just about everything on that site is documented. its not like this guy is sitting home dreaming up baseless outrageous stories.. he backs it all up. can you do that for your arguments?
you dont get it. who is editing or checking his work? he can write and do whatever he wants without anyone questioning what he does. its one person. and he really did a number on you.
Yes, it proves it's not all Jim Hoffman but many individuals with different opinions and perspectives...the way people are supposed to be. People, at least ones that dislike the herd, think differently and don't only value one perspective as the whole truth for all.
This movement is informal, decentralized and occasionally fractious"
sounds like a great honest movement, where do I sign up?
dude give it a rest. if you honestly believe osama bin laden had nothing to do with 9/11, you need help.
im so tired of people taking this jim hoffman guy as jesus christ himself.
Check it out Jlew!
It also has citations!!! So you can confirm the article!!! Wicked!!!
Tape released by the U.S. government
December 13, 2001
On December 13, 2001, the United States State Department released a video tape apparently showing Osama bin Laden speaking with Khaled al-Harbi and other associates, somewhere in Afghanistan, before the U.S. invasion had driven the Taliban regime from Kandahar. The State Department claimed that the tape is authentic and was captured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan during a raid on a house in Jalalabad.[4] The tape appears to implicate bin Laden in the September 11, 2001 attacks and was aired on many television channels all over the world, with an accompanying English translation provided by the United States Defense Department. In this translation, Osama bin Laden displays knowledge of the timing of the actual attack a few days in advance; the translation attributes the following lines to bin Laden:
"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qaida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."[5]
Authencity
The authenticity of the tape has been questioned in the Muslim world [2].
Aside from questions of the December 13, 2001 videotape's authenticity, the accuracy of the translation itself was also called into question by the German TV magazine Monitor (Host: Klaus Bednarz/ARD TV) on December 20, 2002 (German transcript[3]), (Summary in English [4]). Monitor presented very specific criticism of two notarized Arab speaking specialists, Abdel El M. Husseini and orient expert Professor Gernot Rotter, who claimed: "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."
The Monitor segment claimed the following parts of the English translation were incorrect:
1) "... We calculated in advance the number of casualties who would be killed ..." The translation according to Prof. Rotter and Mr. Husseini is however: "... We calculated the number of casualties ..." - That means the words "in advance" didn't appear in the original and have been added in the text translation transcript.
2) "... We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day ..." The translation according to Prof. Rotter and Mr. Husseini is however: "... We had notification since Thursday ..." - "previous" didn't appear on the original tape, nor does the subsequent statement "... that the event would take place that day ...".
3) "... we asked each of them to go to America ..." The translation according to Prof. Rotter and Mr. Husseini is however in the passive voice, something like: "... they were required ... (rest inaudible).
The English language transcript and annotations linked on CNN's website, however, were independently prepared by George Michael, translator, Diplomatic Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. They collaborated on their translation and compared it with translations done by the U.S. government for consistency; they concluded there were no inconsistencies in the translations."[6]
After the tape was released, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "How could there be a doubt in anyone's mind any longer about what we have said from the very, very beginning, that he was the mastermind, he is the head of an organization that participates in this kind of evil activity?" President George W. Bush said it proved bin Laden "has no conscience and no soul".
Ali Abunimah, vice president of the Arab-American Action Network, said that "[t]he tape should dispel any remaining doubt that bin Laden is an evil villain and responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. Most serious people didn't need this tape to be convinced. The tapes that had already been released [by bin Laden] made it clear since he all but took responsibility for the attacks." Viewers of Al-Jazeera seemed unconvinced, at least one saying that bin Laden could have just been bragging to impress his host.
Denial Bin Laden
Bin Laden denied involvement with the 9/11 attacks five days later on the Al-Jazeera satellite channel:
"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation ... "
This denial was broadcasted worldwide, but the Bush administration urged media in the U.S. not to show the video since it might contain secret signals to Al Qaeda terrorists.
On September 28, 2001 in the Pakistani newspaper Daily Ummat [5], bin Laden again denied any involvement with the attacks, and suggested he was being framed:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as a appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people ..."
"There exists a government within the government of the United States. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out these attacks. The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks to those persons who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own nation could surivive." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_tapes#December_13.2C_2001
Remember Bin Laden only releases his tapes to Arab media like Al-Manar or Al-Jazeera. This particular one was released by the U.S. Government, and Osama denied it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
This movement is informal, decentralized and occasionally fractious"
sounds like a great honest movement, where do I sign up?
informal...so?
decentralized...I already addressed. I don't see the need for everyone to share one central thought, no thanks.
fractious...only if your one of the ones who is hiding something.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you dont get it. who is editing or checking his work? he can write and do whatever he wants without anyone questioning what he does. its one person. and he really did a number on you.
how did he do a number? because you disagree, right? and his is not the only site or source of info, his just happens to be a very good one. Why not address the points in his site?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
your buddy jimmy hoffman is the sole creator of the 911research site you continue to post.
millions of people huh? now that brings some comic relief to a serious discussion
and your right, osama did it
You have not contributed much other than my goverment didn't do it osama did. Offer up some proof.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
You have not contributed much other than my goverment didn't do it osama did. Offer up some proof.
look dude, im done with this. I dont need to offer up proof that osama bin laden was behind the attacks. at this point, if you dont think he did it, that is only a matter of opinion. not fact
look dude, im done with this. I dont need to offer up proof that osama bin laden was behind the attacks. at this point, if you dont think he did it, that is only a matter of opinion. not fact
Indeed everytime you are asked for proof or something a little more concrete than osama did it. You say i'm done.
You are missing the point of what we are all saying, we are not offering up one theory we are trying to find out all the TRUE facts, and they just don't look anything like the rubbish that is the official report.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Indeed everytime you are asked for proof or something a little more concrete than osama did it. You say i'm done.
You are missing the point of what we are all saying, we are not offering up one theory we are trying to find out all the TRUE facts, and they just don't look anything like the rubbish that is the official report.
who are you osama's lawyer? I believe its fact that el quaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. you dont. we dont agree. move the fuck on.
who are you osama's lawyer? I believe its fact that el quaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. you dont. we dont agree. move the fuck on.
Did i say osama didn't do it? Erm no, i said we are looking for the truth, maybe he did it and people in the US goverment let it happen who knows, hench searching for the truth.
Still you come back with no argument.
And show me the proof that Al Qaida was involved, oh you can't cos you only have hear say to go on.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
who are you osama's lawyer? I believe its fact that el quaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. you dont. we dont agree. move the fuck on.
i thought you were done? if it's fact you should have no problem proving it. what do you think about the wall street journal saying the head of the isi, pakistan's cia, wired mohammed atta $100,000 shortly before 9/11? what do you think of pakistan bribing the 9/11 commission to leave their name out?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
i thought you were done? if it's fact you should have no problem proving it. what do you think about the wall street journal saying the head of the isi, pakistan's cia, wired mohammed atta $100,000 shortly before 9/11? what do you think of pakistan bribing the 9/11 commission to leave their name out?
so the wall street jounal said it, it must be true. show me the document of the wire transfer.
does realyl matter to me. I have no problem putting the head of the isi in the same category as el queada.
On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. [2]
The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."
More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mehmood Ahmed resigned from his position. [It was reported that the FBI was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta [3]; there were also claims that Indian intelligence had already produced proof for the Pakistani administration that this was so. [4]
The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought [Gen. Mehmood Ahmed's] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 [was] wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mehmood."[5] Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Gen. Mehmood Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, sensational reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta, one of the kamikaze pilots who flew his Boeing into the World Trade Centre. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."[6]
The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that "There are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."[7]
Sheikh rose to prominence with the 2002 killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who at the time was in Pakistan investigating connnections between the ISI and Islamic militant groups. In Pakistan, Sheikh was sentenced to death for killing Pearl, however his complicity in the execution and the reasons behind it are in dispute.
A Wall Street Journal review of Bernard-Henri Levy's book “Who Killed Daniel Pearl?” notes, “It is a fact that Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary."[8]
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
thats awsome, lets take him out as well. you wont see me defending the head of the ISI
then why are we friends w/ these ppl?
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
sadly because they give us much needed help against terroists. many high level people have been caught with the help of musarif. albeit it not enough help by any means. it something.
I hate pakistan, I think alot of the shit starts there in the madrasas. but what should we do? accept the small amount of help we get or bomb them back to the stone age?
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.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
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.
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."
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
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?
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.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
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?
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
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
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
How was that analogy desperate?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you dont get it. who is editing or checking his work? he can write and do whatever he wants without anyone questioning what he does. its one person. and he really did a number on you.
This movement is informal, decentralized and occasionally fractious"
sounds like a great honest movement, where do I sign up?
Check it out Jlew!
It also has citations!!! So you can confirm the article!!! Wicked!!!
Remember Bin Laden only releases his tapes to Arab media like Al-Manar or Al-Jazeera. This particular one was released by the U.S. Government, and Osama denied it.
informal...so?
decentralized...I already addressed. I don't see the need for everyone to share one central thought, no thanks.
fractious...only if your one of the ones who is hiding something.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
i'm not the one who said. your movment did
how did he do a number? because you disagree, right? and his is not the only site or source of info, his just happens to be a very good one. Why not address the points in his site?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
My movement? My movement said what?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You have not contributed much other than my goverment didn't do it osama did. Offer up some proof.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
look dude, im done with this. I dont need to offer up proof that osama bin laden was behind the attacks. at this point, if you dont think he did it, that is only a matter of opinion. not fact
Indeed everytime you are asked for proof or something a little more concrete than osama did it. You say i'm done.
You are missing the point of what we are all saying, we are not offering up one theory we are trying to find out all the TRUE facts, and they just don't look anything like the rubbish that is the official report.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
who are you osama's lawyer? I believe its fact that el quaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. you dont. we dont agree. move the fuck on.
Did i say osama didn't do it? Erm no, i said we are looking for the truth, maybe he did it and people in the US goverment let it happen who knows, hench searching for the truth.
Still you come back with no argument.
And show me the proof that Al Qaida was involved, oh you can't cos you only have hear say to go on.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
i thought you were done? if it's fact you should have no problem proving it. what do you think about the wall street journal saying the head of the isi, pakistan's cia, wired mohammed atta $100,000 shortly before 9/11? what do you think of pakistan bribing the 9/11 commission to leave their name out?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
so the wall street jounal said it, it must be true. show me the document of the wire transfer.
does realyl matter to me. I have no problem putting the head of the isi in the same category as el queada.
plenty of external links provided:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh#Alleged_connection_to_9.2F11
On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohammed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars -- believed to be excess funds from the operation -- back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this. [2]
The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."
More than a month after the money transfer was discovered, the head of ISI, General Mehmood Ahmed resigned from his position. [It was reported that the FBI was investigating the possibility that Gen. Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta [3]; there were also claims that Indian intelligence had already produced proof for the Pakistani administration that this was so. [4]
The Wall Street Journal was one of the only Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought [Gen. Mehmood Ahmed's] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 [was] wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mehmood."[5] Another Indian newspaper, the Daily Excelsior, quoting FBI sources, reported that the "FBI’s examination of the hard disk of the cellphone company Omar Sheikh had subscribed to led to the discovery of the "link" between him and the deposed chief of the Pakistani ISI, Gen. Mehmood Ahmed. And as the FBI investigators delved deep, sensational reports surfaced with regard to the transfer of 100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta, one of the kamikaze pilots who flew his Boeing into the World Trade Centre. Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, the FBI investigators found, fully knew about the transfer of money to Atta."[6]
The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that "There are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."[7]
Sheikh rose to prominence with the 2002 killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who at the time was in Pakistan investigating connnections between the ISI and Islamic militant groups. In Pakistan, Sheikh was sentenced to death for killing Pearl, however his complicity in the execution and the reasons behind it are in dispute.
A Wall Street Journal review of Bernard-Henri Levy's book “Who Killed Daniel Pearl?” notes, “It is a fact that Gen. Mehmood Ahmed, then head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta before 9/11 through an intermediary."[8]
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
then why are we friends w/ these ppl?
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
sadly because they give us much needed help against terroists. many high level people have been caught with the help of musarif. albeit it not enough help by any means. it something.
I hate pakistan, I think alot of the shit starts there in the madrasas. but what should we do? accept the small amount of help we get or bomb them back to the stone age?
the situation sucks
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?
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.
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?
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.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
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?
yes I do.
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