it makes no difference that they didnt orchestrate the attacks. they allow the group who did safe haven to operate and do all the orchestrating they pleased. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
So, according to your logic all Americans are legitimate targets because you support Israeli terrorism, among other things. I hope you understand that the next time you're attacked.
By the way, the U.S is the only country to be formally charged with state terrorism by the World Court.
ok so now the truth comes out. dont reference the fact that I proved to you that the Taliban were in fact defiant and thought they could take on the US. the US was ATTACKED on 9/11. going into Afghanistan and defeat those who attacked us was the only option.
but yet chose to go on about some rant about how you really dislike the US and how naive you were to ever respect us. Who gives a fuck?
although I will say war in Iraq was a mistake and wrong. the US is now paying a price for that mistake but hopefully on the right path to fix it
Never mind the rule of law. The thing to do was to show every one how big and tough you are.
I wonder why America is the most hated country in the world?
Oh, and nice job at tackling terrorism. You killed tens of thousands of Afghan civilians, and over 1 million Iraqi's. This is clearly something every American should be proud of.
Anyway, all this talk of Al queda's alleged guilt is all just total bullshit, and merely a distraction. I provided evidence above which demonstrates clearly that the U.S planned to attack Afghanistan for years prior to 9/11.
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
By Patrick Martin
20 November 2001
'...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...
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.”...
ok so now the truth comes out. dont reference the fact that I proved to you that the Taliban were in fact defiant and thought they could take on the US. the US was ATTACKED on 9/11. going into Afghanistan and defeat those who attacked us was the only option.
but yet chose to go on about some rant about how you really dislike the US and how naive you were to ever respect us. Who gives a fuck?
although I will say war in Iraq was a mistake and wrong. the US is now paying a price for that mistake but hopefully on the right path to fix it
Never mind the rule of law. The thing to do was to show every one how big and tough you are.
rule of law? what is that? we were attacked and needed to protect ourselves from outside threats. That is the #1 responsible of the American government.
Anyway, all this talk of Al queda's alleged guilt is all just total bullshit, and merely a distraction. I provided evidence above which demonstrates clearly that the U.S planned to attack Afghanistan for years prior to 9/11.
9/11 was just an excuse.
LOL you provide ONE worthless link by some asshole on a irrelevant worthless website? and THAT is your prove? it doesnt become true if you just keep posting the SAME article over and over and over and over and over again. hahahhaha seriously dude. get a fucking clue. :roll:
it makes no difference that they didnt orchestrate the attacks. they allow the group who did safe haven to operate and do all the orchestrating they pleased. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
So, according to your logic all Americans are legitimate targets because you support Israeli terrorism, among other things. I hope you understand that the next time you're attacked.
and you'll stand shoulder to shoulder with the extremists and cheer in the streets I'm sure. maybe even burn a flag. YAY!
LOL you provide ONE worthless link by some asshole on a irrelevant worthless website? and THAT is your prove? it doesnt become true if you just keep posting the SAME article over and over and over and over and over again. hahahhaha seriously dude. get a fucking clue. :roll:
I know I could find a dozen more sites which prove my point, especially seeing as how this same person references dozens of sources such as Newsweek, BBC, The Washington Post, the Guardian, , e.t.c., e.t.c.
Do you have anything to say about the actual content of the article itself or do you wish to merely focus on the author of the article?
when you say "massive amount of evidence" and I ask for this evidence, will it be another wiki link? I have yet to see ANY of this massive amounts of evidence.
whats the fucking difference where it comes from? what kind of source are you looking for? here try this one, it has the same information, the EXACT information you were asking for, which is evidence of an el queda link shortly after the attacks
now we're getting reports that the Taliban and al-qaeda weren't even working together. The Taliban offered Osama Bin Ladin to US intelligence agencies, a year BEFORE 9/11 and immediately after. That's not something a group harboring someone does. if you're harboring someone you kind of tend to protect them, by definition, not hand them over to their enemies. but they were ready to do so-ie not harboring.
And nobody is suggesting the Taliban try OBL, that's insane. What was suggested was that he be handed over to an international court, at the Hague or something similar, for them to try him. Simple solution that doesn't involve killing thousands of innocent people and a country in ruined.
That's an alternative to war, a very real solution that doesn't involve war.
But the real point of all of this is something else.
The Panama deception. its an example of how the US uses false pretexts to invade a country, like they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan since.
There's always reasons for war, not enough to prevent it. and that's our foreign policy at work, it directs all conflict to force, where it has the upper hand.
If you want to keep believing the lies they're telling us, they'll keep right on doing conquering the planet, and 5 years from now we'll be in some akistan or ekistan and the reasons will all be very legitimate and wonderful, but in reality we will have another destroyed country, thousands of innocent people killed and another country under the thumb of the US empire. Its been going on for 60 years.
Nothing's changed. and it won't until people start educating themselves. WE have the power. We can end this at any time.
again, one thing at a time. the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan is the only war I would ever support for the simple reason of 9/11. They allowed el queda to attack us by giving them safe haven. giving OBL to the Hague is not an option. America was attacked, he needed to be handed over to us. I'm very glad we didnt sit back and play games with the Taliban.
now you want to bring up Iraq, Vietman, Panama, fine. I will end up agreeing with you
I know I could find a dozen more sites which prove my point, especially seeing as how this same person references dozens of sources such as Newsweek, BBC, The Washington Post, the Guardian, , e.t.c., e.t.c.
no you can't. you know why? because a war in Afghanistan wasn't planned. and by who? Bush? he was in office all of two months. 1 of which was probably a vacation in Texas. its fucking shocking how you suck up just about any bullshit you read on the net when it fits your agenda.
Are we really rehashing the start of an 8-year-old war here?
OBL went on TV like they next day and confessed. He's continued to confess in the time since. The Taliban was harboring him, providing him safe haven. They knew what he was doing. They supported it, financially and philosophically. They might as well have flown planes into the WTC themselves.
I don't understand what more "evidence" anybody needs.
Now if you want to argue that, in spite of the massive amount of evidence that OBL was behind it and the Taliban supported it, that the U.S. STILL shouldn't have deposed the Taliban. Well, OK.
But this line of "we should have waited for the Taliban to review the evidence" -- while OBL is standing there with his hand raised saying, "Yeah, it was me" -- that's pretty absurd.
its so strange that PJ attracts some extremists. I know the band isn't exactly mainstream but this place is downright weird sometimes
Are we really rehashing the start of an 8-year-old war here?
OBL went on TV like they next day and confessed. He's continued to confess in the time since. The Taliban was harboring him, providing him safe haven. They knew what he was doing. They supported it, financially and philosophically. They might as well have flown planes into the WTC themselves.
I don't understand what more "evidence" anybody needs.
Now if you want to argue that, in spite of the massive amount of evidence that OBL was behind it and the Taliban supported it, that the U.S. STILL shouldn't have deposed the Taliban. Well, OK.
But this line of "we should have waited for the Taliban to review the evidence" -- while OBL is standing there with his hand raised saying, "Yeah, it was me" -- that's pretty absurd.
by the way, not even a confession is enough to convict somebody, you need evidence. an intercepted call is not enough.
I have a feeling nothing would be enough for you. You've got a guy who already tried to blow up THESE EXACT SAME BUILDINGS a decade earlier, vowing to come back and finish the job, then comes back and finishes the job ... and brags about it to his followers. ... What more do you want?
this is the first i've heard about Osama bin Ladin being behind the first attack on the WTC. is this like 9/11, where everyone says there is plenty of evidence tying him to the crime but in reality there is nothing? or do you have something to back up the claim that Osama bin Ladin was behind the WTC bombings in the 90's?
just because someone says something over and over again, doesn't make it any more true. facts, evidence, official statements, government press releases...things like that. mainstream media. something.
If the argument here is that OBL didn't orchestrate 9/11, we're done. There is no argument to be had. Other topics we won't be discussing: Whether the sky is generally blue, whether grass is generally green and whether gravity actually works.
There is no point.
nevermind the lack of evidence, and the fact he denied it a few days after the attack, I"ll cede the point, i don't care about it either.
but its not a pointless argument. lets say he's guilty. and that's why we're in Afghanistan, to hunt him down. When we catch him, we all go home right? got our guy, justice has been served, time to move on yeah?
when that doesn't happen, and a highly repressive and or pseudo democracy is installed instead, that happen to cater to western corporations and allow the US military to build bases....I hope you'll start to see the point behind all of this.
The United States is a hardline, militant, capitalist empire. it spreads its ways through force, mainly. whatver excuses they can find along the way, great. drugs, terrorism, communism, to liberate, to bring democracy...whatever the stated objectives, the outcomes are surprisingly similar. corporations move in, labor laws are shredded, military builds a few bases, gov't ensure complete submission by new client state, everyone goes on to the next. its never good for the people living in the affected countries.
I'm have much more respect for people who say, "You know what? Bin Laden did it. The Taliban harbored him. So what? Still did not justify war."
I think those people are a tad too idealistic for the real world, but at least they have principles. People who believe bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11 also must believe in the tooth fairy. They exist in a fantasy land. And I just don't speak their language.
i made that point earlier.
using the logic that got us into Afghanistan could very well be the same used to start WW3, which no one seems too concerned about, but this can't go on for ever. eventually a military superpower will rise to challenge the United States. its only a matter of time. we need to make it harder to invade countries, not easier.
couple hundred guys committed a crime in some country, and that gives the US gov't the excuse to conquer the entire country? that's like mafia shit right there...you hurt my son, i will kill your whole family.
its so strange that PJ attracts some extremists. I know the band isn't exactly mainstream but this place is downright weird sometimes
the band is anti war, pro 10000 charities, pro environment, pro choice...etc.
the complete opposite of you jlew. the band shares my views. seems you're the extremist.
LOL first off, who is anti charity? I'm pro choice, pro environment, and pro charity. who the fuck do you think you are to say I'm the opposite of those things?
second of all, I think Eddie and the Band very much know, like the rest of us rational people, that OBL was behind the attacks on 9/11. as well as recognizing the Taliban hold responsibility for harboring them.
you live in a crap bullshit country that doesnt allow freedom.
Funny that this crap bullshit country has one of the few stable economies in the world right now, as opposed to America's which is fucked.
Funny that this crap bullshit country has a history that goes back over 5000 years and has given the world hundreds of the most important inventions: paper, printing, gunpowder, the compass, steel, e.t.c.
Funny that this crap bullshit country spanked America like red-headed step-children at the Olympics last year.
'...worldviews of the United States continue to worsen, with most countries having a largely negative view of the US. Across all 27 countries polled (excluding the US self-evaluation), half (51%) now say the US is playing a mainly negative role in the world.
Among the 26 countries polled this time (excluding the US), in 20 the most common view of the United States' influence is negative, while in just four it is mainly positive and two are evenly divided. Negative views are particularly widespread in Europe (especially Greece 78%, Germany 74%, and France 69%) and predominantly Muslim countries (Indonesia 71%, Turkey 69%, Egypt 59%, and Lebanon 58%). The only countries with positive majorities are found in Africa (Nigeria 72%, and Kenya 70%), and the Philippines (72%).
Some of the sharpest drops in positive ratings over the last year have occurred in four countries that tended to be quite positive about the United States. Poland's positive ratings dropped 24 points, from 62 percent a year ago to 38 percent today. The Philippines dropped 13 points, from a very high 85 percent to a still-high 72 percent. India fell from 44 percent to 30 percent. And Indonesia plunged 19 points—from 40 percent to 21 percent positive—perhaps due to the waning of the positive effect of the American aid to Indonesian tsunami victims.
Additionally, the number of American respondents who believe the United States is having a positive influence in the world has also decreased six points, from 63 percent to 57 percent, and has dropped a total of fourteen points (from 71%) from 2005.
China
China continues to enjoy mildly positive ratings worldwide, with 16 out of 26 countries polled this year (excluding China) having mainly positive views of its influence, nine having mainly negative views and one divided. On average, China received a positive rating from 42% and a negative rating of 32%. Following a sharp drop (8%) in the previous year, views of China on average have remained largely stable over the past year among the countries polled in all three years.
Positive views of China remain highest in African and some Middle Eastern countries. Majorities in Kenya (70%), the United Arab Emirates (68%), Lebanon (66%), and Nigeria (66%) view China positively. Interestingly, a plurality in Turkey (39%) sees China's influence as negative. Latin Americans tend to view China somewhat positively, with a majority in Chile (62%), and pluralities in Brazil (46%) and Argentina (32%) having this view, though Mexicans remain divided in their views of China.
The most negative views are found in Europe and the US. Of the nine European countries polled, six view China negatively including majorities in France (59%), Portugal (58%), Italy (58%) and Germany (53%). Among Americans 44 percent see China as mostly negative while 34 percent see it as positive. Britons, however, now lean positive on China (49% positive to 34% negative).
A few dramatic changes occurred over the last year. Britons went from leaning slightly negative to leaning mainly positive with a nine point increase in positive views. Russia went from being divided to leaning positive (up six points). Canadians slightly reversed their downward trend from the previous year, and now a plurality (46%) views China positively, up from 36% the previous year. American views of China are slightly less negative than a year earlier, falling from 53 percent in 2006 to 44 percent today, but positive views held steady at 34 percent.
Average ratings of China in the Asia/Pacific region also remained stable overall, with only slight shifts in views. In terms of individual countries, negative views of China in South Korea dropped from a majority to a plurality (58% to 48%), however positive attitudes fell dramatically in the Philippines (54% to 44%) and India (44% to 35%). Attitudes about China remained steady in other countries in the Asia/Pacific region, with Indonesians (62%) and to some extent Australians (43%) continuing to see China's influence as positive.
Poll: Israel and US Biggest Threats to World Peace
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Over half of Europeans think that Israel now presents the biggest threat to world peace according to a controversial poll requested by the European Commission.
According to the same survey, Europeans believe the United States contributes the most to world instability along with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. . . .
The European Commission is coming under fire for publishing the results of a number of questions - relating to Iraqi reconstruction - while failing to publish the results which revealed the extent of mistrust of Israel and the United States in Europe, according to Spanish daily El Pais. . . .
The poll, conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres/ EOS Gallup Europe, was conducted between 8 and 16 of October.
you live in a crap bullshit country that doesnt allow freedom.
Funny that this crap bullshit country has one of the few stable economies in the world right now, as opposed to America's which is fucked.
you must be joking. please dont make me expose your absolute ignorance in regards to economics. China is just as fucked as the rest of the world right now.
Funny that this crap bullshit country has a history that goes back over 5000 years and has given the world hundreds of the most important inventions: paper, printing, gunpowder, the compass, steel, e.t.c.
yippie!! I'll take freedom anyday. you know after having such a big mouth, I'm surprised you stick up for a country that wont let you open it.
I'm have much more respect for people who say, "You know what? Bin Laden did it. The Taliban harbored him. So what? Still did not justify war."
I think those people are a tad too idealistic for the real world, but at least they have principles. People who believe bin Laden did not orchestrate 9/11 also must believe in the tooth fairy. They exist in a fantasy land. And I just don't speak their language.
I absolutely agree. if you want to make a case against war no matter what the circumstances, I'd respectfully disagree.
but instead we get nonsense like, "they were Saudis who attacked us", "Taliban had nothing to do with it", "9/11 was not an act of war" and the dumbest of them all "America was already planning to go to war in Afghanistan". this place is worse then the Alex Jones board
you must be joking. please dont make me expose your absolute ignorance in regards to economics. China is just as fucked as the rest of the world right now.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- ... 484771.htm
'...China has taken a string of measures to further expand domestic demand and promote economic growth. As a result, the Chinese economy has kept growing relatively rapidly, with inflationary pressure eased and the economic structure improved...'
but instead we get nonsense like, "they were Saudis who attacked us", "Taliban had nothing to do with it", "9/11 was not an act of war" and the dumbest of them all "America was already planning to go to war in Afghanistan". this place is worse then the Alex Jones board
America was already planning to go to war with Afghanistan. This has been proven already.
U.S. has plans to remove the Taliban prior to September 11, 2001
'NBC News reported in May 2002 that a formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted two days before September 11, 2001 had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, including outlines to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.[26]
According to a 2004 report by the bipartisan commission of inquiry into 9/11, on the very next day, one day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. And, if both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."[27]
However, an article published in March 2001 by Jane's, a media outlet serving the military and intelligence communities, suggests that the United States had already been planning and taking just such action against the Taliban six months before September 11, 2001. According to Jane's, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan being used as bases.[28]
The BBC News reported that, according to a Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would proceed by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan - where American advisers were already in place - and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.[29][30]
An article in The Guardian on September 26, 2001 also adds evidence that there were already signs in the first half of 2001 that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. A U.S. Department of Defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January 2001 and U.S. General Tommy Franks visited the country in May 2001, conveying a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country". U.S. Army Rangers were training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan, and there were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana. Reliable western military sources say a U.S. contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north, with U.S. military advisors already in place in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.[31]'
Comments
Nice.
So, according to your logic all Americans are legitimate targets because you support Israeli terrorism, among other things. I hope you understand that the next time you're attacked.
By the way, the U.S is the only country to be formally charged with state terrorism by the World Court.
Never mind the rule of law. The thing to do was to show every one how big and tough you are.
I wonder why America is the most hated country in the world?
Oh, and nice job at tackling terrorism. You killed tens of thousands of Afghan civilians, and over 1 million Iraqi's. This is clearly something every American should be proud of.
Anyway, all this talk of Al queda's alleged guilt is all just total bullshit, and merely a distraction. I provided evidence above which demonstrates clearly that the U.S planned to attack Afghanistan for years prior to 9/11.
9/11 was just an excuse.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov20 ... -n20.shtml
US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
By Patrick Martin
20 November 2001
'...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...
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.”...
Nice.
No he didn't.
who are you? the MT police now? one too many warnings I see? what a joke
rule of law? what is that? we were attacked and needed to protect ourselves from outside threats. That is the #1 responsible of the American government.
America is not the most hated country country in the world. even though you like to think it is.
LOL you provide ONE worthless link by some asshole on a irrelevant worthless website? and THAT is your prove? it doesnt become true if you just keep posting the SAME article over and over and over and over and over again. hahahhaha seriously dude. get a fucking clue. :roll:
and you'll stand shoulder to shoulder with the extremists and cheer in the streets I'm sure. maybe even burn a flag. YAY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRjG36WGvWM
too bad the crap country you live in BLOCKS youtube, you'd like that one.
no you didn't.
you said OTHERS think the Americans that died on 9/11 are legitimate targets. my question was, do YOU? I'm not expecting an honest answer
I'll let you inquire about that yourself. You have the internet at your disposal.
Yes it is. This is a fact. Again, do a Google search and see what answers you come up with.
I know I could find a dozen more sites which prove my point, especially seeing as how this same person references dozens of sources such as Newsweek, BBC, The Washington Post, the Guardian, , e.t.c., e.t.c.
Do you have anything to say about the actual content of the article itself or do you wish to merely focus on the author of the article?
That's right Jlew, keep those lame provocations coming.
lets stick to one thing at a time. we are talking about 9/11. WAR was already started. get that through you head.
whats the fucking difference where it comes from? what kind of source are you looking for? here try this one, it has the same information, the EXACT information you were asking for, which is evidence of an el queda link shortly after the attacks
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm
for someone who gets pleasure out of seeing America attacked, it would never be enough.
Taliban had their chance and they blew it.
again, one thing at a time. the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan is the only war I would ever support for the simple reason of 9/11. They allowed el queda to attack us by giving them safe haven. giving OBL to the Hague is not an option. America was attacked, he needed to be handed over to us. I'm very glad we didnt sit back and play games with the Taliban.
now you want to bring up Iraq, Vietman, Panama, fine. I will end up agreeing with you
It was a rhetorical question. thats a big word. do you know what that means?
lol ok. what should I google. is america the most hated country in the world? hmmm do you see what a joke you have become?
no you can't. you know why? because a war in Afghanistan wasn't planned. and by who? Bush? he was in office all of two months. 1 of which was probably a vacation in Texas. its fucking shocking how you suck up just about any bullshit you read on the net when it fits your agenda.
the author and the website have ZERO creditability. any fuckface can write and publish something on the net. that doesnt make it true. get it?
its not a provocation. just a fact that you live in a crap bullshit country that doesnt allow freedom.
its so strange that PJ attracts some extremists. I know the band isn't exactly mainstream but this place is downright weird sometimes
this is the first i've heard about Osama bin Ladin being behind the first attack on the WTC. is this like 9/11, where everyone says there is plenty of evidence tying him to the crime but in reality there is nothing? or do you have something to back up the claim that Osama bin Ladin was behind the WTC bombings in the 90's?
just because someone says something over and over again, doesn't make it any more true. facts, evidence, official statements, government press releases...things like that. mainstream media. something.
nevermind the lack of evidence, and the fact he denied it a few days after the attack, I"ll cede the point, i don't care about it either.
but its not a pointless argument. lets say he's guilty. and that's why we're in Afghanistan, to hunt him down. When we catch him, we all go home right? got our guy, justice has been served, time to move on yeah?
when that doesn't happen, and a highly repressive and or pseudo democracy is installed instead, that happen to cater to western corporations and allow the US military to build bases....I hope you'll start to see the point behind all of this.
The United States is a hardline, militant, capitalist empire. it spreads its ways through force, mainly. whatver excuses they can find along the way, great. drugs, terrorism, communism, to liberate, to bring democracy...whatever the stated objectives, the outcomes are surprisingly similar. corporations move in, labor laws are shredded, military builds a few bases, gov't ensure complete submission by new client state, everyone goes on to the next. its never good for the people living in the affected countries.
i made that point earlier.
using the logic that got us into Afghanistan could very well be the same used to start WW3, which no one seems too concerned about, but this can't go on for ever. eventually a military superpower will rise to challenge the United States. its only a matter of time. we need to make it harder to invade countries, not easier.
couple hundred guys committed a crime in some country, and that gives the US gov't the excuse to conquer the entire country? that's like mafia shit right there...you hurt my son, i will kill your whole family.
that's a mentality we need to get away from.
the complete opposite of you jlew. the band shares my views. seems you're the extremist.
LOL first off, who is anti charity? I'm pro choice, pro environment, and pro charity. who the fuck do you think you are to say I'm the opposite of those things?
second of all, I think Eddie and the Band very much know, like the rest of us rational people, that OBL was behind the attacks on 9/11. as well as recognizing the Taliban hold responsibility for harboring them.
you know, the exact opposite of your views.
it could easily be the Iraq deception
or the Afghani deception
or the Vietnam deception
on down the line.
jlew-you are an idiot. the band has nothing to do with any of this, other than we all like them. try sticking to the topic.
Nice. The mods will be busy tomorrow.
Funny that this crap bullshit country has one of the few stable economies in the world right now, as opposed to America's which is fucked.
Funny that this crap bullshit country has a history that goes back over 5000 years and has given the world hundreds of the most important inventions: paper, printing, gunpowder, the compass, steel, e.t.c.
Funny that this crap bullshit country spanked America like red-headed step-children at the Olympics last year.
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/march_2007/ ... earth.html
United States
'...worldviews of the United States continue to worsen, with most countries having a largely negative view of the US. Across all 27 countries polled (excluding the US self-evaluation), half (51%) now say the US is playing a mainly negative role in the world.
Among the 26 countries polled this time (excluding the US), in 20 the most common view of the United States' influence is negative, while in just four it is mainly positive and two are evenly divided. Negative views are particularly widespread in Europe (especially Greece 78%, Germany 74%, and France 69%) and predominantly Muslim countries (Indonesia 71%, Turkey 69%, Egypt 59%, and Lebanon 58%). The only countries with positive majorities are found in Africa (Nigeria 72%, and Kenya 70%), and the Philippines (72%).
Some of the sharpest drops in positive ratings over the last year have occurred in four countries that tended to be quite positive about the United States. Poland's positive ratings dropped 24 points, from 62 percent a year ago to 38 percent today. The Philippines dropped 13 points, from a very high 85 percent to a still-high 72 percent. India fell from 44 percent to 30 percent. And Indonesia plunged 19 points—from 40 percent to 21 percent positive—perhaps due to the waning of the positive effect of the American aid to Indonesian tsunami victims.
Additionally, the number of American respondents who believe the United States is having a positive influence in the world has also decreased six points, from 63 percent to 57 percent, and has dropped a total of fourteen points (from 71%) from 2005.
China
China continues to enjoy mildly positive ratings worldwide, with 16 out of 26 countries polled this year (excluding China) having mainly positive views of its influence, nine having mainly negative views and one divided. On average, China received a positive rating from 42% and a negative rating of 32%. Following a sharp drop (8%) in the previous year, views of China on average have remained largely stable over the past year among the countries polled in all three years.
Positive views of China remain highest in African and some Middle Eastern countries. Majorities in Kenya (70%), the United Arab Emirates (68%), Lebanon (66%), and Nigeria (66%) view China positively. Interestingly, a plurality in Turkey (39%) sees China's influence as negative. Latin Americans tend to view China somewhat positively, with a majority in Chile (62%), and pluralities in Brazil (46%) and Argentina (32%) having this view, though Mexicans remain divided in their views of China.
The most negative views are found in Europe and the US. Of the nine European countries polled, six view China negatively including majorities in France (59%), Portugal (58%), Italy (58%) and Germany (53%). Among Americans 44 percent see China as mostly negative while 34 percent see it as positive. Britons, however, now lean positive on China (49% positive to 34% negative).
A few dramatic changes occurred over the last year. Britons went from leaning slightly negative to leaning mainly positive with a nine point increase in positive views. Russia went from being divided to leaning positive (up six points). Canadians slightly reversed their downward trend from the previous year, and now a plurality (46%) views China positively, up from 36% the previous year. American views of China are slightly less negative than a year earlier, falling from 53 percent in 2006 to 44 percent today, but positive views held steady at 34 percent.
Average ratings of China in the Asia/Pacific region also remained stable overall, with only slight shifts in views. In terms of individual countries, negative views of China in South Korea dropped from a majority to a plurality (58% to 48%), however positive attitudes fell dramatically in the Philippines (54% to 44%) and India (44% to 35%). Attitudes about China remained steady in other countries in the Asia/Pacific region, with Indonesians (62%) and to some extent Australians (43%) continuing to see China's influence as positive.
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Over half of Europeans think that Israel now presents the biggest threat to world peace according to a controversial poll requested by the European Commission.
According to the same survey, Europeans believe the United States contributes the most to world instability along with Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and North Korea. . . .
The European Commission is coming under fire for publishing the results of a number of questions - relating to Iraqi reconstruction - while failing to publish the results which revealed the extent of mistrust of Israel and the United States in Europe, according to Spanish daily El Pais. . . .
The poll, conducted by Taylor Nelson Sofres/ EOS Gallup Europe, was conducted between 8 and 16 of October.
Nice.
Maybe Ted Nugent has a forum? Have you thought about checking that out?
Edit: Here ya go - http://www.tednugent.com/ - now don't say I don't do you any favours.
why arent you policing one of your yes men?
you must be joking. please dont make me expose your absolute ignorance in regards to economics. China is just as fucked as the rest of the world right now.
yippie!! I'll take freedom anyday. you know after having such a big mouth, I'm surprised you stick up for a country that wont let you open it.
http://www.realclearsports.com/charts/m ... unt-3.html
Country Gold Silver Bronze Total
United States 36 38 36 110
China 51 21 28 100
Russia 23 21 28 72
Great Britain 19 13 15 47
Australia 14 15 17 46
Germany 16 10 15 41
France 7 16 17 40
South Korea 13 10 8 31
Italy 8 10 10 28
Ukraine 7 5 15 27
Japan 9 6 10 25
Cuba 2 11 11 24
Belarus 4 5 10 19
Spain 5 10 3 18
Canada 3 9 6 18
Netherlands 7 5 4 16
Brazil 3 4 8 15
Kenya 5 5 4 14
Kazakhstan 2 4 7 13
Jamaica 6 3 2 11
Poland 3 6 1 10
I absolutely agree. if you want to make a case against war no matter what the circumstances, I'd respectfully disagree.
but instead we get nonsense like, "they were Saudis who attacked us", "Taliban had nothing to do with it", "9/11 was not an act of war" and the dumbest of them all "America was already planning to go to war in Afghanistan". this place is worse then the Alex Jones board
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008- ... 484771.htm
'...China has taken a string of measures to further expand domestic demand and promote economic growth. As a result, the Chinese economy has kept growing relatively rapidly, with inflationary pressure eased and the economic structure improved...'
The freedom to live in a plutocracy where you are bombarded with media bullshit on a daily basis. Great.
Like anyone gives a shit about silvers and bronzes. China spanked America hard. 51 Gold medals to 36. Suck it up.
America was already planning to go to war with Afghanistan. This has been proven already.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afg ... %93present)
U.S. has plans to remove the Taliban prior to September 11, 2001
'NBC News reported in May 2002 that a formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted two days before September 11, 2001 had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, including outlines to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused.[26]
According to a 2004 report by the bipartisan commission of inquiry into 9/11, on the very next day, one day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. And, if both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action."[27]
However, an article published in March 2001 by Jane's, a media outlet serving the military and intelligence communities, suggests that the United States had already been planning and taking just such action against the Taliban six months before September 11, 2001. According to Jane's, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan being used as bases.[28]
The BBC News reported that, according to a Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would proceed by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan - where American advisers were already in place - and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place.[29][30]
An article in The Guardian on September 26, 2001 also adds evidence that there were already signs in the first half of 2001 that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. A U.S. Department of Defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January 2001 and U.S. General Tommy Franks visited the country in May 2001, conveying a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country". U.S. Army Rangers were training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan, and there were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana. Reliable western military sources say a U.S. contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north, with U.S. military advisors already in place in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.[31]'