The Mendenhall bin Laden tweets - a year later

[Sixburgher]

Originally Posted by Steel Peon

Indeed, and perhaps had the W Bush administration continued the counter-terrorism program that Clinton's administration had in place, we may have avoided 9/11 completely.

What "counter-terrorism" program would that have been? Bombing empty tents in Afghanistan or lobbing cruise missiles into aspirin factories in Sudan? And do you really think the planning and preparation for 9/11 started in January 2001 when Bush took office?

[zsheik22]

Originally Posted by Steel Peon

The tweets only annoy me because of how dumb and immature he comes off sounding. If you get a shot at an enemy of that magnitude, you just take him out with no emotion and move on........it's your solemn duty.



Indeed, and perhaps had the W Bush administration continued the counter-terrorism program that Clinton's administration had in place, we may have avoided 9/11 completely. All Bush would've had to do was SOMETHING besides NOTHING in counter-terrorism, but instead decided that the bombing of the USS Cole didn't require a response.



To be fair, Jimmy Carter did sign authorization to start funding Afghan guerrillas against the Soviet invasion, but Regan escalated the funding to a large degree, and HW Bush continued that, which gave birth to Al-Qaeda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_...ghan_civil_war

It's hard to blame any one administration during the transitional time period in which Al-Qaeda was born, but clearly not enough attention was being paid to what the leadership was planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati...lone#Aftermath



Either way, GW Bush's apathy on the subject is unforgivable, and the invasion of Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions.

ap·a·thy
   [ap-uh-thee] Show IPA
noun, plural ap·a·thies.
1.
absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.
2.
lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting.


News
World news

US chose to ignore Rwandan genocide

Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis

Share 197

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
The Guardian, Wednesday 31 March 2004 10.59 EST
Article history

President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time.

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers.

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material.

It discovered that the CIA's national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which ... is spreading south".

Three days later the state department's intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted "genocide and partition" and reported declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis".

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".

Ms Des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination."

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

William Ferroggiaro, of the National Security Archive, said the system had worked. "Diplomats, intelligence agencies, defence and military officials - even aid workers - provided timely information up the chain," he said.

"That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda."

Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other western capitals not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed UN peacekeepers but for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.

Some of the Hutu extremists orchestrating events might have heeded such warnings, they have suggested.

Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures but the declassified documents undermine his defence of ignorance. "The level of US intelligence is really amazing," said Mr Ferroggiaro. "A vast array of information was available."

On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.

In what was widely seen as an attempt to diminish his responsibility, he said: "It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror."

A spokesperson for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation in New York said the allegations would be relayed to the former president.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda





He eventually did say sorry, though.


For having a counter terrorism unit as you put it, it didnt do much to prevent the attacks during clintons terms. Even his secret bombings did nothing but antagonize.

[Millers the sh!t]

Americas elite brought down the towers, not bin laden.

They needed a way to take away more rights from Americans and also get the support (Americans that don't think, an believe everything they're told by the media) to invade innocent countries.

Americas killed it's own multiple times to engage in war.
Pearl harbor, The Lusitania, Panama etc.

Anyone who thinks mendenhalls a fool or should be kicked off the steelers just cause he wants more answers before choosing a side, is a fool themselves.

[zsheik22]

"Anyone who thinks mendenhalls a fool or should be kicked off the steelers just cause he wants more answers before choosing a side, is a fool themselves."




He's a fool, but even fools should have their right to freedom of speech.

[zsheik22]

Originally Posted by Millers the sh!t

Americas elite brought down the towers, not bin laden.

They needed a way to take away more rights from Americans and also get the support (Americans that don't think, an believe everything they're told by the media) to invade innocent countries.

Americas killed it's own multiple times to engage in war.
Pearl harbor, The Lusitania, Panama etc.

Anyone who thinks mendenhalls a fool or should be kicked off the steelers just cause he wants more answers before choosing a side, is a fool themselves.

Who is "America's" elite? How could the elite make such a massive plan and then cover it up? The government cant even cover up a secret service sex ring, lol. If you think they would be able to cover up something so massive with so many loose ends and people needed.... put the pipe down.

[VaDave]

This is a football thread? AS it has been said, it is better to reamain quiet, lest one take you as a fool, than to open one's mouth, and remove all doubt.

Mendy should know better, that twitter is a public forum, and he is indeed a football player, not a political commentator. Some things are better left unsaid.

Back to football, There was a post about the success of running football is based on the quality of the offensive line play. I'll agree Mendenhall is not the second comming of Jim Brown, but I'm here to tell you, with the combination of a better offensive system ( thanks for the memories Bruce), a major upgrade in talent ( DeCastro), and a return of the walking wounded ( Pouncey, Colon), we should expect a massive improvement in our rushing attack.

[tanda10506]

Originally Posted by zsheik22

First off, you have no clue what the situation was. The seal who got NO CREDIT shot him because they said he was picking up a weapon. How many dead seals do you want to bring this guy to America?

Thats not what he is saying, of course nobody wants SEALs dead, what he means though is that it was a kill mission. They were not going to take him into custody at all, Obama stated that more than once. I don't think Osama did 9/11 nor do I think he was even alive in 2011 since he was documented as being on dialisis in 2001, so I am not saying I agree or disagree with Fan, but dont accuse him of wanting SEALs dead, the only thing Fan is guilty of is supporting a HORRIBLE OC .

As for me the Mendy tweets have never bothered me, he has an alternative view of 9/11 and doesn't celebrate death of anybody, how is any of that offensive? If he would have said we deserved 9/11 like some people have then yes that would be offensive, but not believing the federal government's story, how is that offensive?

[FanSince72]

Originally Posted by Rick5895

Everybody has an opinion on the matter. I'm indifferent to Mendy. He's just another athlete saying controversial things.
I respect your right to an opinion however 9/11 was an act of war. Three separate targets on American soil made it that way, IMO. By your logic then maybe you believe Pearl Harbor was a criminal act aswell.

Comparing Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is apples and oranges.

Pearl Harbor was a naval installation and was attacked by the Japanese navy, representing the nation of Japan -- clearly an act of war.

9/11 represented civilian targets (except for the Pentagon) but was not (according to the current information) attacked by any military representing any nation. These attacks were allegedly perpetrated by what amounts to a handful of extremists who represented no flag and who had no particular country they could call home.

The methods used, spectacular as they were, were no different than Timothy McVeigh parking a Ryder truck loaded with explosives in front of the Murrah building in OK City. A 767 may be considerably more dramatic than a Ryder truck, but it's essentially the same thing; a vehicle used to destroy a building.

So if what bin Laden / al-Qaeda did was an act of war, then it stands to reason that what McVeigh did would also be considered an act of war and clearly that was not the case.

[tanda10506]

Originally Posted by zsheik22

Who is "America's" elite? How could the elite make such a massive plan and then cover it up? The government cant even cover up a secret service sex ring, lol. If you think they would be able to cover up something so massive with so many loose ends and people needed.... put the pipe down.

They weren't trying to keep the Secret Service scandal that quiet, else they would have not been buying hookers in public. Our government has been caught lying and running false flags before (it's admitted and documented), I am not saying you should believe one way or another on 9/11, just don't accuse others of being high just because they don't believe what the government puts out. It's not even that I want anyone else to think what I think about 9/11, just don't blindly follow what the government who has been caught in MAJOR lies for years chooses to tell you, look into it.

[Dodens Grav]

Originally Posted by VaDave

Mendy should know better, that twitter is a public forum, and he is indeed a football player, not a political commentator. Some things are better left unsaid.

He does, however, have the freedom to speak his mind. I didn't agree with what he said and found his comments grossly ignorant (outside of the comment about celebrating death, which I detest), but let's be honest, it's quite obvious that there is a large proportion of the American populace that believes the attack on the World Trade Center was an inside job. It's not like he said something uncommon, just not politically correct. I really see no need to hang on these year old remarks and let a few tweets completely color one's perception of an individual. And let's remember also, it's not his job to be intelligent, or our best friend. He gets paid to perform athletic tasks...we just like watching him do it.