, at least while he's in office. Plus, if the next guy happens to be the president, the issue becomes his. By the press and libnazi establishment makeing Bush responsible, they make the next guy responsible too. Funny, Clinton wiggled out of his responsibility, huh?
Bush is leaving this war to the democrats, their worst nightmare. Why do you think they were so intent on getting out before 08?
I think I'll vote for Obama just to see what happens!
Your so-called logic is in fact nonsense. Your fabricated apologies for not pursuing osama bin laden are ridiculous, and chock full of half baked assumptions, such as suggesting that he is wounded or living in a cave, and therefore not worth going after. I thought this is all about American justice, and revenge for 9/11. Why go after any of the 9/11 conspirators if you want to ignore the leaders? Why is the home base of the taliban and al qaeda [Pakistan] off limits? Using your logic? none of the german leaders from WWII ,like Eichmann, need have been hunt down.
... 'If I were Bush, I'd make sure we never got him ...'
I can't stop laughing!!!
SP4 rants ad nauseum about Clinton not getting Osama. Day after day, month after month, year after year.
And then he posts that?
Bwahahaha!
Like it or not Ess Pee Fool ... Bush has made Osama a hero in the middle east by letting him remain free after striking us ... now that's really helping our cause eh? Give them a hero figure to rally recruits around. Yeah, that's showin how tough Georgie really is.
Ya know your logic is like your bung hole Ess Pee Fool ... it's low down, full of crap and spews forth nothing but stench ... and the pleasure you take in exposing it has robbed you of your dignity.
He says . 'Plus, if the next guy happens to be the president, the issue becomes his.'
The part you miss SP4, is that if Bush doesn't get Osama ... IT BECOMES HIS LEGACY, that he failed to catch him, and was endlessly taunted by Osama.
And we've all heard about Bush's ego-trip concern with his legacy ...
You post nonsense SP4
Save the last shred of dignity you might have Ess Pee Fool ... bounce your logic off a four yr old child before you post that nonsense again ... even they can show you the things you've missed.
Keep fighting the good fight SP4-you're getting it out inspite of them...the homecoming queen.
If you aint barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, then you are shirking your duties. Get back to the kitchen, b*tch.
... on her baffling support for SP4.
But that last comment was out of line.
You should be able to exhibit a bit more class than that.
page: 1 2
Similar articles
- Moment of silence begins 7th annual commemoration of 9/11
- Seven years later, Afghanistan still a daunting challenge
- After seven years, commemorations in US, scepticism abroad
- Acquittal does not ensure release of Guantanamo detainees
- Report: US could have vast archive of Guantanamo tapes
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood gunman conscious (Extra)
- 2. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (2nd Roundup)
- 3. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (Roundup)
- 4. Senior US senator demands 'terrorism' probe into army killings
- 5. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting
USA
Your Talkback on this Story