WMD's Found!

That's just wrong to put up security in someone else's country to protect your own interests like that. I can hear the negotiations now:

U.S.: We need more security
Factory: Our security is adequate, we've never had any problems.
U.S.: Add security or we won't buy from you
(and nevermind the fact that Wisconsin/domestic cheese is easier to get)
Factory: OK, we need your dollars.

It's sad.

And if it was wartime, then yeah maybe cordone off the fishing spot. But please. I can see why you're hating the U.S. President, Naki.

I could see why youd be pissed Naki, however I can also see why the added security would be necessary. Honestly you have to be able to rationalize why we'd want people kept out of the area where the food for our soldiers is processed. Quite frankly it is surprising to me that they use foreign food for our rations, especially considering that America does have a ton of cheese producers.

About the fishing spot. I'm sorry to here about your spot being fenced in, but again I can understand it. With a port such as that one completely open, it is feasible that someone could easily hop on a ship and plant some explosives with america as there target.

While I'm sorry that the US' policy is negatively effecting your life, it is ,quite frankly, understandable that this is happening.

the thing about the port here is that not only was the breakwater where taranaki and a lot of other people fished a public area, but access was denied not because of regular shipping movements but because the US demanded that no ship would be allowed in the US which had been previously in a port that didn't have these security measures. so while no ships travel from that port to america, it may at some stage ply a different trade route eg. from japan to the US and if it has been in port here before then it cannot be used to service that route. despite the fact that it could have been gone over for months and been in many other ports since it was in port here.
taranaki misses out on going fishing, at the moment guys from my company have to work down there and whereas we used to be able to just check in and get access to be able to inspect stuff, now we have to go through a heap of extra security stuff, and we have to book to be able to go down there.

they were just a couple of things though. Another part is the risk of being associated with the U.S. if travelling overseas, which has made it significantly more dangerous as a western person to visit many countries because of the image the US has given them of western society.

While I'm sorry that the US' policy is negatively effecting your life, it is ,quite frankly, understandable that this is happening.

I understand fully why it is happening. You have a cunt for a President, and his servants are gutless minions who think they own the world.

... think they own the world.

That's true enough. It's sad, really.

I'll give you two small examples,both directly affecting me.

These are not infringements upon my safety- they are infringements upon my freedom in my own country, because America elected a chickenshit.The pendulum of security has swung to the opposite extreme for one reason only.Because if Bush can't keep his own people scared, he can't justify pouring billions of dollars into an unwinnable war against an invisible enemy.Just how invisible?Ask Bin Laden.If the most extensive security network in the world can ever find him.

Naki thank you for answering my question.

Now I understand why you feel the way you feel but Naki hasn't the company you work for ever heard the word "NO". As in no I will not do this because you want it done. Maybe the US did ask for the additional security but your company is the one that did the work and paid the bill. You stated that the US miltary is an occasional buyer. To me this means that the miltary isn't a major buyer that would kill the company you work for. Your company had the right to say no and refuse to upgrade. Also how can you be sure it was the US forcing this on your company? I doubt a cheese maker would be given the same info the president of the company is given.

As for your favorite fishing place I'm sorry for your loss but again NZ spent the money to install the security and there is no way of knowing why they did it, we only have the rumors to go by.

Quote: Originally Posted by T4 Primera
To fight terrorists, first you need to understand them and their motives.

I think many governments of the West would be too embarassed to entertain public scrutiny of the motives of Bin Laden et al -
________________
Out of curiosity..Just what are his motives?
__________________


Anybody?

we were informed of the upgraded security by the ports authority at the same time as Shell, i probably still have the letter if you want it, it's a little like saying it's speculation that Bush is in office again. just cause you've seen it on TV... i thought Martin Sheen was in the white house?

Quote: Originally Posted by T4 Primera
To fight terrorists, first you need to understand them and their motives.

I think many governments of the West would be too embarassed to entertain public scrutiny of the motives of Bin Laden et al -
________________
Out of curiosity..Just what are his motives?
__________________


Anybody?


good question but nobody does anything without motive. i know we are being told that its the downfall of america and freedom and sugar and spice and all things nice in the world, but wouldn't it be interesting to actually hear his point of view... or sadams. i don't like just hearing one side and if i'm only given one side and denied the other side i'll usually at least wonder why... I'm not the only one that would like to hear it am i?

... but Naki hasn't the company you work for ever heard the word "NO". As in no I will not do this because you want it done. Maybe the US did ask for the additional security but your company is the one that did the work and paid the bill. You stated that the US miltary is an occasional buyer. To me this means that the miltary isn't a major buyer that would kill the company you work for. Your company had the right to say no and refuse to upgrade. Also how can you be sure it was the US forcing this on your company? I doubt a cheese maker would be given the same info the president of the company is given....
It's just one more thing to blame on those danged Americans and their evil President.

"Just say NO!"
......Nancy Reagan

Quote: Originally Posted by T4 Primera
To fight terrorists, first you need to understand them and their motives.

I think many governments of the West would be too embarassed to entertain public scrutiny of the motives of Bin Laden et al -
________________
Out of curiosity..Just what are his motives?
__________________


Anybody?

1. the United States backs Israel
2. Bin Laden and his gang hate westurn culture

Those are the only two I can think of at the moment.

Early after the 9-11 attacks I remember hearing a tape of Bin Laden where he suggested the reason for this attack was basically a recruitment tool. He states that the reason for all his activities was to either convert the world population to worship allah or kill the ones that won't.
I will have to do a little looking for this but wondered if anyone else recalls it?

To fight terrorists, first you need to understand them and their motives.

TECHNICALLY.... I think George W. has firmly demonstrated that you don't need to know a damn thing about anyone in, or for that matter around, a country to start invading. I personally like the idea of starting at one side of a huge desert and cutting a path of destruction all the way to the other side, borders be damned. It makes things so much simpler for me if I don't have to learn who is doing what and where. Like the great Terry Jonavich once said "kill them all and let god sort them out."

Quote: Originally Posted by T4 Primera
To fight terrorists, first you need to understand them and their motives.

I think many governments of the West would be too embarassed to entertain public scrutiny of the motives of Bin Laden et al -
________________
Out of curiosity..Just what are his motives?
__________________


Anybody?

Nobody knows, and that's why there hasn't been any truly effective fighting against them.

Nobody knows, and that's why there hasn't been any truly effective fighting against them.

Hes a crazy F*ed up in the head JAcka$$ pretending that the only way to make his country "pure" is to push out all the outsiders, destroy 2000 year old monuments built to, in his head, the wrong gods, and to show western civilizations he wont tolerate them by bombing embassys, and the pinicles of a consumer baised economy.
Think Truman's irrational fear of communisim in Korea, then give it a nice religious spin, and drop it into the middle of a 3000 year old conflict between 3 major groups, over a sacred piece of land.
On a side note, why is it that we tell our children "if your younger brother hits you, you shouldn't hit back", when as adults we justify the death penality, and going to war because we were hit first?

As for your favorite fishing place I'm sorry for your loss but again NZ spent the money to install the security and there is no way of knowing why they did it, we only have the rumors to go by.

Not rumours,facts.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.cfm?DocumentID=21793

The rest of the world has spent billions improving 'point of departure' security. 'Point of entry' security still sucks.

As for the US Army buying overseas cheese,who knows.When they want it,they want the most basic of formulations,with the cheapest ingredients,and they want it quickly.If American plants could compete, I guess we wouldn't get the work.

As for the US Army buying overseas cheese,who knows.

If it's the same cheese that they distributed in the Air Force when I was in, that's one beef I have with you, 'naki...

...the dishes involving cheese in the chowhall, or out in the mobile kitchen, usually gave me the farts. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/screwy.gif


My poor tentmates. http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/icon16.gif

Not rumours,facts.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.cfm?DocumentID=21793

The rest of the world has spent billions improving 'point of departure' security. 'Point of entry' security still sucks.

As for the US Army buying overseas cheese,who knows.When they want it,they want the most basic of formulations,with the cheapest ingredients,and they want it quickly.If American plants could compete, I guess we wouldn't get the work.

Your link states that the International Maritime Organization is the one who mandated this and not the US government.

Your link states that the International Maritime Organization is the one who mandated this and not the US government.

.......and who do you think demanded it of the IMO?

.......and who do you think demanded it of the IMO?

I'm holding out hope for a link!

I'm holding out hope for a link!


http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=67&doc_id=1746

In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the USA and the subsequent global reaction, the issue of maritime security was to the fore at the 22nd Assembly of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which met at the Organization’s London headquarters from 19-30 November 2001.

The Assembly agreed to hold a Conference on Maritime Security in December 2002, to adopt new regulations to enhance ship and port security and avert shipping from becoming a target of international terrorism.............

.....During the Assembly, the delegation of the United States identified a number of specific areas that it felt should be considered, including a review of the issues related to the installation of automatic identification systems on ships; consideration of the need for security plans on ships, port facilities and off-shore terminals; reviewing the need for identification, verification and background security checks for seafarers; and ensuring a secure “chain of custody” for containers from their port of origin to their destination.

There's your link.

For those who didn't realise, the Internation Maritime Organisation is a United Nations agency.

Funny how the US will use the UN to facilitate their overseas policies,and then trash it and carry on regardless when told invasion is inappropriate.

Out of curiosity..Just what are his motives?Please excuse the late reply. I've been away being a beach-bum for a little while.

I wish I could answer your question but I'm still holding out for an accurate translation or transcript of any of his video releases. All we ever seem to get in the media is the visual with a voice over. I remember the earlier ones were heavily restricted on the supposition that Bin-Laden might be sending coded instructions to his minions.

Some points to consider:
He was originally trained & sponsored by the CIA to oust the U.S.S.R. from Afghanistan.

He left a life of privilege (don't forget that the Bin-Laden family have a long and mutually beneficial history with the U.S. and the Bush's in particular) to fight the U.S.A. along with despotic regimes in the Middle East. This followed a dispute with the Saudi rulers over the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Saudi (post Kuwait).

He invokes jihad (which is an unfortunate mistranslation of the word) or a holy war in order to help recruit for his cause.

Both Jihad and the Taliban were initially supported by the ISI (Pakistani secret service) and the CIA. Jihad was for use against the U.S.S.R. and the Taliban was seen by the ISI as the only group capable at the time of stabilising Afghanistan and easing Pakistan's security situation.

I'm sure that a good transcript of one of the video releases would be very revealing, however that does not satisfy our thirst for knowledge at this time. Therefore all I can offer you is my own speculation as follows:

IMHO, Osama Bin-Laden sees himself and his purpose as something of a revolutionary/freedom-fighter/liberator of the people in the Middle East. He views certain governments/dictators/monarchy's (including his native Saudi) as oppressive and he considers them puppets of the U.S.A. (remember his time with the C.I.A. and I.S.I. here).

Now, you're probably wondering why he was all cosy with the Taliban - well so am I. Of course you have to remember here that Afghanistan was where he trained and fought his holy war alongside the Taliban all while being supported by the CIA and ISI.

The idea of a holy war (I'm going to stop using the term Jihad because it means something else) was central to the recruitment and morale required for fighting the U.S.S.R. Invoking religion has always been part of talking up a war and Bush is no exception. If it works, don't fix it...right?

So we have Bin-Laden and the Taliban, comrades in arms against a common foe from the past who sought to subjegate them, and whom they ousted. The Taliban was supposedly capable of unspeakable things (according to the Western media) but they provided Osama with a safe haven where he could recruit and train his forces.

Right about now is where the Taliban became quite an enigma. First they came down hard on opium production which in itself is a good thing - unless you were supported by it from the field workers up to the militias and covert agencies needing to fund activities "under the radar". Good. Then they destroyed the giant Bhuddas (I was outraged but at least they are being reconstructed) which showed them to be rather forceful in their beliefs. Hmmmnn. Then of course they gained a reputation in the media over of span of 1-2 years prior to 911 of being brutal theocratic rulers and oppressors of women. (uh-oh).

In any case, for whatever reason, Bin-Laden found them acceptable. They were basically prepared to commit regime suicide by not handing him over. It seems that they both felt the same way about the U.S. and that for them, capitulating to U.S. demands was a worse fate than they chose and they probably didn't think handing him over was going to make a blind bit of difference to what happened anyway.

In many ways, they both probably viewed the U.S.A. in much the same way as they considered the U.S.S.R. in earlier times. They know the value of alliances of convenience - having worked with the U.S.A. to send the U.S.S.R. home - and now it's time to send the U.S.A. home too.

When I say they wanted to send the U.S.A. home, I mean they sought to end U.S. influence and support for certain governments in the region - as well as have the Gulf War troops leave Saudi Arabia. Whether true or not, Osama has been reported in the past as being very upset about the presence of Western (Christian?) troops in the holy lands.

Please excuse the late reply. I've been away being a beach-bum for a little while.



Well done, must have done ya some good.


Lots of good info there; I knew about the CIA supporting Bin Laden initially, and read an article awhile ago that he was well funded. All details that haven't been seen in the media, or were quashed immediately if they were ever aired.

I agree with you T4 that they just want the US to mind its own business.

Please excuse the late reply. I've been away being a beach-bum for a little while.

I wish I could answer your question but I'm still holding out for an accurate translation or transcript of any of his video releases. All we ever seem to get in the media is the visual with a voice over. I remember the earlier ones were heavily restricted on the supposition that Bin-Laden might be sending coded instructions to his minions.

Some points to consider: He was originally trained & sponsored by the CIA to oust the U.S.S.R. from Afghanistan.

He left a life of privilege (don't forget that the Bin-Laden family have a long and mutually beneficial history with the U.S. and the Bush's in particular) to fight the U.S.A. along with despotic regimes in the Middle East. This followed a dispute with the Saudi rulers over the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Saudi (post Kuwait).

He invokes jihad (which is an unfortunate mistranslation of the word) or a holy war in order to help recruit for his cause.

Both Jihad and the Taliban were initially supported by the ISI (Pakistani secret service) and the CIA. Jihad was for use against the U.S.S.R. and the Taliban was seen by the ISI as the only group capable at the time of stabilising Afghanistan and easing Pakistan's security situation.I'm sure that a good transcript of one of the video releases would be very revealing, however that does not satisfy our thirst for knowledge at this time. Therefore all I can offer you is my own speculation as follows:IMHO, Osama Bin-Laden sees himself and his purpose as something of a revolutionary/freedom-fighter/liberator of the people in the Middle East. He views certain governments/dictators/monarchy's (including his native Saudi) as oppressive and he considers them puppets of the U.S.A. (remember his time with the C.I.A. and I.S.I. here).

Now, you're probably wondering why he was all cosy with the Taliban - well so am I. Of course you have to remember here that Afghanistan was where he trained and fought his holy war alongside the Taliban all while being supported by the CIA and ISI.

The idea of a holy war (I'm going to stop using the term Jihad because it means something else) was central to the recruitment and morale required for fighting the U.S.S.R. Invoking religion has always been part of talking up a war and Bush is no exception. If it works, don't fix it...right?

So we have Bin-Laden and the Taliban, comrades in arms against a common foe from the past who sought to subjegate them, and whom they ousted. The Taliban was supposedly capable of unspeakable things (according to the Western media) but they provided Osama with a safe haven where he could recruit and train his forces.

Right about now is where the Taliban became quite an enigma. First they came down hard on opium production which in itself is a good thing - unless you were supported by it from the field workers up to the militias and covert agencies needing to fund activities "under the radar". Good. Then they destroyed the giant Bhuddas (I was outraged but at least they are being reconstructed) which showed them to be rather forceful in their beliefs. Hmmmnn. Then of course they gained a reputation in the media over of span of 1-2 years prior to 911 of being brutal theocratic rulers and oppressors of women. (uh-oh).

In any case, for whatever reason, Bin-Laden found them acceptable. They were basically prepared to commit regime suicide by not handing him over. It seems that they both felt the same way about the U.S. and that for them, capitulating to U.S. demands was a worse fate than they chose and they probably didn't think handing him over was going to make a blind bit of difference to what happened anyway.

In many ways, they both probably viewed the U.S.A. in much the same way as they considered the U.S.S.R. in earlier times. They know the value of alliances of convenience - having worked with the U.S.A. to send the U.S.S.R. home - and now it's time to send the U.S.A. home too.

When I say they wanted to send the U.S.A. home, I mean they sought to end U.S. influence and support for certain governments in the region - as well as have the Gulf War troops leave Saudi Arabia. Whether true or not, Osama has been reported in the past as being very upset about the presence of Western (Christian?) troops in the holy lands.

I believe that's possibly what the Taliban uses as it's motives but I am very doubtful that's the reason Bin Laden does what he does. I think you are right about the reason they hooked up together though.

I believe that Bin Laden sees himself as a second Mohammed(SP?)
I beleive he sees his mission is to convert the "infadels" or wipe them off the face of the earth. I believe he is a very deranged individual who believes his god speaks directly to him and that he is on a holy mission.

Time will tell.(hopefully)

Thanks for your views.

great read T4, i wasn't aware of the ISI involvement but it makes perfect sense to me.

You are aware of the oil pipeline the US wanted to build through Afghanistan? but the taliban kept saying no. Perhaps they thought they would have their OWN country when they beat the USSR. I really can't say i like the taliban at all, but at least they had the guts to stand up for themselves, even if they knew they couldn't do anything about it, rather than doing what most countries do and just bowing to US demands.

it really would be nice to get some accurate info on what bin laden and Sadam really have to say and what their pointsa of view are, rather than speculation, accusation and propaganda.

it really would be nice to get some accurate info on what bin laden and Sadam really have to say and what their pointsa of view are, rather than speculation, accusation and propaganda.

There are videos that he has made as well as tapes. Translations aren't all that difficult either. Just do some research rather than believing in what the media says or the propaganda that the taliban themselves pump out.

You are aware of the oil pipeline the US wanted to build through Afghanistan? but the taliban kept saying no. Perhaps they thought they would have their OWN country when they beat the USSR. I really can't say i like the taliban at all, but at least they had the guts to stand up for themselves, even if they knew they couldn't do anything about it, rather than doing what most countries do and just bowing to US demands.

So are you agreeing with Michel Moore who said that the terrorist camps and Al Qaeda links to the country were all a lie made up so the U.S. could invade and build that pipeline they wanted?

NOPE. I don't agree with that at all.

But i CAN understand that the taliban (or any government) would want to feel in charge of their own country, and should be allowed to make decisions like that without fear of bullying.

again it would be interesting to hear their point of view and reasoning.

isn't it still some sort of right in the US to raise a militia or something? what if those people committed crimes overseas, if some of those people went on holiday and committed murder, and vandalism and were killed in the process, would the US government allow the military, of the country where the crimes were committed, to come into the US to track down the remaining members of the militia? or detain their friends and family for questioning? or would they perhaps hand over all remaining members of the organisation for trial in the offended country? would they allow bombing campaigns to route out people that might oppose their goal? I think they would probably, and rightly so, say go fuck yourself and it would not be until the US government was overthrown that foreign troops would be allowed to rampage through their country. Isn't that what you'd expect of a government?

i would expect any government to provide protection for its citizens, and definately to oppose as vehimently as they are able the bombing of those peoples homes. Bin Laden may not be an afghan citizen but many of the people around him that the US also wanted were... and even the US would allow some protection to foreign nationals within their borders.

There are videos that he has made as well as tapes. Translations aren't all that difficult either. Just do some research rather than believing in what the media says or the propaganda that the taliban themselves pump out.

there are videos and tapes that george clooney and georgie bush made too... like Iraq has WMD and can use them against the US in 45 mins HAHAHAHHAHAA

sometimes you say things just to affect other peoples point of view, even if it is not your own. it depends what will pull on the heart strings. so it makes it hard to believe ANY of them, but it's also hard to tell complete lies, theres usually semblances of truth.... i wish i spoke the language!

there are videos and tapes that george clooney and georgie bush made too... like Iraq has WMD and can use them against the US in 45 mins HAHAHAHHAHAA

sometimes you say things just to affect other peoples point of view, even if it is not your own. it depends what will pull on the heart strings. so it makes it hard to believe ANY of them, but it's also hard to tell complete lies, theres usually semblances of truth.... i wish i spoke the language!

You don't need to be able to speak the language. You just need a transcript of his speech and go to an online translator and do the translations yourself. It's a bit time comsuming if it's a long speech but most of the time it matches what other translators have already told us. Translating is too easy to stray to far from the origonal message.

I think our goverment should make its decisions based on more than just one guy's feelings.
Would the intelligence agencies of 7 different countries be enough for you?

Would the intelligence agencies of 7 different countries be enough for you?

Show us the transcripts for those 7 reports.The British have already admitted that theirs was 'tailored' for the US market.

I'm willing to bet that none of them give any specific intelligence on physical stocks of WMD, rather, they say exactly what the UN weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq said,viz...'we can't rule out the possibility,but we can't find any'.

In his eagerness to start this war,Bush cherry-picked the scraps of 'potential' out of a mountain of 'we can't find', and sent 1400 Marines to their deaths based on what amounts to a lie. He's since admitted that his interpretation of the intel was wrong. There have not been enough alleged terrorists captured and tried to justify his claim to be 'fighting terrorism',other than the sheer numbers of his troops being killed and wounded in Iraq.But then,I'm sure if some greedy bastard sent his troops into the States on the basis of a lie, the American people would put up just as good a fight.The new puppet government in Iraq has not endured enough to be judged a success, and the old leadership has not been brought to trial for its alleged sins.


If you still want to call this a success for Bush,I'd only ask one more question...How do you see to type with your head buried in the sand?

what 7 countries?

According to people in Fallujah, the U.S. might have found some evidence of WMD and have been busy taking away soil samples........really big ones...

January 18, 2005 Odd Happenings in Fallujah (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives//000173.php#more)

According to people in Fallujah, the U.S. might have found some evidence of WMD and have been busy taking away soil samples........really big ones...

January 18, 2005 Odd Happenings in Fallujah (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives//000173.php#more)


It may be my mistake, but what i gathered from that article was that the americans were using Napalm and Chemical weapons and where trying to cover their tracks by spraying large areas with water.

interesting.... would be interesting to hear the explanation, but i suspect it "never happened" maybe the media could get some evidence...