pfloyd 0 #1 April 16, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070416/ts_nm/france_usa_qaeda_dc_2 Why didn't the CIA take this seriously? My drinking team has a skydiving problem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #2 April 16, 2007 QuoteLe Monde said the French report of January 2001 had been handed over to a CIA operative in Paris, but that no mention of it had ever been made in the official U.S. September 11 Commission, which produced its findings in July 2004. The newspaper quoted a former senior official at France's DGSE secret service agency as saying that, although France thought a hijack was being planned, the DGSE did not know that the plot involved flying aircraft into buildings. "You have to remember that a plane hijack (in January 2001) did not have the same significance as it did after September 11. At the time, it implied forcing a plane to land at an airport and undertaking negotiations," said Pierre-Antoine Lorenzi. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,274 #3 April 16, 2007 Quote umm thx 4 nothin France! Yeah, they spent a lot of time and effort looking at security threats to your country and shared their findings. What utter bastards!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #4 April 16, 2007 Did you even read the article? You should be blaming the CIA, if you have to blame someone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #5 April 16, 2007 Quote http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070416/ts_nm/france_usa_qaeda_dc_2 umm thx 4 nothin France! Everybody knew. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #6 April 16, 2007 Uh, you do recall that Bush was told as well, right? I believe the title of the report given to him was "AL QAEDA DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN US" and listed hijacking and targeting of US buildings in New York as possible threats. Had France been as public as humanly possible back then (which is generally a bad idea when it comes to intelligence) the response from the US would have been nothing more than more France jokes. "What, is France announcing this so they can get a head start on surrendering?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chris74 0 #7 April 16, 2007 We warned you too , how it was dangerous to overthrow S.Hussein and to disrupt the middle east only for the black gold business and a war = nice outlets for the Mega-contractors such as Halliburton , SAIC , Bechtel ....... Your replies : Bastards, cowards, treacherous....So now god bless us . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #8 April 16, 2007 Quote We warned you too , how it was dangerous to overthrow S.Hussein and to disrupt the middle east only for the black gold business and a war = nice outlets for the Mega-contractors such as Halliburton , SAIC , Bechtel ....... Your replies : Bastards, cowards, treacherous....So now god bless us . Not that I agree with the Iraq war, but, French corporations are not wholly innocent of the whole Saddam Hussein situation either. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #9 April 17, 2007 Quote Quote We warned you too , how it was dangerous to overthrow S.Hussein and to disrupt the middle east only for the black gold business and a war = nice outlets for the Mega-contractors such as Halliburton , SAIC , Bechtel ....... Your replies : Bastards, cowards, treacherous....So now god bless us . Not that I agree with the Iraq war, but, French corporations are not wholly innocent of the whole Saddam Hussein situation either. Chances are that if the French and others in bed with SH had honored the UN sanctions we wouldnot be where we are today."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #10 April 17, 2007 Well the main suppliers of arms to Saddam Hussein were 1) Soviet Union, with whom Saddam had signed an agreement in the 70s and the second most abundant arms supplier was France, so it is clear that French corporations made a lot of $ off of Saddam as well. The French government is no less subject to corporatism than the American government, so it is pretty understandable how things panned out. And yes, the USA supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, but it was stuff that was civilian/military stuff : computer mainframes, chemicals, helicopters, armored ambulances etc. The bulk of the military equipment of Iraq came from the USSR. Secondary of military armaments suppliers was France. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #11 April 17, 2007 >Chances are that if the French and others in bed with SH had honored >the UN sanctions we wouldnot be where we are today. And we know for sure that had Bush honored the UN security council's decisions we would not be here today. France and Germany were right; we were wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #12 April 17, 2007 QuoteWell the main suppliers of arms to Saddam Hussein were 1) Soviet Union, with whom Saddam had signed an agreement in the 70s and the second most abundant arms supplier was France, so it is clear that French corporations made a lot of $ off of Saddam as well. The French government is no less subject to corporatism than the American government, so it is pretty understandable how things panned out. And yes, the USA supported Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, but it was stuff that was civilian/military stuff : computer mainframes, chemicals, helicopters, armored ambulances etc. The bulk of the military equipment of Iraq came from the USSR. Secondary of military armaments suppliers was France. Indeed, corporate incentives certainly played a part in France's stance regarding Iraq. But so it probably did in the US decision to invade. Places with lesser geo-political or/and economical interest tend to get little attention (read Rwanda, Sudan, etc...). At the end of the day, however, what matters is whether you can justify to your people getting involved (or NOT getting involved) in a conflict, regardless of ulterior motivations. The US lost political credibility, and probably influence, with its involvement in Iraq. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #13 April 17, 2007 Quote>Chances are that if the French and others in bed with SH had honored >the UN sanctions we wouldnot be where we are today. And we know for sure that had Bush honored the UN security council's decisions we would not be here today. France and Germany were right; we were wrong. You can twist is around however you like but, Bush did follow the UN, France was the enabler to SH to get all the money needed (in the oil for food scam) and the Soveits did sell the weapons. So, Bush was right and YOU are wrong"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #14 April 17, 2007 QuoteQuote>Chances are that if the French and others in bed with SH had honored >the UN sanctions we wouldnot be where we are today. And we know for sure that had Bush honored the UN security council's decisions we would not be here today. France and Germany were right; we were wrong. You can twist is around however you like but, Bush did follow the UN, France was the enabler to SH to get all the money needed (in the oil for food scam) and the Soveits did sell the weapons. So, Bush was right and YOU are wrong Bush (unlike you) has ADMITTED that he was wrong on his justification for the invasion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #15 April 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>Chances are that if the French and others in bed with SH had honored >the UN sanctions we wouldnot be where we are today. And we know for sure that had Bush honored the UN security council's decisions we would not be here today. France and Germany were right; we were wrong. You can twist is around however you like but, Bush did follow the UN, France was the enabler to SH to get all the money needed (in the oil for food scam) and the Soveits did sell the weapons. So, Bush was right and YOU are wrong Bush (unlike you) has ADMITTED that he was wrong on his justification for the invasion. Unlike you, I don't read things into statements I want to hear. ( or rewrite, or mis-characterize)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #16 April 17, 2007 QuoteUnlike you, I don't read things into statements I want to hear. ( or rewrite, or mis-characterize) I'm flatly stumped about how to respond to this in a civil way... First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #17 April 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteUnlike you, I don't read things into statements I want to hear. ( or rewrite, or mis-characterize) I'm flatly stumped about how to respond to this in a civil way... You should be."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,673 #18 April 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteUnlike you, I don't read things into statements I want to hear. ( or rewrite, or mis-characterize) I'm flatly stumped about how to respond to this in a civil way... "Alice in Wonderland" gives some insights.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #19 April 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteUnlike you, I don't read things into statements I want to hear. ( or rewrite, or mis-characterize) I'm flatly stumped about how to respond to this in a civil way... "Alice in Wonderland" gives some insights. Your PAs are fun"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #20 April 17, 2007 > Bush did follow the UN . . . Nope. Let's review: The US went to the UN, wanting a Security Council ruling that authorized force. They argued passionately for it. The Security Council wanted to wait for the inspections to conclude. The last report of UNSCOM said there was no evidence of WMD's, and they could conclude their survey in a few weeks. We didn't want to wait. So we bypassed the UN and invaded anyway, because Bush was sure there _were_ WMD's. Bush was wrong. France thought it best to wait for the inspector's final report; turned out they were right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #21 April 17, 2007 Quote> Bush did follow the UN . . . Nope. Let's review: The US went to the UN, wanting a Security Council ruling that authorized force. They argued passionately for it. The Security Council wanted to wait for the inspections to conclude. The last report of UNSCOM said there was no evidence of WMD's, and they could conclude their survey in a few weeks. We didn't want to wait. So we bypassed the UN and invaded anyway, because Bush was sure there _were_ WMD's. Bush was wrong. France thought it best to wait for the inspector's final report; turned out they were right. I love the way you re-write things"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,274 #22 April 17, 2007 QuoteI love the way you re-write things OK, how did it happen?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #23 April 17, 2007 >I love the way you re-write things That's how it happened, my friend. Google it if you like. (One of the problems of being a revisionist nowadays is that it's very easy to find out what really happened - everything is cached forever.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #24 April 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteI love the way you re-write things OK, how did it happen? You want me to pull the facts for you?? Even though there were how many resolutions over how many years? Thanks but no thanks. As for the French, they were in so deap with the UN and SH that they could not afford to stop. But of course the UN and it's officeres and family will never get prosocuted. Why, because the world loves the UN, (no matter how corupt they are) I fully understand that the facts can't be left to themselves but, I do wonder how many times those changing the stories have to tell them before they belive it themself?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #25 April 17, 2007 Quote>I love the way you re-write things That's how it happened, my friend. Google it if you like. (One of the problems of being a revisionist nowadays is that it's very easy to find out what really happened - everything is cached forever.) You are right! It really is!!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
