Rumsfeld's Private War

[RandFan]

American on trial for private "war on terror" claims Rumsfeld link

Interesting, sounds believable to me.

KABUL (AFP) - A US citizen in court charged with running a private "war on terror" in Afghanistan (news - web sites) claimed he and two other Americans were working with the full knowledge of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Jonathan Idema, who denies charges he detained and tortured Afghan citizens without US government consent, said they were hunting terrorists under the auspices of the Pentagon (news - web sites) and said they had since been abandoned by US authorities.

"The American authorities absolutely condoned what we did, they absolutely supported what we did. We have extensive evidence of that," said Idema, who is on trial with his subordinates Brent Bennett and Edward Caraballo.

US-led coalition forces have disavowed all ties with Idema, while international peacekeeping troops said they were duped into helping Idema's team, who wore US-style uniforms, believing they were legitimate special forces operatives.

 

[crimresearch]

Was their contact with American military forces named Dale Gribble?

 

[aerocontrols]

Was their contact with American military forces named Dale Gribble?

I believe it was Rusty Shackleford.


"Guns don't kill people. The Government does."

 

[Ion]

...
Interesting, sounds believable to me.

RandFan,

are you becoming a skeptic of the U.S. administration?

(It's the second post I saw from you today, leaning this way)

If you do, then better late than never, but mostly:

you are welcome, sincerely.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

RandFan,

are you becoming a skeptic of the U.S. administration?
[/B]

Its funny that your definition of skepticism is posting unfounded accusations that lack any sort of evidence at all.

Maybe you are on the wrong forum........

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

Its funny that your definition of skepticism is posting unfounded accusations that lack any sort of evidence at all.

Maybe you are on the wrong forum........

Something else that you don't say but we know, is funny indeed corpse:

you supported the war in Iraq in 2003, based on WMDs that are proved inexistent.

So much for the validity of me "...posting unfounded accusations that lack any sort of evidence at all." according to you, corpse:

corpse's talk is cheap.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

So much for the validity of me "...posting unfounded accusations that lack any sort of evidence at all." according to you, corpse:

I was referring to you congratulating Randfan for his skepticism because of him posting a story with unsupported accusations against an executive branch member.

If.... you.... are.... having..... trouble.... keeping.... up.... I ..... can.... try.... slowing..... down.....

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

I was referring to you congratulating Randfan for his skepticism because of him posting a story with unsupported accusations against an executive branch member...
...

and I point out that you are a champion of unsupported claims.

 

[a_unique_person]

It hardly sounds surprising, given that mercenaries make up the third largest force in Iraq, "A Bright Shining Lie" tells us all about a civilian general of the US militiary in Vietnam.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

RandFan,

are you becoming a skeptic of the U.S. administration?

(It's the second post I saw from you today, leaning this way)

If you do, then better late than never, but mostly:

you are welcome, sincerely.

You might find this difficult to believe but I have always been skeptical of this administration. I have made many posts critical of George Bush. True, I have also defended him more than I have been critical. You for what ever reason have not seen the negative.

I think that even with the protections given by the founding fathers there is great capacity for abuse by the president (please see Japanese internment camps).

That being said, I don't see George Bush in a black and white fashion. I don't see him as evil or heroic. Like Roosevelt and others he is simply a human being that I belive is doing a difficult job. He has made many mistakes. Power corrupts and Good men do bad things when they are not being held responsible for their actions.

I think George Bush should be held responsible. That being said, at present I am planning on voting for him in the upcoming election.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

Its funny that your definition of skepticism is posting unfounded accusations that lack any sort of evidence at all.

Maybe you are on the wrong forum........

Hey corp,

I said sounds believable. I have not made up my mind. I certainly will with hold judment until I have more evidence.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

and I point out that you are a champion of unsupported claims.

So you admit that you are, as well? Or what is your point? Rather than deny his assertions or defend yourself, you simply say "well you do the same thing," which rather strikes me as an admittance that what he stated was correct. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Kopji]

Idema is a convicted thief and a liar so it may be hard to tell if he's suddenly a convert to telling the truth.
link

We can expect this behavior (brutality and torturing) when huge bounties are placed on terrorists. Pretty naive of us to think everyone will play fair when $25 million is at stake.

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

When did I admit this?

So you admit that you are, as well?
...

What an idiot.

 

[Ion]

Re: Re: Re: Rumsfeld's Private War

...
I think George Bush should be held responsible. That being said, at present I am planning on voting for him in the upcoming election.

I don't know if the suspicion brought up in this thread will turn up as a fact, but for other things that "...George Bush should be held responsible..." I think that voting for him will not allow this holding of responsability, but will degrade things further.

Grave and radical errors happened already, and they show the direction that U.S. will pursue if Bush is elected.

 

[RandFan]

I don't know if the suspicion brought up in this thread will turn up as a fact, but for other things that "...George Bush should be held responsible..." I think that voting for him will not allow this holding of responsability, but will degrade things further.

I know I am going to regret responding. Fools rush in...

Personally casting a Vote to remove someone from office is but one way to hold someone responsible. It has been said that daylight is a great disinfectant. If a leader has made mistakes then those mistakes should be discussed and the leader should be made at least to feel some heat and hopefully change. The truth is that ALL leaders make mistakes because all leaders are human. Running the United States is an impossibly difficult task to run perfectly.

Grave and radical errors happened already, and they show the direction that U.S. will pursue if Bush is elected.

This is your opinion based in part on your ideological bias to Bush and preconceived notions about how a president should conduct business. That is fine, I can respect your opinion but I respectfully disagree.

America has come under attack. 3,000 people have died. There are people right now plotting our destruction. I want a president who is prepared and willing to act. George Bush is that man. I doubt very much that Kerry is. Now you can argue that Bush took his eye off of the prize and has ignored the Taliban to pursue a war to make his oil buddies rich but I find that argument largely specious and conspiratorial.

Bush's actions following 911 constitute a Rorschach test and those who believed he stole the last election will find any and everything to criticize him for. Those who worship him will rarely if ever critisize him. Those who are critical thinkers will be willing to see both the good and bad and not make ridiculous claims without evidence. This does not of course mean that a critical thinker need like or vote for George Bush but a critical thinker will not see conspiracy and "grave and radical errors" where there are none.

 

[fishbob]

I want a president who is prepared and willing to act. George Bush is that man.

But GWB has repeatedly demonstrated that he is ill prepared and that he willing to act in ways that violate the US Constitution, deceive the public, increase the national debt, hack off our allies, and make our enemies more determined.

Who knows how Kerry might act, but how likely is it to be worse?

 

[RandFan]

But GWB has repeatedly demonstrated that he is ill prepared and that he willing to act in ways that violate the US Constitution, deceive the public, increase the national debt, hack off our allies, and make our enemies more determined.

Who knows how Kerry might act, but how likely is it to be worse?

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. I certainly don't see it your way.

For 7 minutes George Bush seemed ill prepared. Since then I think he has shown remarkable ability to deal with events as they have transpired. Roosevelt violated the US constitution. I'm not saying two wrongs make a right but I am saying that when we are threatened and society demands security perhaps we have a tendency to act in such ways. The internment camps didn't make Roosevelt a pariah yet they were far, far worse than anything Bush has done. I think deceiving the public is wrong. Please list the presidents who have not deceived the public? Carter....hmmmm.... Again, previous wrongs do not justify any deception. I'm not certain how Bush was in fact deceptive but for arguments sake lets assume you are right. I think the fact that Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Reagan, etc have lied puts things into perspective. 911 seemed pretty determined to me. Some will argue that more are determined. Any effort that we took to eradicate the terrorists would have pissed off our enemies.

Thanks

 

[c0rbin]

I agree, RandFan. And well put.

I do not see how any student of history can get up in arms about the "evils" that Bush and his Administration allegedly perpitrate.

 

[fishbob]

For 7 minutes George Bush seemed ill prepared.

Those 7 minutes are not relevant. Nobody could be expected to master a flow of incoming details of the attack in 7 minutes. I certainly do not fault Bush for those 7 minutes. I have not seen the Moore film, but I understand he focused quite a bit on those 7 minutes, and if so, quite unfairly.

What I meant by ill prepared was sending too few troops into Iraq, with insufficient support, insufficient gear, a poor to non-existent strategy for occupation and policing, and an unrealistic exit strategy.