Can Obama Filibuster the World in Case of War?

[HankD]

The decision to attack Iraq was made BEFORE 9/11. It was a central theme of the Neo-Con plan to take over America and become the supreme ruler of the world.

This is by far one of the most absurd allegations ever made here and reminds me of the same riculousness that accused FDR of either plotting or planning the attack on Pearl Harbor for the self same reason of promoting the agenda of the Democratic Party.

The video (misnomered as "evidence") is a lengthy propoganda tool of "facts" some historically true but most not true or misrepresentations and/or distorted truth and is for the most part hearsay.

No one can/will answer to the so-called "evidences" because to do so publicly would reveal data to those who are not cleared and have not the need to know while additionally supplying important information to those who want to kill us.

One reason that there was no timely "scramble" to shoot down the aircraft is obvious and not classified: is that we never had a situation EVER in our history like 9-11, not even the attack on Pearl Harbor. To be honest, we were totally taken by surprise and caught unawares.

While we might have know that the planes were hijacked, the standard procedure for hijackers at the time (9-11-2001) was to use the passengers as a bargaining chip, make a demand of money and/or politcal releases then land somewhere and collect.

We had no idea of the true objective to use the planes as suicidal missles. The rules of engaement at the time (2001) was NOT to shoot down hijacked aircraft with passengers onboard but to deny them their demands.

Everything after the crash into the North Tower happened so quickly we had not time to respond in a timely fashion.

By the time we had decided to shoot down the remaining plane(s) with the passengers on board (as was reported publically by several agencies) certain American heroes of Flight 93 ("Let's roll") sacrificed their own lives to save further destruction of American institutional/historical/cultural buildings and loss of life.

Not only that, even after a shoot-to-kill order, it cannot be done over certain population densities.

This is a shameful allegation.

HankD

 

[Robert Snow]

He does, and He has.

And I still pity you.

If you pitied someone you would talk to them differently than you do here. It appears like the lie is that you pity anyone who disagrees with your right-wing political position.

 

[Winman]

From here, your president is popular, he's young, and to be honest, many here wondered if USA would do it, and elect a black president, and yes, you did it, which puts an end to many " wonder if " about USA & colour questions.

Our president is very enthusiastic about USA, and seems to admire many things, often remembers officially the friendship between the nations, with the right to think differently. I agree with him on that. The matter here, is that some don't share that feeling.

Glad we lived up to your expectations. Tell me, how many black presidents has France had?

How about all of Europe, any nation. How many black presidents have you had?

 

[Spear]

Glad we lived up to your expectations. Tell me, how many black presidents has France had?

How about all of Europe, any nation. How many black presidents have you had?

I don't understand. We heard much about KKK, racism, one of my colleagues, fighter pilot who served in USA (during and exchange between armies for 2 years) told me in the south there was still some evident racism ... i tell you i'm happy, you prooved you were able to break that " belief ", and i finally get the feeling that you're taunting me ... i applause the fact you elected a black president ... i'm lost.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't understand. We heard much about KKK, racism, one of my colleagues, fighter pilot who served in USA (during and exchange between armies for 2 years) told me in the south there was still some evident racism ... i tell you i'm happy, you prooved you were able to break that " belief ", and i finally get the feeling that you're taunting me ... i applause the fact you elected a black president ... i'm lost.

There is more racism on the black side of this issue then there is among white folks.

 

[KenH]

in the south there was still some evident racism

Yes, unfortunately, that is true; however, it is also true of other areas of the United States, not just the South.

 

[rbell]

If you pitied someone you would talk to them differently than you do here. It appears like the lie is that you pity anyone who disagrees with your right-wing political position.

Nope...I simply pity an individual who hates someone so badly that they will accuse them of murdering citizens...regardless of the facts.

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

With Obama so fond of TelePrompTers, and so eloquent in the art of public persuasion, the only question is: Can he flap his lips long enough, and fast enough to keep us safe from future terror attacks???

And while there is nothing wrong with having a POTUS that has a great command of the English language, I find his words to be no less subversive and divisive when it comes to being an American. I was so embarrassed as I listened to him "cave" into the most notorious leaders of this world at the UN yesterday. He has truly "Mastered the art of kissing up" to the most dangerous leaders of the terrorist kind while speaking at the UN General Council yesterday.

So far he has managed to apologize to the world for 200 plus years of past US actions; pushed the Israeli's under the bus; and given the "wink" to Russia to regain control of their lost Eastern Block countries, including Georgia.

His weakness on foreign policy was evident during the campaign, and it was further noted as Castro and Qaddafi spoke highly of his of leadership yesterday at the UN. An international "love-fest" between those three sprung forth on the second day of Autumn. How interesting was that???

The man we call the POTUS is in truth, the weakest, mealy mouthed human to ever sit in the White House Oval Office. He has effectively undone what it took more than 230 years to build up. :tonofbricks:

God help us all!raying:

Pastor Paul:type:

Didn't Oduma talk about no more nukes, and didn't I just see China, India, Iran boasting about their nukes?

Obama is a fruitcake.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Nope...I simply pity an individual who hates someone so badly that they will accuse them of murdering citizens...regardless of the facts.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Oduma likes killing babies.

 

[HankD]

Actually the "best" racism in the entire universe is radical Islam, they hate, maim and slaughter everyone, even their more moderate moslem brothers and sisters, men women and children, no one is exempt.

They have one saving grace, they are honest about the objective of their hate.
The Annihilation of the infidel.

HankD

 

[alatide]

This is by far one of the most absurd allegations ever made here and reminds me of the same riculousness that accused FDR of either plotting or planning the attack on Pearl Harbor for the self same reason of promoting the agenda of the Democratic Party.

The video (misnomered as "evidence") is a lengthy propoganda tool of "facts" some historically true but most not true or misrepresentations and/or distorted truth and is for the most part hearsay.

No one can/will answer to the so-called "evidences" because to do so publicly would reveal data to those who are not cleared and have not the need to know while additionally supplying important information to those who want to kill us.

One reason that there was no timely "scramble" to shoot down the aircraft is obvious and not classified: is that we never had a situation EVER in our history like 9-11, not even the attack on Pearl Harbor. To be honest, we were totally taken by surprise and caught unawares.

While we might have know that the planes were hijacked, the standard procedure for hijackers at the time (9-11-2001) was to use the passengers as a bargaining chip, make a demand of money and/or politcal releases then land somewhere and collect.

We had no idea of the true objective to use the planes as suicidal missles. The rules of engaement at the time (2001) was NOT to shoot down hijacked aircraft with passengers onboard but to deny them their demands.

Everything after the crash into the North Tower happened so quickly we had not time to respond in a timely fashion.

By the time we had decided to shoot down the remaining plane(s) with the passengers on board (as was reported publically by several agencies) certain American heroes of Flight 93 ("Let's roll") sacrificed their own lives to save further destruction of American institutional/historical/cultural buildings and loss of life.

Not only that, even after a shoot-to-kill order, it cannot be done over certain population densities.

This is a shameful allegation.

HankD

So basically, you're arguing that the strongest military in the world was powerless to stop a ragtag bunch of middle eastern mediocre piolets with box cutters? Now that's ridiculous. Also, neither you or anyone else here has explained why bin Laden has never been charged with any 9/11 related crimes but was charged in previous terrorist attacks. Why is that? Because we don't have ay evidence against him that's why. The White House simply decreed that he was guilty the night of 9/1 and that was that.

 

[HankD]

So basically, you're arguing that the strongest military in the world was powerless to stop a ragtag bunch of middle eastern mediocre piolets with box cutters? Now that's ridiculous.

Actually they were not just a "ragtag bunch of middle eastern pilots with box cutters". They were well funded and educated with a kamikaze commitment to ther supposed cause.

But, yes part of that is true and indeed it's awful, but I outlined the circumstances which impacted that inability. There are probably other circumstances (which even if I did know, couldn't/wouldn't reveal).

Here's a possibility. Since the rules of engagement were not-combative for hijacked planes in 2001, it's possible that the intercept mission may have gone into the air with no air-to-air armaments and ammunition (I was in the Air Force). There are special rules for combat over populated areas. Plus, We didn't know that the real intent of the hijackers was suicidal and combative.

Also, neither you or anyone else here has explained why bin Laden has never been charged with any 9/11 related crimes but was charged in previous terrorist attacks. Why is that? Because we don't have ay evidence against him that's why. The White House simply decreed that he was guilty the night of 9/1 and that was that.

So? It could be not so much that we don't have any evidience, but that we don't want to make it public, now or ever.

As an example, it was only in recent times that after more than 50 years we have been told the whole story behind the JFK-Krushchev showdown and how we almost entered a nuclear war with the USSR.

While it is true that the press is often given partial and yes, even misleading information, it is for the protection of the people and not the politicians.


HankD

 

[rbell]

So basically, you're arguing that the strongest military in the world was powerless to stop a ragtag bunch of middle eastern mediocre piolets with box cutters? Now that's ridiculous. Also, neither you or anyone else here has explained why bin Laden has never been charged with any 9/11 related crimes but was charged in previous terrorist attacks. Why is that? Because we don't have ay evidence against him that's why. The White House simply decreed that he was guilty the night of 9/1 and that was that.

I repeat...

We don't try people in a courtroom for acts of war.

The FBI didn't charge the Japanese emporer with a crime for Pearl Harbor.



Funny how alatide simply ignores the answers to the questions he asks.

I guess if you ignore truth, you can keep telling falsehoods, eh?

 

[Robert Snow]

Oduma likes killing babies.

I believe that is a lie, but you already know that, don't you?

 

[Spear]

I believe that is a lie, but you already know that, don't you?

I agree, he's overbidding.

 

[webdog]

I believe that is a lie, but you already know that, don't you?

Well, he sure praised the attacks on the towers...which held a day care. Not once did he claim anyone was innocent...no lie whatsoever.

 

[alatide]

Actually they were not just a "ragtag bunch of middle eastern pilots with box cutters". They were well funded and educated with a kamikaze commitment to ther supposed cause.

But, yes part of that is true and indeed it's awful, but I outlined the circumstances which impacted that inability. There are probably other circumstances (which even if I did know, couldn't/wouldn't reveal).

Here's a possibility. Since the rules of engagement were not-combative for hijacked planes in 2001, it's possible that the intercept mission may have gone into the air with no air-to-air armaments and ammunition (I was in the Air Force). There are special rules for combat over populated areas. Plus, We didn't know that the real intent of the hijackers was suicidal and combative.

So? It could be not so much that we don't have any evidience, but that we don't want to make it public, now or ever.

As an example, it was only in recent times that after more than 50 years we have been told the whole story behind the JFK-Krushchev showdown and how we almost entered a nuclear war with the USSR.

While it is true that the press is often given partial and yes, even misleading information, it is for the protection of the people and not the politicians.


HankD

The fighter intercept mission got off the ground late from Air Force bases much more distant from the WTC than necessary (Otis AFB on Cape Cod and an AFB in Dayton, Ohio). In the case of the Pentagon attack fighters couldn't reach the attacking aircraft in time from Andrews AFB, 10 miles from Washington! That simply blows my mind. The initial action prescribed for commercial aircraft off course or any intruder flying in restricted air space is to simply put a fighter on each side of the wayward aircraft and try to talk the pilot down. These intercept fighters are armed and able to shoot down an intruder. otherwise, we wouldn't have any air based security for our cities would we?

I don't understand the argument that bin Laden hasn't been charged with crimes for secret security reasons. He certainly has been charged publically by everyone in the Bush administration and everybody else who accepts the government conspiracy theory. That wasn't the case with the example you cited. I actually saw a video in which an FBI spokesman said when asked why bin Laden hadn't been charged with a crime that there are continuing investigations which in the future might be able to uncover enough evidence to so so. In other words, we haven't charged him with a crime because we don't have any evidence against him.

Do you realize that the hijackers were identified on the evening of 9/11? How did that happen? Maybe it was like the movie Casa Blanca in which the police captain told his men to round up the usual suspects or maybe it was much more insidious as in foreknowledge. I don't know but I'm not satisfied with the official story and there are a lot of other people like me. Maybe someday, we'll find out what really happened.

 

[Winman]

Alatide

I really can't follow your logic. Go back to 9/11. Had we ever had an incident like that before where 4 commercial airliners full of passengers were hijacked for the intended purpose of crashing into the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and very likely the White House?

Planes had been hijacked before, there were quite a few hijackings in the 70's and 80's. But none of these were suicide missions, they were usually hijacked and flown to another country like several plans that flew to Cuba.

Truth is, we got caught with our pants down. By the time we realized what was going on, there was not much time to react. The flight from Boston to New York does not take long. And whether fighter jets would have shot these planes down is very speculative. We are not going to shoot down a commercial aircraft with hundreds of innocent passengers on a whim. Today we would be less hesitant to do so, but at the time there had been no previous attacks like this.

And these terrorists were very well trained, and the plot very well thought out. This attack killed more people than Pearl Harbor with only 19 men. That kind of thing doesn't happen by chance.

As far as Bin Laden, you are probably correct that there is not enough concrete evidence to charge him. That does not mean he wasn't involved. It took years to convict Al Capone though it was absolutely obvious that he was involved in many crimes for many years. The fact that he has not been charged does not mean he was or was not involved, and it does not prove that we don't have strong evidence against him. It is far more complicated than you seem to understand.

 

[alatide]

I repeat...

We don't try people in a courtroom for acts of war.

The FBI didn't charge the Japanese emporer with a crime for Pearl Harbor.



Funny how alatide simply ignores the answers to the questions he asks.

I guess if you ignore truth, you can keep telling falsehoods, eh?

The FBI charged bin Laden with terrorist activity in 1998. No difference. Besides, the FBI did say that we don't have the evidence to charge him wrt 9/11.

 

[alatide]

Alatide

I really can't follow your logic. Go back to 9/11. Had we ever had an incident like that before where 4 commercial airliners full of passengers were hijacked for the intended purpose of crashing into the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and very likely the White House?

Planes had been hijacked before, there were quite a few hijackings in the 70's and 80's. But none of these were suicide missions, they were usually hijacked and flown to another country like several plans that flew to Cuba.

Truth is, we got caught with our pants down. By the time we realized what was going on, there was not much time to react. The flight from Boston to New York does not take long. And whether fighter jets would have shot these planes down is very speculative. We are not going to shoot down a commercial aircraft with hundreds of innocent passengers on a whim. Today we would be less hesitant to do so, but at the time there had been no previous attacks like this.

And these terrorists were very well trained, and the plot very well thought out. This attack killed more people than Pearl Harbor with only 19 men. That kind of thing doesn't happen by chance.

As far as Bin Laden, you are probably correct that there is not enough concrete evidence to charge him. That does not mean he wasn't involved. It took years to convict Al Capone though it was absolutely obvious that he was involved in many crimes for many years. The fact that he has not been charged does not mean he was or was not involved, and it does not prove that we don't have strong evidence against him. It is far more complicated than you seem to understand.

We're talking about normal procedure not anything specifically related to the 9/11 attacks. Here is a description of this from NORAD.

Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).

Under these regulations in place before Sept. 11, if air traffic controllers are unable to establish contact with an errant plane, otherwise known as non responsive (NOR), they are supposed to turn the case over to the North American air defense command (NORAD). After being alerted, NORAD is expected to scramble fighter jets to intercept the “NOR” within a few minutes. Such intercept orders were reportedly issued on 129 occasions in the year 2000, and on 67 occasions in the year 2001 prior to Sept. 11.[ii