I'm not sure what is justified in those wars and what wasn't, that said I find it very interesting that the US didn't invade and occupy Saudi Arabia since that's where a majority of the attackers came from.
why do you find it interesting? the Saudi Arabian government did not support the attacks, the hijackers were not trained in saudi arabia. why would we attack them? OSL and his entire network, including some of the hijackers, were trained and given sanctuary inside Afghanistan. there is not one reason why we should have invaded or attacked Saudi
Hmmm, yet we had great reason to invade, and occupy Iraq right or is it our close ties and friendship with the government of Saudi Arabia? Iraq was about occupying a country that we could control that had vast amounts of OIL. Just the fact we had to LIE to invade the country was reason to not be there.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I'm not sure what is justified in those wars and what wasn't, that said I find it very interesting that the US didn't invade and occupy Saudi Arabia since that's where a majority of the attackers came from.
why do you find it interesting? the Saudi Arabian government did not support the attacks, the hijackers were not trained in saudi arabia. why would we attack them? OSL and his entire network, including some of the hijackers, were trained and given sanctuary inside Afghanistan. there is not one reason why we should have invaded or attacked Saudi
Hmmm, yet we had great reason to invade, and occupy Iraq right or is it our close ties and friendship with the government of Saudi Arabia? Iraq was about occupying a country that we could control that had vast amounts of OIL. Just the fact we had to LIE to invade the country was reason to not be there.
Peace
what country or people have Saudi been hostile to in the past? you are comparing Saudi and Saddam's regime as if they are similar. Saddam had a long history of invading his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait.
but yes, we have close ties and friendship with the Saudi government. they are not hostile towards us and hoave the largest oil reserves in the world. like it or not, but we need oil to survive as a country. as do many other nations.
I agree we had no business invading Iraq, but just because the hijackers were of Saudi decent, doesnt mean Saudi the country should have been a target of ours.
Saddam had a long history of invading his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait.
Sadaam invaded Iran with full U.S support. He also received tacit support from the U.S prior to the invasion of Kuwait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
'In late July 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on its border with the emirate and summoned US ambassador April Glaspie to a meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. In them, Saddam Hussein outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on 23 September 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop build up to President Hussein:
'We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via (Chedli Klibi, then Arab League General Secretary) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us? My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not in the spirit of confrontation — regarding your intentions. I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.'
Some have interpreted portions of these statements, particularly the language "We have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait", as signaling an American "green light" for the invasion...'
I agree we had no business invading Iraq, but just because the hijackers were of Saudi decent, doesnt mean Saudi the country should have been a target of ours.
The invasion of Afghanistan was also a criminal act. There are other ways to punish regimes harbouring terrorists, just as as the U.S should be held accountable for harbouring terrorists.
At any rate, both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were planned a long time before 9/11 gave the American neo-cons the excuse they needed.
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
By Patrick Martin
20 November 2001
Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. These reports include the prediction, made in July, that “if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The Bush administration began its bombing strikes on the hapless, poverty-stricken country October 7, and ground attacks by US Special Forces began October 19.
It is not an accident that these revelations have appeared overseas, rather than in the US. The ruling classes in these countries have their own economic and political interests to look after, which do not coincide, and in some cases directly clash, with the drive by the American ruling elite to seize control of oil-rich territory in Central Asia.
The American media has conducted a systematic cover-up of the real economic and strategic interests that underlie the war against Afghanistan, in order to sustain the pretense that the war emerged overnight, full-blown, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
The pundits for the American television networks and major daily newspapers celebrate the rapid military defeat of the Taliban regime as an unexpected stroke of good fortune. They distract public attention from the conclusion that any serious observer would be compelled to draw from the events of the past two weeks: that the speedy victory of the US-backed forces reveals careful planning and preparation by the American military, which must have begun well before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The official American myth is that “everything changed” on the day four airliners were hijacked and nearly 5,000 people murdered. The US military intervention in Afghanistan, by this account, was hastily improvised in less than a month. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a television interview November 18, actually claimed that only three weeks went into planning the military onslaught.
This is only one of countless lies emanating from the Pentagon and White House about the war against Afghanistan. The truth is that the US intervention was planned in detail and carefully prepared long before the terrorist attacks provided the pretext for setting it in motion. If history had skipped over September 11, and the events of that day had never happened, it is very likely that the United States would have gone to war in Afghanistan anyway, and on much the same schedule.
Afghanistan and the scramble for oil
The United States ruling elite has been contemplating war in Central Asia for at least a decade. As long ago as 1991, following the defeat of Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, Newsweek magazine published an article headlined “Operation Steppe Shield?” It reported that the US military was preparing an operation in Kazakhstan modeled on the Operation Desert Shield deployment in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq...
...According to a front-page article in the Washington Post November 18, the CIA has been mounting paramilitary operations in southern Afghanistan since 1997. The article carries the byline of Bob Woodward, the Post writer made famous by Watergate, who is a frequent conduit for leaks from top-level military and intelligence officials.
Woodward provides details about the CIA’s role in the current military conflict, which includes the deployment of a secret paramilitary unit, the Special Activities Division. This force began combat on September 27, using both operatives on the ground and Predator surveillance drones equipped with missiles that could be launched by remote control.
The Special Activities Division, Woodward reports, “consists of teams of about half a dozen men who do not wear military uniforms. The division has about 150 fighters, pilots and specialists, and is made up mostly of hardened veterans who have retired from the US military.
“For the last 18 months, the CIA has been working with tribes and warlords in southern Afghanistan, and the division’s units have helped create a significant new network in the region of the Taliban’s greatest strength.”
This means that the US spy agency was engaged in attacks against the Afghan regime—what under other circumstances the American government would call terrorism—from the spring of 2000, more than a year before the suicide hijackings that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon...
...The British-based Jane’s International Security reported March 15, 2001 that the new American administration was working with India, Iran and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” India was supplying the Northern Alliance with military equipment, advisers and helicopter technicians, the magazine said, and both India and Russia were using bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for their operations.
The magazine added: “Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban. Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support.”
On May 23, the White House announced the appointment of Zalmay Khalilzad to a position on the National Security Council as special assistant to the president and senior director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues. Khalilzad is a former official in the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. After leaving the government, he went to work for Unocal.
On June 26 of this year, the magazine IndiaReacts reported more details of the cooperative efforts of the US, India, Russia and Iran against the Taliban regime. “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime,” the magazine said.
At this stage of military planning, the US and Russia were to supply direct military assistance to the Northern Alliance, working through Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, in order to roll back the Taliban lines toward the city of Mazar-e-Sharif—a scenario strikingly similar to what actually took place over the past two weeks. An unnamed third country supplied the Northern Alliance with anti-tank rockets that had already been put to use against the Taliban in early June.
“Diplomats say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and later between Powell and Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh in Washington,” the magazine added. “Russia, Iran and India have also held a series of discussions and more diplomatic activity is expected.”
Unlike the current campaign, the original plan involved the use of military forces from both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, as well as Russia itself. IndiaReacts said that in early June Russian President Vladimir Putin told a meeting of the Confederation of Independent States, which includes many of the former Soviet republics, that military action against the Taliban was in the offing. One effect of September 11 was to create the conditions for the United States to intervene on its own, without any direct participation by the military forces of the Soviet successor states, and thus claim an undisputed American right to dictate the shape of a settlement in Afghanistan.
The US threatens war—before September 11
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, two reports appeared in the British media indicating that the US government had threatened military action against Afghanistan several months before September 11.
The BBC’s George Arney reported September 18 that American officials had told former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik in mid-July of plans for military action against the Taliban regime:
“Mr. Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
“Mr. Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.
“The wider objective, according to Mr. Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place—possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
“Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
“He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
“Mr. Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”
Four days later, on September 22, the Guardian newspaper confirmed this account. The warnings to Afghanistan came out of a four-day meeting of senior US, Russian, Iranian and Pakistani officials at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July, the third in a series of back-channel conferences dubbed “brainstorming on Afghanistan.”
The participants included Naik, together with three Pakistani generals; former Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Saeed Rajai Khorassani; Abdullah Abdullah, foreign minister of the Northern Alliance; Nikolai Kozyrev, former Russian special envoy to Afghanistan, and several other Russian officials; and three Americans: Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan; Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs; and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the State Department until 1997.
The meeting was convened by Francesc Vendrell, then and now the deputy chief UN representative for Afghanistan. While the nominal purpose of the conference was to discuss the possible outline of a political settlement in Afghanistan, the Taliban refused to attend. The Americans discussed the shift in policy toward Afghanistan from Clinton to Bush, and strongly suggested that military action was an option.
While all three American former officials denied making any specific threats, Coldren told the Guardian, “there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” Naik, however, cited one American declaring that action against bin Laden was imminent: “This time they were very sure. They had all the intelligence and would not miss him this time. It would be aerial action, maybe helicopter gunships, and not only overt, but from very close proximity to Afghanistan.”
The Guardian summarized: “The threats of war unless the Taliban surrendered Osama bin Laden were passed to the regime in Afghanistan by the Pakistani government, senior diplomatic sources revealed yesterday. The Taliban refused to comply but the serious nature of what they were told raises the possibility that Bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue 10 days ago, was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.”...
Bush, oil and Taliban
Further light on secret contacts between the Bush administration and the Taliban regime is shed by a book released November 15 in France, entitled Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth, written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Brisard is a former French secret service agent, author of a previous report on bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, and former director of strategy for the French corporation Vivendi, while Dasquie is an investigative journalist.
The two French authors write that the Bush administration was willing to accept the Taliban regime, despite the charges of sponsoring terrorism, if it cooperated with plans for the development of the oil resources of Central Asia.
Until August, they claim, the US government saw the Taliban “as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia.” It was only when the Taliban refused to accept US conditions that “this rationale of energy security changed into a military one.”
By way of corroboration, one should note the curious fact that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban regime. Such a designation would have made it impossible for an American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
Talks between the Bush administration and the Taliban began in February 2001, shortly after Bush’s inauguration. A Taliban emissary arrived in Washington in March with presents for the new chief executive, including an expensive Afghan carpet. But the talks themselves were less than cordial. Brisard said, “At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs’.”
As long as the possibility of a pipeline deal remained, the White House stalled any further investigation into the activities of Osama bin Laden, Brisard and Dasquie write. They report that John O’Neill, deputy director of the FBI, resigned in July in protest over this obstruction. O’Neill told them in an interview, “the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” In a strange coincidence, O’Neill accepted a position as security chief of the World Trade Center after leaving the FBI, and was killed on September 11.
Confirming Naiz Naik’s account of the secret Berlin meeting, the two French authors add that there was open discussion of the need for the Taliban to facilitate a pipeline from Kazakhstan in order to insure US and international recognition. The increasingly acrimonious US-Taliban talks were broken off August 2, after a final meeting between US envoy Christina Rocca and a Taliban representative in Islamabad. Two months later the United States was bombing Kabul...
This account of the preparations for war against Afghanistan brings us to September 11 itself. The terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon was an important link in the chain of causality that produced the US attack on Afghanistan. The US government had planned the war well in advance, but the shock of September 11 made it politically feasible, by stupefying public opinion at home and giving Washington essential leverage on reluctant allies abroad.
Both the American public and dozens of foreign governments were stampeded into supporting military action against Afghanistan, in the name of the fight against terrorism. The Bush administration targeted Kabul without presenting any evidence that either bin Laden or the Taliban regime was responsible for the World Trade Center atrocity. It seized on September 11 as the occasion for advancing longstanding ambitions to assert American power in Central Asia.
There is no reason to think that September 11 was merely a fortuitous occurrence. Every other detail of the war in Afghanistan was carefully prepared. It is unlikely that the American government left to chance the question of providing a suitable pretext for military action.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, there were press reports—again, largely overseas—that US intelligence agencies had received specific warnings about large-scale terrorist attacks, including the use of hijacked airplanes. It is quite possible that a decision was made at the highest levels of the American state to allow such an attack to proceed, perhaps without imagining the actual scale of the damage, in order to provide the necessary spark for war in Afghanistan.
How otherwise to explain such well-established facts as the decision of top officials at the FBI to block an investigation into Zaccarias Massaoui, the Franco-Moroccan immigrant who came under suspicion after he allegedly sought training from a US flight school on how to steer a commercial airliner, but not to take off or land?
The Minneapolis field office had Massaoui arrested in early August, and asked FBI headquarters for permission to conduct further inquiries, including a search of the hard drive of his computer. The FBI tops refused, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent on Massaoui’s part—an astonishing decision for an agency not known for its tenderness on the subject of civil liberties.
This is not to say that the American government deliberately planned every detail of the terrorist attacks or anticipated that nearly 5,000 people would be killed. But the least likely explanation of September 11 is the official one: that dozens of Islamic fundamentalists, many with known ties to Osama bin Laden, were able to carry out a wide-ranging conspiracy on three continents, targeting the most prominent symbols of American power, without any US intelligence agency having the slightest idea of what they were doing.'
Back on the subject of Panama, does anyone here truly believe the U.S media spin that Noriega was an evil drug trafficker and a threat to the U.S? Or do we all agree that the U.S media provided a smokescreen behind which the real issues - control of the Panama canal and Panamanian economic independence - could be hidden?
'Panama has been traditionally controlled by its tiny European elite, less than 10% of the population. That changed in 1968, when Omar Torrijos, a populist general, led a coup that allowed the black and mestizo [mixed-race] poor to obtain at least a share of the power under his military dictatorship. In 1981, Torrijos was killed in a plane crash. By 1983, the effective ruler was Manuel Noriega, a criminal who had been a cohort of Torrijos and US intelligence.
The US government knew that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking since at least 1972, when the Nixon administration considered assassinating him. But he stayed on the CIA payroll. In 1983, a US Senate committee concluded that Panama was a major center for the laundering of drug funds and drug trafficking.
The US government continued to value Noriega's services. In May 1986, the Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency praised Noriega for his "vigorous anti-drug trafficking policy." A year later, the Director "welcomed our close association" with Noriega, while Attorney-General Edwin Meese stopped a US Justice Department investigation of Noriega's criminal activities. In August 1987, a Senate resolution condemning Noriega was opposed by Elliott Abrams, the State Department official in charge of US policy in Central America and Panama.
And yet, when Noriega was formally indicted in Miami in 1988, all the charges except one were related to activities that took place before 1984 -- back when he was our boy, helping with the US war against Nicaragua, stealing elections with US approval and generally serving US interests satisfactorily. It had nothing to do with suddenly discovering that he was a gangster and a drug peddler-that was known all along.
It's all quite predictable, as study after study shows. A brutal tyrant crosses the line from admirable friend to "villain" and "scum" when he commits the crime of independence. One common mistake is to go beyond robbing the poor - which is just fine - and to start interfering with the privileged, eliciting opposition from business leaders.
By the mid 1980s, Noriega was guilty of these crimes. Among other things, he seems to have been dragging his feet about helping the US in the contra war. His independence also threatened our interests in the Panama Canal. On January 1, 1990, most of the administration of the Canal was due to go over to Panama-in the year 2000, it goes completely to them. We had to make sure that Panama was in the hands of people we could control before that date.
Since we could no longer trust Noriega to do our bidding, he had to go. Washington imposed economic sanctions that virtually destroyed the economy, the main burden falling on the poor nonwhite majority. They too came to hate Noriega, not least because he was responsible for the economic warfare (which was illegal, if anyone cares) that was causing their children to starve.
Next a military coup was tried, but failed. Then, in December 1989, the US celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War by invading Panama outright, killing hundreds or perhaps thousands of civilians (no one knows, and few north of the Rio Grande care enough to inquire). This restored power to the rich white elite that had been displaced by the Torrijos coup-just in time to ensure a compliant government for the administrative changeover of the Canal on January 1, 1990 (as noted by the right-wing European press).
Throughout this process, the US press followed Washington's lead, selecting villains in
terms of current needs. Actions we'd formerly condoned became crimes. For example, in 1984, the Panamanian presidential election had been won by Arnulfo Arias. The election was stolen by Noriega, with considerable violence and fraud.
But Noriega hadn't yet become disobedient. He was our man in Panama, and the Arias party was considered to have dangerous elements of "ultranationalism." The Reagan administration therefore applauded the violence and fraud, and sent Secretary of State George Shultz down to legitimate the stolen election and praise Noriega's version of "democracy" as a model for the errant Sandinistas.
The Washington-media alliance and the major journals refrained from criticizing the fraudulent elections, but dismissed as utterly worthless the Sandinistas' far more free and honest election in the same year-because it could not be controlled.
In May 1989, Noriega again stole an election, this time from a representative of the business opposition, Guillermo Endara. Noriega used less violence than in 1984. But the Reagan administration had given the signal that it had turned against Noriega. Following the predictable script, the press expressed outrage over his failure to meet our lofty democratic standards.
The press also began passionately denouncing human rights violations that previously didn't reach the threshold of their attention. By the time we invaded Panama in December 1989, the press had demonized Noriega, turning him into the worst monster since Attila the Hun. (It was basically a replay of the demonization of Qaddafi of Libya.) Ted Koppel was orating that "Noriega belongs to that special fraternity of international villains, men like Qaddafi, Idi Amin and the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Americans just love to hate." Dan Rather placed him "at the top of the list of the world's drug thieves and scums." In fact, Noriega remained a very minor thug exactly what he was when he was on the CIA payroll.
In 1988, for example, Americas Watch published a report on human rights in Panama, giving an unpleasant picture. But as their reports-and other inquiries-make clear, Noriega's human rights record was nothing remotely like that of other US clients in the region, and no worse than in the days when Noriega was still a favorite, following orders.
Take Honduras, for example. Although it's not a murderous terrorist state like El Salvador or Guatemala, human rights abuses were probably worse there than in Panama. In fact, there's one ClA-trained battalion in Honduras that all by itself had carried out more atrocities than Noriega did. Or consider US-backed dictators like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti and a host of Central American gangsters through the 1980s. They were all much more brutal than Noriega, but the United States supported them enthusiastically right through decades of horrifying atrocities-as long as the profits were flowing out of their countries and into the US. George Bush's administration continued to honor Mobutu, Ceausescu and Saddam Hussein, among others, all far worse criminals than Noriega. Suharto of Indonesia, arguably the worst killer of them all, remains a Washington-media "moderate."
In fact, at exactly the moment it invaded Panama because of its outrage over Noriega's abuses of human rights, the Bush administration announced new high-technology sales to China, noting that $300 million in business for US firms was at stake and that contacts had secretly resumed a few weeks after the Tiananmen Square massacre.
On the same day-the day Panama was invaded-the White House also announced plans (and implemented them shortly afterwards) to lift a ban on loans to Iraq. The State Department explained with a straight face that this was to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...."
The Department continued with the pose as Bush rebuffed the Iraqi democratic opposition (bankers, professionals, etc.) and blocked congressional efforts to condemn the atrocious crimes of his old friend Saddam Hussein. Compared to Bush's buddies in Baghdad and Beijing, Noriega looked like Mother Teresa. After the invasion, Bush announced a billion dollars in aid to Panama. Of this, $400 million consisted of incentives for US business to export products to Panama, $150 million was to pay off bank loans and $65 million went to private sector loans and guarantees to US investors. In
other words, about half the aid was a gift from the American taxpayer to American businesses.
The US put the bankers back in power after the invasion. Noriega's involvement in drug trafficking had been trivial compared to theirs. Drug trafficking there has always been conducted primarily by the banks-the banking system is virtually unregulated, so it's a natural outlet for criminal money. This has been the basis for Panama's highly artificial economy and remains so-possibly at a higher level-after the invasion. The Panamanian Defense Forces have also been reconstructed with basically the same officers.
In general, everything's pretty much the same, only now more reliable servants are in charge. (The same is true of Grenada, which has become a major center of drug money laundering since the US invasion. Nicaragua, too, has become a significant conduit for drugs to the US market, after Washington's victory in the 1990 election. The pattern is standard-as is the failure to notice it.)'
Saddam had a long history of invading his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait.
Sadaam invaded Iran with full U.S support. He also received tacit support from the U.S prior to the invasion of Kuwait.
so I guess that makes it ok for him to invade whoever he wants? you'll do anything to blame the US, what a joke. and Saddam never received any support from the US to invade Kuwait. go ahead an cut and poaste more shit that people never bother reading.
I agree we had no business invading Iraq, but just because the hijackers were of Saudi decent, doesnt mean Saudi the country should have been a target of ours.
The invasion of Afghanistan was also a criminal act. There are other ways to punish regimes harbouring terrorists, just as as the U.S should be held accountable for harbouring terrorists.
At any rate, both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were planned a long time before 9/11 gave the American neo-cons the excuse they needed.
LOL yea ok. which only goes to prove 9/11 was an inside act right? the invasion of Afghanistan was not a criminal act. It was a justified response to a attack on America soil by elements harbored within Afghanistan. The war was not started by us.
and tell me, what other ways should we have "punished" the Taliban and El Queda? o I now, maybe we could have shaken our fist at them reallllly hard and told them not to attack us again. brilliant. I sure would hate to have you on my side in a fight.
Back on the subject of Panama, does anyone here truly believe the U.S media spin that Noriega was an evil drug trafficker and a threat to the U.S? Or do we all agree that the U.S media provided a smokescreen behind which the real issues - control of the Panama canal and Panamanian economic independence - could be hidden?
like I said....the average ago of people on this board in 1989 is about 5. and I'm probably being generous, many were probably not even born yet. but sure, lets all have a very important discussion as to what the America media was doing at the time :roll: no one cares.
maybe start a thread about how American troops killed civilians in Europe during WWI and how the New York Times blatantly left out those facts from the newspapers.
say it with me...
DEATH TO AMERICA!!!! DEATH TO AMERICA!!!! DEATH TO AMERICA!!! everyday can be death to America day!
like I said....the average ago of people on this board in 1989 is about 5. and I'm probably being generous, many were probably not even born yet. but sure, lets all have a very important discussion as to what the America media was doing at the time :roll: no one cares.
Feel free to f**k off at anytime. No one here is asking you to show an interest in this or any other thread. You're a troll. I'm surprised the mods are being so lax lately.
like I said....the average ago of people on this board in 1989 is about 5. and I'm probably being generous, many were probably not even born yet. but sure, lets all have a very important discussion as to what the America media was doing at the time :roll: no one cares.
Feel free to f**k off at anytime. No one here is asking you to show an interest in this or any other thread. You're a troll. I'm surprised the mods are being so lax lately.
I agree. I didnt know telling people to fuck off was allowed
Feel free to f**k off at anytime. No one here is asking you to show an interest in this or any other thread. You're a troll. I'm surprised the mods are being so lax lately.
Feel free to f**k off at anytime. No one here is asking you to show an interest in this or any other thread. You're a troll. I'm surprised the mods are being so lax lately.
I agree.
Good. Off you jog then.
um ok? not sure what that means. enjoy the ban.
its also hilarious that you call me a troll. I have participated in countless discussions in almost every thread on this first page, aside from starting my own. hurry back
its also hilarious that you call me a troll. I have participated in countless discussions in almost every thread on this first page, aside from starting my own. hurry back
And in practically every thread you post in you insult and provoke people. Maybe this is why you were given a lifetime ban before? Anyway, I'm not going to take your bait. It's perfectly clear what you're up to. I know the mods are watching you. I'll leave it up to you to dig yourself into a familiar hole.
the relevance of panama and all the other wars is this:
if 9/11 is considered to be the trigger for the current wars in afghanistan and iraq - what is the trigger for 9/11? for the sake of this discussion: we will assume that the attacks of 9/11 are what we were told - a group of terrorists who managed to break every security defense measure the us armed forces have put in place.
what would possess people (significant numbers to pull off this attack - especially with funding) to want to fly a plane into the WTC towers that ultimately was more sensationalized than effective? let's be honest here - 3,000 is a paltry number (with all due respect to all lives impacted) for a major terrorist attack - consider a plane into a red sox/yankees game would easily kill 10,000 +
this is the question americans need to ask themselves - why do terrorists exist to begin with - the relevance in panama is that it is part of the foundation that breeds hatred of america abroad - failure to understand the circumstances is not learning from the past.
And in practically every thread you post in you insult and provoke people. Maybe this is why you were given a lifetime ban before? Anyway, I'm not going to take your bait. It's perfectly clear what you're up to. I know the mods are watching you. I'll leave it up to you to dig yourself into a familiar hole.
um, you just told me to fuck off. I'm sure the mods will love that.
Feel free to f**k off at anytime. No one here is asking you to show an interest in this or any other thread. You're a troll. I'm surprised the mods are being so lax lately.
we will assume that the attacks of 9/11 are what we were told - a group of terrorists who managed to break every security defense measure the us armed forces have put in place.
this isnt an assumption. not to mention false. terrorists didnt break "every security measures the armed forces put in place"
they broke the barely existent airport security that existed pre 9/11.
we will assume that the attacks of 9/11 are what we were told - a group of terrorists who managed to break every security defense measure the us armed forces have put in place.
this isnt an assumption. not to mention false. terrorists didnt break "every security measures the armed forces put in place"
they broke the barely existent airport security that existed pre 9/11.
ok - for the sake of this discussion - i say fine. what about the rest of it?
and tell me, what other ways should we have "punished" the Taliban and El Queda? o I now, maybe we could have shaken our fist at them reallllly hard and told them not to attack us again. brilliant. I sure would hate to have you on my side in a fight.
You mean punish the people of Afghanistan. They were the real victims. Taliban is still active.
The Taliban offered to put Osama Bin Ladin (the guy apparently responsible) on trial, in an international court. The US refused, preferring force to diplomacy. As it did in Iraq. As it did in Panama.
Notice its always a third world country that can't defend itself, that they pretend is a threat to our national freedom or whatever, and they go in and destroy the country....see Panama,afghanistan,iraq, phillipines, nicaragua...etc....
and tell me, what other ways should we have "punished" the Taliban and El Queda? o I now, maybe we could have shaken our fist at them reallllly hard and told them not to attack us again. brilliant. I sure would hate to have you on my side in a fight.
You mean punish the people of Afghanistan. They were the real victims. Taliban is still active.
The Taliban offered to put Osama Bin Ladin (the guy apparently responsible) on trial, in an international court. The US refused, preferring force to diplomacy. As it did in Iraq. As it did in Panama.
Notice its always a third world country that can't defend itself, that they pretend is a threat to our national freedom or whatever, and they go in and destroy the country....see Panama,afghanistan,iraq, phillipines, nicaragua...etc....
You're not allowed to mention Nicaragua. It falls outside of the 10 year shelf life of acceptable topics of discussion.
the Taliban are the ones you have punished the people of Afghanistan.
no. the taliban was a religious fundamental theocratic rule that was very harsh and repressive for the people of afghansitan, but i'm talking about actually dropping 2 ton bombs on villages and actually killing thousands of innocent civilians to get to the few individuals responsible for committing a crime.
its like if a guy robbed a bank in new jersey. the cops don't go into his neighborhood and flatten his apartment building, they only go after the guy responsible. but that's what international justice is all about apparently. if someone in your country commits a crime apparently the US has the right to destroy the entire country.
The Taliban offered to put Osama Bin Ladin (the guy apparently responsible) on trial, in an international court.
LOL yea great idea. let the Taliban put him on trail. genius.
right. those crazy taliban, trying to use international law to bring a fugitive to justice.
you're right. destroying the country, installing warlords,and bringing back the heroin production was a much more reasonable approach in bringing 1 man to justice.
we will assume that the attacks of 9/11 are what we were told - a group of terrorists who managed to break every security defense measure the us armed forces have put in place.
this isnt an assumption. not to mention false. terrorists didnt break "every security measures the armed forces put in place"
they broke the barely existent airport security that existed pre 9/11.
the plane that hit the pentagon was known to be hijacked well before it reached DC airspace and almost an hour after the first plane hit the wtc. so, i'd say a known hijacked plane entering DC's no fly zone, turning around and entering the no fly zone once again before any reaction is breaking more than airport security....
also, the taliban offered to hand bin laden over if we gave them proof of his guilt, we choose to bomb the shit out of them and poison them with DU rounds, instead
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
The Taliban offered to put Osama Bin Ladin (the guy apparently responsible) on trial, in an international court.
LOL yea great idea. let the Taliban put him on trail. genius.
the taliban offered to turn bin laden over to the US
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
the taliban offered to turn bin laden over to the US
True. And even this much was reported at the time in the mainstream media. But Bush refused, saying that he should be handed over unconditionally. The only conditions that the Taliban leaders put forward were that the U.S authorities provide some evidence of Obama's guilt. This they refused - or were unable - to do.
Same old story. They wanted a pretext for invading Afghanistan - as shown in the article I posted above - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov20 ... -n20.shtml - just as they wanted a pretext for invading Panama. Bin Laden was that pretext, but the truth of the matter is he was pretty irrelevant. They knew full well that Al Queda would continue to operate whether he was dead or alive.
the taliban offered to turn bin laden over to the US
True. And even this much was reported at the time in the mainstream media. But Bush refused, saying that he should be handed over unconditionally. The only conditions that the Taliban leaders put forward were that the U.S authorities provide some evidence of Obama's guilt. This they refused - or were unable - to do.
Same old story. They wanted a pretext for invading Afghanistan - as shown in the article I posted above - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov20 ... -n20.shtml - just as they wanted a pretext for invading Panama. Bin Laden was that pretext, but the truth of the matter is he was pretty irrelevant. They knew full well that Al Queda would continue to operate whether he was dead or alive.
I know you people dont care or seem to understand that WAR was already started and brought to our shores. and you expected us to sit down and negotiate with the very people that allowed Bin Laden safe haven? no. I'm very proud and pleased that Bush told them to fuck off.
there was no pretext to war as you so seem to think. the war had already begun. time for games with the Taliban was long over
there was no pretext to war as you so seem to think. the war had already begun. time for games with the Taliban was long over
9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban, but you seem to feel that the people of Afghanistan deserved to be carpet bombed and occupied?
In that case can you tell us how you feel about Luis Posada Carriles who has been residing in the U.S and who was a former C.I.A operative, guilty of an airplane bombing which killed 73 people and who has also been linked to a series of 1997 bombings of hotels, restaurants, and discotheques in Havana?
Do you think that America therefore deserves the same kind of punishment as that inflicted on Afghanistan?
In that case can you tell us how you feel about Luis Posada Carriles who has been residing in the U.S and who was a former C.I.A operative, guilty of an airplane bombing which killed 73 people and who has also been linked to a series of 1997 bombings of hotels, restaurants, and discotheques in Havana?
how do I feel about it? I'm crushed. I lose sleep all the time. its horrible. I find myself walking around chanting Death To America!!! Death To America!!
Do you think that America therefore deserves the same kind of punishment as that inflicted on Afghanistan?
yes. I wish we would bomb and occupy ourselves. better yet, I wish Russia would drop its entire nuclear arsenal on every major American city. as well as few small towns in the heartland to really hit us where it hurts.
Let's see if you can stretch your imagination far enough to consider this concept: You say that the Taliban had everything to do with 9/11 because they harbored the very people who planned and executed the attacks on America?
Therefore is it fair to say that the U.S government had everything to do with the bombing of the Cuban airliner and the bombings in Havana because they harbored and continue to harbour the very people who planned and executed these attacks?
Comments
Hmmm, yet we had great reason to invade, and occupy Iraq right or is it our close ties and friendship with the government of Saudi Arabia? Iraq was about occupying a country that we could control that had vast amounts of OIL. Just the fact we had to LIE to invade the country was reason to not be there.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
what country or people have Saudi been hostile to in the past? you are comparing Saudi and Saddam's regime as if they are similar. Saddam had a long history of invading his neighbors, Iran and Kuwait.
but yes, we have close ties and friendship with the Saudi government. they are not hostile towards us and hoave the largest oil reserves in the world. like it or not, but we need oil to survive as a country. as do many other nations.
I agree we had no business invading Iraq, but just because the hijackers were of Saudi decent, doesnt mean Saudi the country should have been a target of ours.
Sadaam invaded Iran with full U.S support. He also received tacit support from the U.S prior to the invasion of Kuwait.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
'In late July 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on its border with the emirate and summoned US ambassador April Glaspie to a meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. In them, Saddam Hussein outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on 23 September 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop build up to President Hussein:
'We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via (Chedli Klibi, then Arab League General Secretary) or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us? My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil. But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not in the spirit of confrontation — regarding your intentions. I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.'
Some have interpreted portions of these statements, particularly the language "We have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait", as signaling an American "green light" for the invasion...'
The invasion of Afghanistan was also a criminal act. There are other ways to punish regimes harbouring terrorists, just as as the U.S should be held accountable for harbouring terrorists.
At any rate, both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were planned a long time before 9/11 gave the American neo-cons the excuse they needed.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov20 ... -n20.shtml
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
By Patrick Martin
20 November 2001
Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. These reports include the prediction, made in July, that “if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The Bush administration began its bombing strikes on the hapless, poverty-stricken country October 7, and ground attacks by US Special Forces began October 19.
It is not an accident that these revelations have appeared overseas, rather than in the US. The ruling classes in these countries have their own economic and political interests to look after, which do not coincide, and in some cases directly clash, with the drive by the American ruling elite to seize control of oil-rich territory in Central Asia.
The American media has conducted a systematic cover-up of the real economic and strategic interests that underlie the war against Afghanistan, in order to sustain the pretense that the war emerged overnight, full-blown, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
The pundits for the American television networks and major daily newspapers celebrate the rapid military defeat of the Taliban regime as an unexpected stroke of good fortune. They distract public attention from the conclusion that any serious observer would be compelled to draw from the events of the past two weeks: that the speedy victory of the US-backed forces reveals careful planning and preparation by the American military, which must have begun well before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The official American myth is that “everything changed” on the day four airliners were hijacked and nearly 5,000 people murdered. The US military intervention in Afghanistan, by this account, was hastily improvised in less than a month. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, in a television interview November 18, actually claimed that only three weeks went into planning the military onslaught.
This is only one of countless lies emanating from the Pentagon and White House about the war against Afghanistan. The truth is that the US intervention was planned in detail and carefully prepared long before the terrorist attacks provided the pretext for setting it in motion. If history had skipped over September 11, and the events of that day had never happened, it is very likely that the United States would have gone to war in Afghanistan anyway, and on much the same schedule.
Afghanistan and the scramble for oil
The United States ruling elite has been contemplating war in Central Asia for at least a decade. As long ago as 1991, following the defeat of Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, Newsweek magazine published an article headlined “Operation Steppe Shield?” It reported that the US military was preparing an operation in Kazakhstan modeled on the Operation Desert Shield deployment in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq...
...According to a front-page article in the Washington Post November 18, the CIA has been mounting paramilitary operations in southern Afghanistan since 1997. The article carries the byline of Bob Woodward, the Post writer made famous by Watergate, who is a frequent conduit for leaks from top-level military and intelligence officials.
Woodward provides details about the CIA’s role in the current military conflict, which includes the deployment of a secret paramilitary unit, the Special Activities Division. This force began combat on September 27, using both operatives on the ground and Predator surveillance drones equipped with missiles that could be launched by remote control.
The Special Activities Division, Woodward reports, “consists of teams of about half a dozen men who do not wear military uniforms. The division has about 150 fighters, pilots and specialists, and is made up mostly of hardened veterans who have retired from the US military.
“For the last 18 months, the CIA has been working with tribes and warlords in southern Afghanistan, and the division’s units have helped create a significant new network in the region of the Taliban’s greatest strength.”
This means that the US spy agency was engaged in attacks against the Afghan regime—what under other circumstances the American government would call terrorism—from the spring of 2000, more than a year before the suicide hijackings that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon...
...The British-based Jane’s International Security reported March 15, 2001 that the new American administration was working with India, Iran and Russia “in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.” India was supplying the Northern Alliance with military equipment, advisers and helicopter technicians, the magazine said, and both India and Russia were using bases in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan for their operations.
The magazine added: “Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban. Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support.”
On May 23, the White House announced the appointment of Zalmay Khalilzad to a position on the National Security Council as special assistant to the president and senior director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues. Khalilzad is a former official in the Reagan and the first Bush administrations. After leaving the government, he went to work for Unocal.
On June 26 of this year, the magazine IndiaReacts reported more details of the cooperative efforts of the US, India, Russia and Iran against the Taliban regime. “India and Iran will ‘facilitate’ US and Russian plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime,” the magazine said.
At this stage of military planning, the US and Russia were to supply direct military assistance to the Northern Alliance, working through Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, in order to roll back the Taliban lines toward the city of Mazar-e-Sharif—a scenario strikingly similar to what actually took place over the past two weeks. An unnamed third country supplied the Northern Alliance with anti-tank rockets that had already been put to use against the Taliban in early June.
“Diplomats say that the anti-Taliban move followed a meeting between US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and later between Powell and Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh in Washington,” the magazine added. “Russia, Iran and India have also held a series of discussions and more diplomatic activity is expected.”
Unlike the current campaign, the original plan involved the use of military forces from both Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, as well as Russia itself. IndiaReacts said that in early June Russian President Vladimir Putin told a meeting of the Confederation of Independent States, which includes many of the former Soviet republics, that military action against the Taliban was in the offing. One effect of September 11 was to create the conditions for the United States to intervene on its own, without any direct participation by the military forces of the Soviet successor states, and thus claim an undisputed American right to dictate the shape of a settlement in Afghanistan.
The US threatens war—before September 11
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, two reports appeared in the British media indicating that the US government had threatened military action against Afghanistan several months before September 11.
The BBC’s George Arney reported September 18 that American officials had told former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik in mid-July of plans for military action against the Taliban regime:
“Mr. Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
“Mr. Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.
“The wider objective, according to Mr. Naik, would be to topple the Taliban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place—possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
“Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
“He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
“Mr. Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”
Four days later, on September 22, the Guardian newspaper confirmed this account. The warnings to Afghanistan came out of a four-day meeting of senior US, Russian, Iranian and Pakistani officials at a hotel in Berlin in mid-July, the third in a series of back-channel conferences dubbed “brainstorming on Afghanistan.”
The participants included Naik, together with three Pakistani generals; former Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Saeed Rajai Khorassani; Abdullah Abdullah, foreign minister of the Northern Alliance; Nikolai Kozyrev, former Russian special envoy to Afghanistan, and several other Russian officials; and three Americans: Tom Simons, a former US ambassador to Pakistan; Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of state for south Asian affairs; and Lee Coldren, who headed the office of Pakistan, Afghan and Bangladesh affairs in the State Department until 1997.
The meeting was convened by Francesc Vendrell, then and now the deputy chief UN representative for Afghanistan. While the nominal purpose of the conference was to discuss the possible outline of a political settlement in Afghanistan, the Taliban refused to attend. The Americans discussed the shift in policy toward Afghanistan from Clinton to Bush, and strongly suggested that military action was an option.
While all three American former officials denied making any specific threats, Coldren told the Guardian, “there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” Naik, however, cited one American declaring that action against bin Laden was imminent: “This time they were very sure. They had all the intelligence and would not miss him this time. It would be aerial action, maybe helicopter gunships, and not only overt, but from very close proximity to Afghanistan.”
The Guardian summarized: “The threats of war unless the Taliban surrendered Osama bin Laden were passed to the regime in Afghanistan by the Pakistani government, senior diplomatic sources revealed yesterday. The Taliban refused to comply but the serious nature of what they were told raises the possibility that Bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue 10 days ago, was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats.”...
Bush, oil and Taliban
Further light on secret contacts between the Bush administration and the Taliban regime is shed by a book released November 15 in France, entitled Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth, written by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Brisard is a former French secret service agent, author of a previous report on bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, and former director of strategy for the French corporation Vivendi, while Dasquie is an investigative journalist.
The two French authors write that the Bush administration was willing to accept the Taliban regime, despite the charges of sponsoring terrorism, if it cooperated with plans for the development of the oil resources of Central Asia.
Until August, they claim, the US government saw the Taliban “as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia.” It was only when the Taliban refused to accept US conditions that “this rationale of energy security changed into a military one.”
By way of corroboration, one should note the curious fact that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban regime. Such a designation would have made it impossible for an American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
Talks between the Bush administration and the Taliban began in February 2001, shortly after Bush’s inauguration. A Taliban emissary arrived in Washington in March with presents for the new chief executive, including an expensive Afghan carpet. But the talks themselves were less than cordial. Brisard said, “At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs’.”
As long as the possibility of a pipeline deal remained, the White House stalled any further investigation into the activities of Osama bin Laden, Brisard and Dasquie write. They report that John O’Neill, deputy director of the FBI, resigned in July in protest over this obstruction. O’Neill told them in an interview, “the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were US oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” In a strange coincidence, O’Neill accepted a position as security chief of the World Trade Center after leaving the FBI, and was killed on September 11.
Confirming Naiz Naik’s account of the secret Berlin meeting, the two French authors add that there was open discussion of the need for the Taliban to facilitate a pipeline from Kazakhstan in order to insure US and international recognition. The increasingly acrimonious US-Taliban talks were broken off August 2, after a final meeting between US envoy Christina Rocca and a Taliban representative in Islamabad. Two months later the United States was bombing Kabul...
This account of the preparations for war against Afghanistan brings us to September 11 itself. The terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon was an important link in the chain of causality that produced the US attack on Afghanistan. The US government had planned the war well in advance, but the shock of September 11 made it politically feasible, by stupefying public opinion at home and giving Washington essential leverage on reluctant allies abroad.
Both the American public and dozens of foreign governments were stampeded into supporting military action against Afghanistan, in the name of the fight against terrorism. The Bush administration targeted Kabul without presenting any evidence that either bin Laden or the Taliban regime was responsible for the World Trade Center atrocity. It seized on September 11 as the occasion for advancing longstanding ambitions to assert American power in Central Asia.
There is no reason to think that September 11 was merely a fortuitous occurrence. Every other detail of the war in Afghanistan was carefully prepared. It is unlikely that the American government left to chance the question of providing a suitable pretext for military action.
In the immediate aftermath of September 11, there were press reports—again, largely overseas—that US intelligence agencies had received specific warnings about large-scale terrorist attacks, including the use of hijacked airplanes. It is quite possible that a decision was made at the highest levels of the American state to allow such an attack to proceed, perhaps without imagining the actual scale of the damage, in order to provide the necessary spark for war in Afghanistan.
How otherwise to explain such well-established facts as the decision of top officials at the FBI to block an investigation into Zaccarias Massaoui, the Franco-Moroccan immigrant who came under suspicion after he allegedly sought training from a US flight school on how to steer a commercial airliner, but not to take off or land?
The Minneapolis field office had Massaoui arrested in early August, and asked FBI headquarters for permission to conduct further inquiries, including a search of the hard drive of his computer. The FBI tops refused, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of criminal intent on Massaoui’s part—an astonishing decision for an agency not known for its tenderness on the subject of civil liberties.
This is not to say that the American government deliberately planned every detail of the terrorist attacks or anticipated that nearly 5,000 people would be killed. But the least likely explanation of September 11 is the official one: that dozens of Islamic fundamentalists, many with known ties to Osama bin Laden, were able to carry out a wide-ranging conspiracy on three continents, targeting the most prominent symbols of American power, without any US intelligence agency having the slightest idea of what they were doing.'
Noam Chomsky
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Choms ... anama.html
'Panama has been traditionally controlled by its tiny European elite, less than 10% of the population. That changed in 1968, when Omar Torrijos, a populist general, led a coup that allowed the black and mestizo [mixed-race] poor to obtain at least a share of the power under his military dictatorship. In 1981, Torrijos was killed in a plane crash. By 1983, the effective ruler was Manuel Noriega, a criminal who had been a cohort of Torrijos and US intelligence.
The US government knew that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking since at least 1972, when the Nixon administration considered assassinating him. But he stayed on the CIA payroll. In 1983, a US Senate committee concluded that Panama was a major center for the laundering of drug funds and drug trafficking.
The US government continued to value Noriega's services. In May 1986, the Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency praised Noriega for his "vigorous anti-drug trafficking policy." A year later, the Director "welcomed our close association" with Noriega, while Attorney-General Edwin Meese stopped a US Justice Department investigation of Noriega's criminal activities. In August 1987, a Senate resolution condemning Noriega was opposed by Elliott Abrams, the State Department official in charge of US policy in Central America and Panama.
And yet, when Noriega was formally indicted in Miami in 1988, all the charges except one were related to activities that took place before 1984 -- back when he was our boy, helping with the US war against Nicaragua, stealing elections with US approval and generally serving US interests satisfactorily. It had nothing to do with suddenly discovering that he was a gangster and a drug peddler-that was known all along.
It's all quite predictable, as study after study shows. A brutal tyrant crosses the line from admirable friend to "villain" and "scum" when he commits the crime of independence. One common mistake is to go beyond robbing the poor - which is just fine - and to start interfering with the privileged, eliciting opposition from business leaders.
By the mid 1980s, Noriega was guilty of these crimes. Among other things, he seems to have been dragging his feet about helping the US in the contra war. His independence also threatened our interests in the Panama Canal. On January 1, 1990, most of the administration of the Canal was due to go over to Panama-in the year 2000, it goes completely to them. We had to make sure that Panama was in the hands of people we could control before that date.
Since we could no longer trust Noriega to do our bidding, he had to go. Washington imposed economic sanctions that virtually destroyed the economy, the main burden falling on the poor nonwhite majority. They too came to hate Noriega, not least because he was responsible for the economic warfare (which was illegal, if anyone cares) that was causing their children to starve.
Next a military coup was tried, but failed. Then, in December 1989, the US celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War by invading Panama outright, killing hundreds or perhaps thousands of civilians (no one knows, and few north of the Rio Grande care enough to inquire). This restored power to the rich white elite that had been displaced by the Torrijos coup-just in time to ensure a compliant government for the administrative changeover of the Canal on January 1, 1990 (as noted by the right-wing European press).
Throughout this process, the US press followed Washington's lead, selecting villains in
terms of current needs. Actions we'd formerly condoned became crimes. For example, in 1984, the Panamanian presidential election had been won by Arnulfo Arias. The election was stolen by Noriega, with considerable violence and fraud.
But Noriega hadn't yet become disobedient. He was our man in Panama, and the Arias party was considered to have dangerous elements of "ultranationalism." The Reagan administration therefore applauded the violence and fraud, and sent Secretary of State George Shultz down to legitimate the stolen election and praise Noriega's version of "democracy" as a model for the errant Sandinistas.
The Washington-media alliance and the major journals refrained from criticizing the fraudulent elections, but dismissed as utterly worthless the Sandinistas' far more free and honest election in the same year-because it could not be controlled.
In May 1989, Noriega again stole an election, this time from a representative of the business opposition, Guillermo Endara. Noriega used less violence than in 1984. But the Reagan administration had given the signal that it had turned against Noriega. Following the predictable script, the press expressed outrage over his failure to meet our lofty democratic standards.
The press also began passionately denouncing human rights violations that previously didn't reach the threshold of their attention. By the time we invaded Panama in December 1989, the press had demonized Noriega, turning him into the worst monster since Attila the Hun. (It was basically a replay of the demonization of Qaddafi of Libya.) Ted Koppel was orating that "Noriega belongs to that special fraternity of international villains, men like Qaddafi, Idi Amin and the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Americans just love to hate." Dan Rather placed him "at the top of the list of the world's drug thieves and scums." In fact, Noriega remained a very minor thug exactly what he was when he was on the CIA payroll.
In 1988, for example, Americas Watch published a report on human rights in Panama, giving an unpleasant picture. But as their reports-and other inquiries-make clear, Noriega's human rights record was nothing remotely like that of other US clients in the region, and no worse than in the days when Noriega was still a favorite, following orders.
Take Honduras, for example. Although it's not a murderous terrorist state like El Salvador or Guatemala, human rights abuses were probably worse there than in Panama. In fact, there's one ClA-trained battalion in Honduras that all by itself had carried out more atrocities than Noriega did. Or consider US-backed dictators like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Marcos in the Philippines, Duvalier in Haiti and a host of Central American gangsters through the 1980s. They were all much more brutal than Noriega, but the United States supported them enthusiastically right through decades of horrifying atrocities-as long as the profits were flowing out of their countries and into the US. George Bush's administration continued to honor Mobutu, Ceausescu and Saddam Hussein, among others, all far worse criminals than Noriega. Suharto of Indonesia, arguably the worst killer of them all, remains a Washington-media "moderate."
In fact, at exactly the moment it invaded Panama because of its outrage over Noriega's abuses of human rights, the Bush administration announced new high-technology sales to China, noting that $300 million in business for US firms was at stake and that contacts had secretly resumed a few weeks after the Tiananmen Square massacre.
On the same day-the day Panama was invaded-the White House also announced plans (and implemented them shortly afterwards) to lift a ban on loans to Iraq. The State Department explained with a straight face that this was to achieve the "goal of increasing US exports and put us in a better position to deal with Iraq regarding its human rights record...."
The Department continued with the pose as Bush rebuffed the Iraqi democratic opposition (bankers, professionals, etc.) and blocked congressional efforts to condemn the atrocious crimes of his old friend Saddam Hussein. Compared to Bush's buddies in Baghdad and Beijing, Noriega looked like Mother Teresa. After the invasion, Bush announced a billion dollars in aid to Panama. Of this, $400 million consisted of incentives for US business to export products to Panama, $150 million was to pay off bank loans and $65 million went to private sector loans and guarantees to US investors. In
other words, about half the aid was a gift from the American taxpayer to American businesses.
The US put the bankers back in power after the invasion. Noriega's involvement in drug trafficking had been trivial compared to theirs. Drug trafficking there has always been conducted primarily by the banks-the banking system is virtually unregulated, so it's a natural outlet for criminal money. This has been the basis for Panama's highly artificial economy and remains so-possibly at a higher level-after the invasion. The Panamanian Defense Forces have also been reconstructed with basically the same officers.
In general, everything's pretty much the same, only now more reliable servants are in charge. (The same is true of Grenada, which has become a major center of drug money laundering since the US invasion. Nicaragua, too, has become a significant conduit for drugs to the US market, after Washington's victory in the 1990 election. The pattern is standard-as is the failure to notice it.)'
so I guess that makes it ok for him to invade whoever he wants? you'll do anything to blame the US, what a joke. and Saddam never received any support from the US to invade Kuwait. go ahead an cut and poaste more shit that people never bother reading.
LOL yea ok. which only goes to prove 9/11 was an inside act right? the invasion of Afghanistan was not a criminal act. It was a justified response to a attack on America soil by elements harbored within Afghanistan. The war was not started by us.
and tell me, what other ways should we have "punished" the Taliban and El Queda? o I now, maybe we could have shaken our fist at them reallllly hard and told them not to attack us again. brilliant. I sure would hate to have you on my side in a fight.
like I said....the average ago of people on this board in 1989 is about 5. and I'm probably being generous, many were probably not even born yet. but sure, lets all have a very important discussion as to what the America media was doing at the time :roll: no one cares.
maybe start a thread about how American troops killed civilians in Europe during WWI and how the New York Times blatantly left out those facts from the newspapers.
say it with me...
DEATH TO AMERICA!!!! DEATH TO AMERICA!!!! DEATH TO AMERICA!!! everyday can be death to America day!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRjG36WGvWM
Feel free to f**k off at anytime. No one here is asking you to show an interest in this or any other thread. You're a troll. I'm surprised the mods are being so lax lately.
I agree. I didnt know telling people to fuck off was allowed
Good. Off you jog then.
um ok? not sure what that means. enjoy the ban.
its also hilarious that you call me a troll. I have participated in countless discussions in almost every thread on this first page, aside from starting my own. hurry back
What ban?
Anyone here could be mistaken for thinking that you're out to provoke me into getting banned. Weird.
And in practically every thread you post in you insult and provoke people. Maybe this is why you were given a lifetime ban before? Anyway, I'm not going to take your bait. It's perfectly clear what you're up to. I know the mods are watching you. I'll leave it up to you to dig yourself into a familiar hole.
if 9/11 is considered to be the trigger for the current wars in afghanistan and iraq - what is the trigger for 9/11? for the sake of this discussion: we will assume that the attacks of 9/11 are what we were told - a group of terrorists who managed to break every security defense measure the us armed forces have put in place.
what would possess people (significant numbers to pull off this attack - especially with funding) to want to fly a plane into the WTC towers that ultimately was more sensationalized than effective? let's be honest here - 3,000 is a paltry number (with all due respect to all lives impacted) for a major terrorist attack - consider a plane into a red sox/yankees game would easily kill 10,000 +
this is the question americans need to ask themselves - why do terrorists exist to begin with - the relevance in panama is that it is part of the foundation that breeds hatred of america abroad - failure to understand the circumstances is not learning from the past.
um, you just told me to fuck off. I'm sure the mods will love that.
this isnt an assumption. not to mention false. terrorists didnt break "every security measures the armed forces put in place"
they broke the barely existent airport security that existed pre 9/11.
ok - for the sake of this discussion - i say fine. what about the rest of it?
You mean punish the people of Afghanistan. They were the real victims. Taliban is still active.
The Taliban offered to put Osama Bin Ladin (the guy apparently responsible) on trial, in an international court. The US refused, preferring force to diplomacy. As it did in Iraq. As it did in Panama.
Notice its always a third world country that can't defend itself, that they pretend is a threat to our national freedom or whatever, and they go in and destroy the country....see Panama,afghanistan,iraq, phillipines, nicaragua...etc....
You're not allowed to mention Nicaragua. It falls outside of the 10 year shelf life of acceptable topics of discussion.
the Taliban are the ones you have punished the people of Afghanistan.
I agree
yes they are and we are still at war with them. as is Pakistan. whats your point?
LOL yea great idea. let the Taliban put him on trail. genius.
no. the taliban was a religious fundamental theocratic rule that was very harsh and repressive for the people of afghansitan, but i'm talking about actually dropping 2 ton bombs on villages and actually killing thousands of innocent civilians to get to the few individuals responsible for committing a crime.
its like if a guy robbed a bank in new jersey. the cops don't go into his neighborhood and flatten his apartment building, they only go after the guy responsible. but that's what international justice is all about apparently. if someone in your country commits a crime apparently the US has the right to destroy the entire country.
some punishment it was.
right. those crazy taliban, trying to use international law to bring a fugitive to justice.
you're right. destroying the country, installing warlords,and bringing back the heroin production was a much more reasonable approach in bringing 1 man to justice.
the plane that hit the pentagon was known to be hijacked well before it reached DC airspace and almost an hour after the first plane hit the wtc. so, i'd say a known hijacked plane entering DC's no fly zone, turning around and entering the no fly zone once again before any reaction is breaking more than airport security....
also, the taliban offered to hand bin laden over if we gave them proof of his guilt, we choose to bomb the shit out of them and poison them with DU rounds, instead
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
the taliban offered to turn bin laden over to the US
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
True. And even this much was reported at the time in the mainstream media. But Bush refused, saying that he should be handed over unconditionally. The only conditions that the Taliban leaders put forward were that the U.S authorities provide some evidence of Obama's guilt. This they refused - or were unable - to do.
Same old story. They wanted a pretext for invading Afghanistan - as shown in the article I posted above - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov20 ... -n20.shtml - just as they wanted a pretext for invading Panama. Bin Laden was that pretext, but the truth of the matter is he was pretty irrelevant. They knew full well that Al Queda would continue to operate whether he was dead or alive.
I know you people dont care or seem to understand that WAR was already started and brought to our shores. and you expected us to sit down and negotiate with the very people that allowed Bin Laden safe haven? no. I'm very proud and pleased that Bush told them to fuck off.
there was no pretext to war as you so seem to think. the war had already begun. time for games with the Taliban was long over
"Owning" someone is pretty badass, but nobody truly wins until someone gets "pwn3d!!!"
9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban, but you seem to feel that the people of Afghanistan deserved to be carpet bombed and occupied?
In that case can you tell us how you feel about Luis Posada Carriles who has been residing in the U.S and who was a former C.I.A operative, guilty of an airplane bombing which killed 73 people and who has also been linked to a series of 1997 bombings of hotels, restaurants, and discotheques in Havana?
Do you think that America therefore deserves the same kind of punishment as that inflicted on Afghanistan?
the Taliban had everything to do with 9/11. they harbored the very people who planned and executed the attacks on America.
how do I feel about it? I'm crushed. I lose sleep all the time. its horrible. I find myself walking around chanting Death To America!!! Death To America!!
yes. I wish we would bomb and occupy ourselves. better yet, I wish Russia would drop its entire nuclear arsenal on every major American city. as well as few small towns in the heartland to really hit us where it hurts.
....
I answered your questions
Let's see if you can stretch your imagination far enough to consider this concept: You say that the Taliban had everything to do with 9/11 because they harbored the very people who planned and executed the attacks on America?
Therefore is it fair to say that the U.S government had everything to do with the bombing of the Cuban airliner and the bombings in Havana because they harbored and continue to harbour the very people who planned and executed these attacks?