9/11 video question

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

how is giving $100K to the alleged mastermind of what allegedly took place on 911 helping us against terrorists?

it's not. what do you suggest. bombing them?

DPrival78

jlew24asu wrote:

it's not. what do you suggest. bombing them?

bombing them wouldn't get them.. just like bombing didn't get osama (not that that was really the point behind that invading afghanistan anyway, but i digress)

i'd suggest a real, independent investigation of 9/11 that would go after any and all parties involved, foreign or domestic.

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

bombing them wouldn't get them.. just like bombing didn't get osama (not that that was really the point behind that invading afghanistan anyway, but i digress)

i'd suggest a real, independent investigation of 9/11 that would go after any and all parties involved, foreign or domestic.

bombing afghanistan was to elminate the taliban who allowed bin laden to operate. among other things.

great lets have an investigation. in the mean time would you not accept help from pakistan if offered? if we cant or wont bomb them, then we at least need to allow them to catch el quaeda members.

DPrival78

jlew24asu wrote:

bombing afghanistan was to elminate the taliban who allowed bin laden to operate. among other things.

key phrase there.. "among other things".

the taliban also was rejecting a proposal for us companies to build an oil and natural gas pipeline through afgahnistan. in fact, the u.s. was telling other countries before 9/11 that they were planning an attack by october of 2001. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm) how convient that "al qaeda" attacked us to give the gov't the pretext for that pre-planned invasion.

tony blair even said: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

key phrase there.. "among other things".

the taliban also was rejecting a proposal for us companies to build an oil and natural gas pipeline through afgahnistan. in fact, the u.s. was telling other countries before 9/11 that they were planning an attack by october of 2001. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm) how convient that "al qaeda" attacked us to give the gov't the pretext for that pre-planned invasion.

tony blair even said: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11."

by among other things I meant, imposing their crazy ideology on innocent people. what are you getting at?

so we shouldnt have gone to afgah?

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

bombing afghanistan was to elminate the taliban who allowed bin laden to operate. among other things.

great lets have an investigation. in the mean time would you not accept help from pakistan if offered? if we cant or wont bomb them, then we at least need to allow them to catch el quaeda members.

didn't the taliban offer us bin laden if we coudl provide any shred of proof he was behind 9/11? so the war was to eliminate them b/c they allowed bin laden to operate...yet they offered to hand him over to us if we could prove he was guilty...instead we bombed them.

DPrival78

jlew24asu wrote:

by among other things I meant, imposing their crazy ideology on innocent people. what are you getting at?

so we shouldnt have gone to afgah?

im just saying that the invasion of afghanistan wasn't a spontaneous event in reaction to 9/11. the plans to invade were already in place beforehand, and even discussed publicly (but not in this country of course. our media was too busy with the 24/7 gary condit show).

so, like iraq, the cocksuckers just needed something to generate support for the war. just another instance of qui bono.

almost all of the military bases constructed by the u.s. in afghanistan follow the projected oil pipeline route. is that a coincidence? i don't think so.

hamid karzai was a former executive for unocal - one of the companies pushing for the pipeline's construction.

the taliban is back and the opium trade is flourishing again. but as long as our bases are protecting that pipeline.. who cares?

do you really think that invasion had anything to do with fighting terrorism?

jlew24asu

DPrival78 wrote:

do you really think that invasion had anything to do with fighting terrorism?

yes I do.

Ahnimus

Well, we know where Bush gets his intelligence form...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/middleeast-092401.htm

Who the fuck are all these guys to have an opinion anyway?

William Kristol

Richard V. Allen Gary Bauer Jeffrey Bell William J. Bennett

Rudy Boshwitz Jeffrey Bergner Eliot Cohen Seth Cropsey

Midge Decter Thomas Donnelly Nicholas Eberstadt Hillel Fradkin

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Jeffrey Gedmin

Reuel Marc Gerecht Charles Hill Bruce P. Jackson Eli S. Jacobs

Michael Joyce Donald Kagan Robert Kagan Jeane Kirkpatrick

Charles Krauthammer John Lehman Clifford May Martin Peretz

Richard Perle Norman Podhoretz Stephen P. Rosen Randy Scheunemann

Gary Schmitt William Schneider, Jr. Richard H. Shultz Henry Sokolski

Stephen J. Solarz Vin Weber Leon Wieseltier Marshall Wittmann