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
Evidence suggests that Washington had planned to move against Bin Laden in the summer. Was the attack on America a pre-emptive strike?
David Leigh -Guardian
Wednesday September 26, 2001
'Did Bin Laden decide to get his retaliation in first? And did the new Bush administration make a horrible miscalculation by taking an ill-informed, "tough guy" approach to their fanatical Islamist opponent ?
These are the troubling questions raised by the Guardian's disclosure at the weekend that the Taliban received a specific warning - passed during secret diplomacy in Berlin in July - that the Bush team had prepared a new plan to topple the entire Afghan regime militarily unless they handed Bin Laden over.
If it turns out that our future safety is in the hands of those who might possibly have averted the horror of September 11 by behaving more cautiously, then we owe it to history to establish the true record. But we can be certain that no one presently in charge in Washington will want to do that.
The Guardian's disclosures are proving controversial. Some analysts say Bin Laden had evidently prepared his suicide pilots up to a year beforehand, thus making Washington's behaviour in July beside the point. Others ask why US threats of military strikes in July should be of any more concern to Bin Laden than previous episodes, such as Clinton's rocketing of his camps.
We need to assess the evidence of the Bush team's foreign policy dealings this year to find the answers. This is made easier by the fact that two major players have now come out of the woodwork.
First, President Putin made clear he had tried to egg on the previous Clinton administration - without success - to act militarily against the whole Taliban regime: "Washington's reaction at the time really amazed me. They shrugged their shoulders and said matter-of-factly: 'We can't do anything because the Taliban does not want to turn him over'."
And then Clinton himself disclosed what limited - and equally unsuccessful - action he had been prepared to attempt by secret executive order. He said on Saturday: "I authorised the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama bin Laden and we actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it." Speaking to reporters in New York, he added: "We also trained commandos for a possible ground action, but we did not have the necessary intelligence to do it in the way we would have had to do it."
So Bush came into office this January against a background of American (and Clintonian) failure. While running for president the previous October, he said he was "saddened and angered" by the "cowardly attack" on the destroyer the USS Cole, and added: "There must be consequences."
As the outgoing senior official at the state department in charge of Afghanistan, Karl Inderfurth, remarked: "The Bush administration will have many urgent problems to face and, unfortunately, Afghanistan will be one of those because of terrorism and Bin Laden... Those problems are getting worse".
Although support from Pakistan, its southern neighbour, seemed to render the regime invulnerable, there were signs early this year that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via the wild former Soviet republics.
A US department of defence official, Dr Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January. The Guardian's Felicity Lawrence established that US Rangers were also training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan. There were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana.
And US General Tommy Franks visited Dushanbe on May 16, where he conveyed a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country". On offer was non-lethal military aid. Tajikistan used the occasion to apply to join Nato's Partnership for Peace.
Shortly afterwards the Republican senator from Alabama who is vice-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Richard C Shelby, returned from a Gulf tour to bullishly tell the Washington Post that US counterterrorism officials were winning the war against Bin Laden. "He's on the run, and I think he will continue to be on the run, because we are not going to let up." He went on: "I don't think you could say he's got us hunkered down. I believe he's more hunkered down... He knows he's hunted."
Reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north. Throughout the spring, FBI information suggests terrorist suicide pilots were continuing to train at US aviation schools. But whatever contingency plan of theirs existed, no one pushed the terrorist button. By July 8, the Afghan opposition, Pakistani diplomats, and senior staff from the British Foreign Office, were gathering at Weston Park under UN auspices for private teach-ins on the Afghan situation.
And a couple of weeks later, another group gathered in a Berlin hotel. There, former state department official Lee Coldren passed on a message he had got from Bush officials: "I think 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." Karl Inderfurth was there too, and former ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simons.
The chilling quality of this private warning was that it came - according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik - accompanied by specific details of how Bush would suceed where Clinton had failed.
The hawks in Washington could count on the connivance of Russian troops, and on facilities in such places as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, already host to US military advisers.
The message that thus went back via Pakistan to the Taliban was that the hawks in Washington thought they were backing Bin Laden into a corner. Unfortunately, he decided to push his own button, instead.'
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Posted: 2:12 AM EST (0712 GMT)
(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.
The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.
Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.
"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."
In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said...
"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.
"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."
Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.
"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The Afghanistan War was Planned
Months Before the 9/11 Attacks
Jane's Defense - India Joined US led plan against Afghanistan in March 2001.
"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"
By Rahul Bedi
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime. [janes.com]
From April 2001, yet more indications that a mideast war was planned long before 9/11.
India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.
In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.
India in anti-Taliban military plan
India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.
By Our Correspondent
26 June 2001: 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 Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.
Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.
Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.
Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month. [indiareacts.com]
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
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 Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban 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.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban. [BBC]
MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. [MSNBC]
In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.
How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.
You conveniently forgot to mention the BBC, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post, e.t.c., e.t.c, but then this wouldn't suit your purpose of ignoring the facts and trying to derail this thread with your usual tactics.
LOL scratch that. dumbest thing I've heard yet "9/11 was a pre-emptive strike"
def not the dumbest thing ive ever heard but certainlyone of the dumbest id say.
and do we know absolutely for sure that OBL is even in afghanistan. or if he ever was.. and if so exactly for how long???? just asking.
So, Bin Laden received news at the end of the summer that the U.S planned an invasion to oust the Taliban regime. Bin Laden then strikes on U.S soil. And to suggest that there was any connection is dumb? O.k.
Probably the attacks would have come at some point regardless. Though maybe the F.B.I could have followed up on the information they already possessed of the terrorist networks at flight schools across the U.S and the attacks could have been averted. Who knows?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Artic ... 45,00.html
'...Reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north. Throughout the spring, FBI information suggests terrorist suicide pilots were continuing to train at US aviation schools. But whatever contingency plan of theirs existed, no one pushed the terrorist button. By July 8, the Afghan opposition, Pakistani diplomats, and senior staff from the British Foreign Office, were gathering at Weston Park under UN auspices for private teach-ins on the Afghan situation.
And a couple of weeks later, another group gathered in a Berlin hotel. There, former state department official Lee Coldren passed on a message he had got from Bush officials: "I think 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." Karl Inderfurth was there too, and former ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simons...
The message that thus went back via Pakistan to the Taliban was that the hawks in Washington thought they were backing Bin Laden into a corner. Unfortunately, he decided to push his own button, instead.'
OOOOOooooo look at the elaborate use of Bold, Italics, and colors. what a super fun cut and paste party!!!!!
But the war in Afghanistan hadn't been planned prior to 9/11, had it Jlew?
no it wasnt. was it talked about it? sure maybe. and rightfully so. how soon you forgot America was already under attack from these people throughout the Clinton years. WTC, Cole, Africa.....
but I'm confused, aren't you a truther? a firm believer that 9/11 was an inside job. I remember you posted crap about how the American government planted bombs inside WTC. you gave up that theory? now it really was OBL, but now it was a justified "pre-emptive" strike eh?
I wonder what the whackjob websites will come up next, only for you to suck it up as fact yet again.
I remember you posted crap about how the American government planted bombs inside WTC.
I never said anything of the sort. I said there's ample evidence to show that the U.S had prior knowledge of the attacks and chose to do nothing about it. I also mentioned the fact that Cheney was put in overall command of NORAD just prior to 9/11 and that it's a funny coincidence that the F16's were ordered not to stand down on that particular day, despite having been scrambled approx 100 times already that year as part of their routine procedure, e.t.c.
I said nothing about bombs being planted by the government. But if you insist I did, them great. Go ahead and find these posts of mine and paste them here.
I remember you posted crap about how the American government planted bombs inside WTC.
I never said anything of the sort. I said there's ample evidence to show that the U.S had prior knowledge of the attacks and chose to do nothing about it. I also mentioned the fact that Cheney was put in overall command of NORAD just prior to 9/11 and that it's a funny coincidence that the F16's were ordered not to stand down on that particular day, despite having been scrambled approx 100 times already that year as part of their routine procedure, e.t.c.
I said nothing about bombs being planted by the government. But if you insist I did, them great. Go ahead and find these posts of mine and paste them here.
you are a truther until a new theory comes along. I'm sure the AJ crowd will come up with something new soon.
OOOOOooooo look at the elaborate use of Bold, Italics, and colors. what a super fun cut and paste party!!!!!
But the war in Afghanistan hadn't been planned prior to 9/11, had it Jlew?
no it wasnt. was it talked about it? sure maybe. and rightfully so. how soon you forgot America was already under attack from these people throughout the Clinton years. WTC, Cole, Africa.....
how about responding to the valid points I make? or not man enough to say I'm right?
no it wasnt. was it talked about it? sure maybe. and rightfully so. how soon you forgot America was already under attack from these people throughout the Clinton years. WTC, Cole, Africa.....
how about responding to the valid points I make? or not man enough to say I'm right?
That's right Jlew, you're a big tough man.
Anyway, I provided evidence that the American government planned to invade Afghanistan at least a year before 9/11. You've done nothing to refute this other than to say 'No they didn't'.
'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.'
no it wasnt. was it talked about it? sure maybe. and rightfully so. how soon you forgot America was already under attack from these people throughout the Clinton years. WTC, Cole, Africa.....
how about responding to the valid points I make? or not man enough to say I'm right?
That's right Jlew, you're a big tough man.
Anyway, I provided evidence that the American government planned to invade Afghanistan at least a year before 9/11. You've done nothing to refute this other than to say 'No they didn't'.
wrong. actually this was my response. you actually quoted it, but I'll post it again because you seemed to ignore it..
no it wasnt. was it talked about it? sure maybe. and rightfully so. how soon you forgot America was already under attack from these people throughout the Clinton years. WTC, Cole, Africa.....
But the war in Afghanistan hadn't been planned prior to 9/11, had it Jlew?
no it wasnt. was it talked about it? sure maybe. and rightfully so. how soon you forgot America was already under attack from these people throughout the Clinton years. WTC, Cole, Africa.....
That's funny, I could swear that you suggested just the other day that the American government didn't have time to wait for the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, and yet now you're drawing attention to the fact that Bin Laden attacked America as early as 1993.
So, either it was o.k for them to wait 8 years to get Bin Laden or they couldn't wait even one day to get their hands on him? Which was it?
But the war in Afghanistan hadn't been planned prior to 9/11, had it Jlew?
no it wasnt. was it talked about it? sure maybe. and rightfully so. how soon you forgot America was already under attack from these people throughout the Clinton years. WTC, Cole, Africa.....
That's funny, I could swear that you suggested just the other day that the American government didn't have time to wait for the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, and yet now you're drawing attention to the fact that Bin Laden attacked America as early as 1993.
So, either it was o.k for them to wait 8 years to get Bin Laden or they couldn't wait even one day to get their hands on him? Which was it?
I never said it was ok for the US to wait 8 years. I think Clinton failed after the 93 attacks. he was too busy dealing with the blowjob stuff.
and after 9/11 happened, we did the right thing by removing the Taliban and breaking up el quedas safe haven. the Taliban was given evidence against bin laden, they chose war.
I never said it was ok for the US to wait 8 years. I think Clinton failed after the 93 attacks. he was too busy dealing with the blowjob stuff.
So after 9/11 it was a matter of the utmost urgency to go to war despite the Taliban's offer to hand over OBL, but after 1993 your government did nothing because it was too engrossed in the details of Bill Clinton's blow job?
but after 1993 your government did nothing because it was too engrossed in the details of Bill Clinton's blow job?
Hmm, O.k.
yes absolutely. the attack in 93 wasn't taken seriously enough. huge mistake on Clinton's part. my guess is you know little to nothing about the Clinton years and the Monika Lewinsky scandal. no surprise there
time to negotiate was over, war had already begun.
the time to negotiate is never over.
war is a terrrible solution anyway. its not very good at fighting terrorism. it may be impossible. the cause of terrorism, one of them, is the US has troops in arab lands, and is backing some shady governments over there.
so to fight that they invade 2 more arab countries and send in more troops. putting gas on the fire....but most people tand to see it as black and white-"you attacked us now were gonna kick your ass" kind of thing. which will ead us to more terror attacks in the future, guaranteed.
the US government- knows all of this. Which tells us the goal of the United States government may not necessarily be to fight terrorism.
war is a terrrible solution anyway. its not very good at fighting terrorism. it may be impossible. the cause of terrorism, one of them, is the US has troops in arab lands,
why is that a problem? we have troops in almost every country on earth...peacefully.
so to fight that they invade 2 more arab countries and send in more troops. putting gas on the fire....but most people tand to see it as black and white-"you attacked us now were gonna kick your ass" kind of thing. which will ead us to more terror attacks in the future, guaranteed.
again, stick to the topic. we are talking about the Taliban, not Iraq. with Iraq, I agree, bad idea. but back in October 2001, removing the Taliban and going after el queda militarily was the only option to protect American citizens.
time to negotiate was over, war had already begun.
the time to negotiate is never over.
we were attacked. we were at risk of more attacks. sorry, but time to negotiate ended when they attacked FIRST.
9/11 wasn't an act of war. why should the people of afghanistan suffer because a few of their whacko neighbors decided to piss off the world's military superpower?
but its true. There is always time for diplomacy. even in the middle of WWII...your just war, diplomacy was still going strong. as it always should be.
war is a terrrible solution anyway. its not very good at fighting terrorism. it may be impossible. the cause of terrorism, one of them, is the US has troops in arab lands,
why is that a problem? we have troops in almost every country on earth...peacefully.
you seriously need to read up on some history., NOTHING about US involvement is peaceful. Do you know anything about the CIA regarding South America? yeah, teaching guys how to torture, then installing htem as dictators, not peaceful. Overthrowing democratically elected govt's with violence, not peaceful. its all public record now.
In Arab countries the story isn't as clear, its too recent. but overthrowing the government in Iran, invading Iraq, propping up the very unpopular saudi royal family, arming turkey, arming israel,etc.
nothing peaceful about this empire.
And who knows what other dozen country our special forces are operating in right now. the only way we'll know is in 50 years when all the classified stuff is released, or if they fuck-up like they did in Mogadishu. hard to deny involvement when your soldiers bodies are being dragged through the streets on national television.
so to fight that they invade 2 more arab countries and send in more troops. putting gas on the fire....but most people tand to see it as black and white-"you attacked us now were gonna kick your ass" kind of thing. which will ead us to more terror attacks in the future, guaranteed.
again, stick to the topic. we are talking about the Taliban, not Iraq. with Iraq, I agree, bad idea. but back in October 2001, removing the Taliban and going after el queda militarily was the only option to protect American citizens.
the thread is about how the US gov't lies to the public to invade third world countries.
Iraq is relevant. its not a separate issue, its THE issue.
the US government- knows all of this. Which tells us the goal of the United States government may not necessarily be to fight terrorism.
LOL ok. like what? lemme guess, world domination mauhahahahaha
well what do you think?
you're action results in a specific reaction. But that reaction is what you're telling everybody you're trying to prevent. But that action is repeated. so either the US gov't is incompetent or liars, and have been for 60 years.
9/11 wasn't an act of war. why should the people of afghanistan suffer because a few of their whacko neighbors decided to piss off the world's military superpower?
look dude, 9/11 was an act of war. stop trying to downplay that fact. the Taliban knew exactly what OBL and el queda were doing yet did nothing to stop them. they allowed them to thrive. The Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time, hold responsibility. its a fucking shame what the innocent people have had to go through because of THEIR actions.
but its true. There is always time for diplomacy. even in the middle of WWII...your just war, diplomacy was still going strong. as it always should be.
war had begun. it is the job of the American government to protect its citizens from more attacks. diplomacy was off the table. the people that attacked us needed to be defeated.
Do you know anything about the CIA regarding South America? yeah, teaching guys how to torture, then installing htem as dictators, not peaceful. Overthrowing democratically elected govt's with violence, not peaceful. its all public record now.
yea yea yea, thats all you people ever fall back on is this south America nonsense. take that asshole Chavez out of the mix, South America is doing just fine. well I guess you can blame Columbia's problems partly on us due to our huge coke demand. but that has nothing to do with the US government.
In Arab countries the story isn't as clear, its too recent. but overthrowing the government in Iran, invading Iraq, propping up the very unpopular saudi royal family, arming turkey, arming israel,etc.
yea, I'll give ya that. we have not scored well in the middle east. I hope that changes
the US is not an empire. and this is a very insulting statement to all Americans who value peace and charitable giving throughout the world.
let me ask you this, who is the first on scene with help during a natural disaster anywhere in the world? we even helped Iran in 03 after a devastating earthquake.
you paint America with a very broad evil brush. fuck that
And who knows what other dozen country our special forces are operating in right now. the only way we'll know is in 50 years when all the classified stuff is released, or if they fuck-up like they did in Mogadishu. hard to deny involvement when your soldiers bodies are being dragged through the streets on national television.
but you make no mention of the animalistic behavior of those people. or is dragging human bodies through the streets acceptable for scum like that in your eyes? as long as its American forces being killed, you are perfectly fine with it.
speaking of, do you even know why we were there in the first place? "Operation Restore Hope" to help feed the starving people of Somalia from a brutal warlord. yea, and we're the assholes.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan-off the top of my head. the list is actually in the dozens worldwide, with countries like Turkey and Columbia.
nice. well maybe we should be enemies with everyone? damned if we do damned if we dont. like slightofjeff said, nothing America does or says will be acceptable in your eyes. your hard fucking head is long made up. the rest is pointless.
the thread is about how the US gov't lies to the public to invade third world countries.
Iraq is relevant. its not a separate issue, its THE issue.
its a separate issue. try and keep up. the US was justified in removing the Taliban and killing el queda members. thats the only thing I'm arguing for. I'm an against the Iraq war.
you're action results in a specific reaction. But that reaction is what you're telling everybody you're trying to prevent. But that action is repeated. so either the US gov't is incompetent or liars, and have been for 60 years.
mostly incompetent. but sometimes they get it right
look dude, 9/11 was an act of war. stop trying to downplay that fact. the Taliban knew exactly what OBL and el queda were doing yet did nothing to stop them. they allowed them to thrive. The Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time, hold responsibility. its a fucking shame what the innocent people have had to go through because of THEIR actions.
when Hitler invaded Poland , that was an act of war. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that was an act of war.
When a group of religious fanatics get together and commit a crime, its not an act of war.
and here you're assuming al-qaeda and the Taliban were working together, and it MAY be true, but even IF that is true, its no reason to invade. I'm not going to keep typing this, last time....
The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden up for trial BEFORE the invasion, offered to put him on trial, an international trial.
The invasion was not needed.
yea yea yea, thats all you people ever fall back on is this south America nonsense. take that asshole Chavez out of the mix, South America is doing just fine. well I guess you can blame Columbia's problems partly on us due to our huge coke demand. but that has nothing to do with the US government.
Chavez is is only a threat to capitalism. He has been a positve force for Venezuela. The US, on the other hand, has conquered the entire continent. You know how we get to choose between 2 militant capitalists on election day? Due to US involvement, that is the scope of their choices as well. NO fundamental change possible. venezuela was an exception, and its really a testament to a people's desire to be free.
i'm going to start a thread on US involvement in south and central america, so everyone can realize the scope of our involvement. and the violence used to accoomplish objectives.
the US is not an empire. and this is a very insulting statement to all Americans who value peace and charitable giving throughout the world.
things like the IMF and the WB are tools of this empire. if you can set a policy that over 160 countries have to follow, that's empire. what else do you call it? and when you look at the IMF record, you realize its not such a nice empire. it has Haiti exporting grain while its people are literally starving to death. Its forcing Colombian farmers to grow Coca becasue it was forced to export its coffee at reduced prices. 2 examples of thousands. Its an empire, why do you think the US is the 1 country on earth that is allowed to invade other countries? we are the world's superpower, and we are using that power.
100 years from now the American Empire will be compared to the Roman empire and others. guaranteed.
let me ask you this, who is the first on scene with help during a natural disaster anywhere in the world? we even helped Iran in 03 after a devastating earthquake.
you paint America with a very broad evil brush. fuck that
here' why i focus on the bad.
The United States is my country. ' Consent of the governed' dictates our leaders rule with our consent, as such their actions reflect on me. We the people allowed our government to invade Iraq, as an example. It was my fault, to some extent.
We allowed them to invade iraq, which isn't some "mistake'. A million Iraqi's have been killed by our gov't s hand and WE THE PEOPLE LET THEM DO IT. That's why i am focusing on the bad, so that maybe, enough people will wake the fuck up and prevent them from doing it again in the future. You're writing it off as something you don't support, but you don't seem to upset you're government is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people. that our empire rules with violence.
preventing war should be the number one priority, instead war has become an objective, a solution.
and fuck that.
but you make no mention of the animalistic behavior of those people. or is dragging human bodies through the streets acceptable for scum like that in your eyes? as long as its American forces being killed, you are perfectly fine with it.
you missed the point, as usual.
we don't know what our black ups special force guys are up too unless something like mogadishu happens.
It was shitty people had to die. it was shitty situation all around, for everyone. But US presence made it worse, whatever their stated objectives.
speaking of, do you even know why we were there in the first place? "Operation Restore Hope" to help feed the starving people of Somalia from a brutal warlord. yea, and we're the assholes.
restore hope, really? is that like "iraqi freedom"? we free the shit out of them. or free them with bombs.
i'm done buying the official pretexts, they're all bullshit. and you're a fool for believing them.
US marines and special forces gunned down close to 10,000 somalis those few days, they were opening fire on crowds of people and houses. that's not humanitarian intervention, as much as you want it to be. killing people does not equate to helping them, even if their lives are shitty.
nice. well maybe we should be enemies with everyone? damned if we do damned if we dont. like slightofjeff said, nothing America does or says will be acceptable in your eyes. your hard fucking head is long made up. the rest is pointless.
what are you talking about?
how about don't arm militant dictators. that's easy. that's not damned if you don't.
or how about don't invade third world countries every 5 years, i think that's the average these days. thats not damned if you don't.
focus on the bad to prevent it from happening in the future. since its partly my fault.
its a separate issue. try and keep up. the US was justified in removing the Taliban and killing el queda members. thats the only thing I'm arguing for. I'm an against the Iraq war.
your opinion isn't what the thread is about. its about US involvement based on lies. lets ask the guy who started it, maybe he can help us out here?
mostly incompetent. but sometimes they get it right
[/quote]
so our government is incompetent. why does that incompetence always lead to a similar environment, post involvement?
it almost always leads to corporate access to resources, US control over government, either through debt,, directly through force, or indirectly through shaping elections. end of the day its another client state and corporations have unlimited access to the countries resources.
Its why Chavez is a threat. He's using Venezuela's resources to benefit the people of Venezuela. Marx was right, capitalist empires will run out of resources eventually, its too much about consumption. that means every country on earth is a target for this empire.
and they sell us war any way they can. and patriots like you seem eager to buy it.
LOL scratch that. dumbest thing I've heard yet "9/11 was a pre-emptive strike"
def not the dumbest thing ive ever heard but certainlyone of the dumbest id say.
and do we know absolutely for sure that OBL is even in afghanistan. or if he ever was.. and if so exactly for how long???? just asking.
So, Bin Laden received news at the end of the summer that the U.S planned an invasion to oust the Taliban regime. Bin Laden then strikes on U.S soil. And to suggest that there was any connection is dumb? O.k.
Probably the attacks would have come at some point regardless. Though maybe the F.B.I could have followed up on the information they already possessed of the terrorist networks at flight schools across the U.S and the attacks could have been averted. Who knows?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Artic ... 45,00.html
'...Reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north. Throughout the spring, FBI information suggests terrorist suicide pilots were continuing to train at US aviation schools. But whatever contingency plan of theirs existed, no one pushed the terrorist button. By July 8, the Afghan opposition, Pakistani diplomats, and senior staff from the British Foreign Office, were gathering at Weston Park under UN auspices for private teach-ins on the Afghan situation.
And a couple of weeks later, another group gathered in a Berlin hotel. There, former state department official Lee Coldren passed on a message he had got from Bush officials: "I think 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." Karl Inderfurth was there too, and former ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simons...
The message that thus went back via Pakistan to the Taliban was that the hawks in Washington thought they were backing Bin Laden into a corner. Unfortunately, he decided to push his own button, instead.'
OFFS byrnzie. you know i like you and that i respect your opinion but i dont agree with you on this point. 9/11 was planned before the summer. for such a grandiose scheme it had to be. and lets not forget the twin towers were targetted unsuccessfully years before. this time the approach was different. and it worked(probbaly beyond anyones wildest nightmarish dreams). to think that OBL hears of a US plan to oust the taliban and then gatehrs his flock and says righto chaps the time has to piss on the empire cause ive heard... ... im sorry but i dont buy it.
the united states are always planning on attacking someone so to suggest that afghanistan was in their sights at this point in time is really no big wow if that is in fact the case. and we all know how fair weather the USs 'friendships' can be with certain organisations.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
when Hitler invaded Poland , that was an act of war. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that was an act of war.
When a group of religious fanatics get together and commit a crime, its not an act of war.
and here you're assuming al-qaeda and the Taliban were working together, and it MAY be true, but even IF that is true, its no reason to invade.
what the fuck is wrong with you? MAY be true? as in maybe? maybe not? this is why debating with you is like talking to a fucking wall. you simply dont understand. the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden. you are just so ignorant to this subject its scary. The Taliban and El queda are essentially the same thing. the same fighters from the 80s and 90s. the only difference is the Taliban attempted to stamp themselves with some form of legitimacy and call themselves a government. el queda did not, making it easier to recruit religious nutjobs from around the world.
The Taliban allowed El queda to train and plan attacks against the US. they could easily be considered the military arm of the Taliban. once the el queda attacked, the Taliban tried to save face by offering him up to some international court based on evidence. we supplied ample evidence which I've provided and you've ignored. giving bin laden to an international court was not an option. Mullah Omar played the tough guy and decided to take on the US.
on 9/11 OBL hit the US with the WORST attack this country has ever seen and declared war on the US. case fucking closed.
The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden up for trial BEFORE the invasion, offered to put him on trial, an international trial.
The invasion was not needed.
keep typing it all you want. it changes nothing. you are still dead fucking wrong. putting Osama on trial in an international court was NOT an option. he attacked America, that makes him OUR problem. giving in to the Taliban would have only potentially bought Osama Bin Laden more time to plan and carry out more attacks. its the governments job to protect us and prevent that from happening. The Taliban decided not to listen to us and paid a heavy price for that. invasion was the only option in preventing ANOTHER attack on America. its sad, but it wasn't a pre-emptive invasion. it was a defensive one.
when Hitler invaded Poland , that was an act of war. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, that was an act of war.
When a group of religious fanatics get together and commit a crime, its not an act of war.
and here you're assuming al-qaeda and the Taliban were working together, and it MAY be true, but even IF that is true, its no reason to invade.
what the fuck is wrong with you?
I use logic and facts to shape my opinions, unlike you. I can see how that might be frustrating.
MAY be true? as in maybe? maybe not? this is why debating with you is like talking to a fucking wall. you simply dont understand. the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden. you are just so ignorant to this subject its scary. The Taliban and El queda are essentially the same thing. the same fighters from the 80s and 90s. the only difference is the Taliban attempted to stamp themselves with some form of legitimacy and call themselves a government. el queda did not, making it easier to recruit religious nutjobs from around the world.
AGAIN. just because you say something over and over doesn't make it a fact.
I've posted a link to an interview with a US official working in Afghanistan who CNN interviewed as well, who claims that the Taliban thought of Al-Qaeda as a liability, years before 9/11.
So we have reports they were working together, and reports the Taliban was trying to give Osama Bin Ladin up to American intelligence agencies pre-9/11.
hence the "may" or "may not" be true.
I don't accept everything on blind faith, i require evidence. you should try it.
The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden up for trial BEFORE the invasion, offered to put him on trial, an international trial.
The invasion was not needed.
keep typing it all you want. it changes nothing. you are still dead fucking wrong. putting Osama on trial in an international court was NOT an option. he attacked America, that makes him OUR problem. giving in to the Taliban would have only potentially bought Osama Bin Laden more time to plan and carry out more attacks. its the governments job to protect us and prevent that from happening. The Taliban decided not to listen to us and paid a heavy price for that. invasion was the only option in preventing ANOTHER attack on America. its sad, but it wasn't a pre-emptive invasion. it was a defensive one.
to claim that the Taliban and el queda aren't one in the same is the most illogically thing I've heard in a long time. and completely lacking any fact whatsoever. so yes, debating with you is very frustrating becuase you simply have no fucking clue as to what is really going on.
AGAIN. just because you say something over and over doesn't make it a fact.
I've posted a link to an interview with a US official working in Afghanistan who CNN interviewed as well, who claims that the Taliban thought of Al-Qaeda as a liability, years before 9/11.
So we have reports they were working together, and reports the Taliban was trying to give Osama Bin Ladin up to American intelligence agencies pre-9/11.
hence the "may" or "may not" be true.
I don't accept everything on blind faith, i require evidence. you should try it.
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Artic ... 45,00.html
Attack and counter-attack
Evidence suggests that Washington had planned to move against Bin Laden in the summer. Was the attack on America a pre-emptive strike?
David Leigh -Guardian
Wednesday September 26, 2001
'Did Bin Laden decide to get his retaliation in first? And did the new Bush administration make a horrible miscalculation by taking an ill-informed, "tough guy" approach to their fanatical Islamist opponent ?
These are the troubling questions raised by the Guardian's disclosure at the weekend that the Taliban received a specific warning - passed during secret diplomacy in Berlin in July - that the Bush team had prepared a new plan to topple the entire Afghan regime militarily unless they handed Bin Laden over.
If it turns out that our future safety is in the hands of those who might possibly have averted the horror of September 11 by behaving more cautiously, then we owe it to history to establish the true record. But we can be certain that no one presently in charge in Washington will want to do that.
The Guardian's disclosures are proving controversial. Some analysts say Bin Laden had evidently prepared his suicide pilots up to a year beforehand, thus making Washington's behaviour in July beside the point. Others ask why US threats of military strikes in July should be of any more concern to Bin Laden than previous episodes, such as Clinton's rocketing of his camps.
We need to assess the evidence of the Bush team's foreign policy dealings this year to find the answers. This is made easier by the fact that two major players have now come out of the woodwork.
First, President Putin made clear he had tried to egg on the previous Clinton administration - without success - to act militarily against the whole Taliban regime: "Washington's reaction at the time really amazed me. They shrugged their shoulders and said matter-of-factly: 'We can't do anything because the Taliban does not want to turn him over'."
And then Clinton himself disclosed what limited - and equally unsuccessful - action he had been prepared to attempt by secret executive order. He said on Saturday: "I authorised the arrest and, if necessary, the killing of Osama bin Laden and we actually made contact with a group in Afghanistan to do it." Speaking to reporters in New York, he added: "We also trained commandos for a possible ground action, but we did not have the necessary intelligence to do it in the way we would have had to do it."
So Bush came into office this January against a background of American (and Clintonian) failure. While running for president the previous October, he said he was "saddened and angered" by the "cowardly attack" on the destroyer the USS Cole, and added: "There must be consequences."
As the outgoing senior official at the state department in charge of Afghanistan, Karl Inderfurth, remarked: "The Bush administration will have many urgent problems to face and, unfortunately, Afghanistan will be one of those because of terrorism and Bin Laden... Those problems are getting worse".
Although support from Pakistan, its southern neighbour, seemed to render the regime invulnerable, there were signs early this year that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via the wild former Soviet republics.
A US department of defence official, Dr Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January. The Guardian's Felicity Lawrence established that US Rangers were also training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan. There were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana.
And US General Tommy Franks visited Dushanbe on May 16, where he conveyed a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country". On offer was non-lethal military aid. Tajikistan used the occasion to apply to join Nato's Partnership for Peace.
Shortly afterwards the Republican senator from Alabama who is vice-chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Richard C Shelby, returned from a Gulf tour to bullishly tell the Washington Post that US counterterrorism officials were winning the war against Bin Laden. "He's on the run, and I think he will continue to be on the run, because we are not going to let up." He went on: "I don't think you could say he's got us hunkered down. I believe he's more hunkered down... He knows he's hunted."
Reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north. Throughout the spring, FBI information suggests terrorist suicide pilots were continuing to train at US aviation schools. But whatever contingency plan of theirs existed, no one pushed the terrorist button. By July 8, the Afghan opposition, Pakistani diplomats, and senior staff from the British Foreign Office, were gathering at Weston Park under UN auspices for private teach-ins on the Afghan situation.
And a couple of weeks later, another group gathered in a Berlin hotel. There, former state department official Lee Coldren passed on a message he had got from Bush officials: "I think 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." Karl Inderfurth was there too, and former ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simons.
The chilling quality of this private warning was that it came - according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik - accompanied by specific details of how Bush would suceed where Clinton had failed.
The hawks in Washington could count on the connivance of Russian troops, and on facilities in such places as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, already host to US military advisers.
The message that thus went back via Pakistan to the Taliban was that the hawks in Washington thought they were backing Bin Laden into a corner. Unfortunately, he decided to push his own button, instead.'
O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Posted: 2:12 AM EST (0712 GMT)
(CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."
O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.
The CBS report is scheduled to be broadcast Sunday night; the book is to be released Tuesday by publisher Simon & Schuster.
Suskind said O'Neill and other White House insiders gave him documents showing that in early 2001 the administration was already considering the use of force to oust Saddam, as well as planning for the aftermath.
"There are memos," Suskind told the network. "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'"
Suskind cited a Pentagon document titled "Foreign Suitors For Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," which, he said, outlines areas of oil exploration. "It talks about contractors around the world from ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."
In the book, O'Neill is quoted as saying he was surprised that no one in a National Security Council meeting asked why Iraq should be invaded.
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" O'Neill said...
"I've always said the president had failed to make the case to go to war with Iraq," Dean said. "My Democratic opponents reached a different conclusion, and in the process, they failed to ask the difficult questions. Now, after the fact, we are learning new information about the true circumstances of the Bush administration's push for war, this time, by one of his former Cabinet secretaries.
"The country deserves to know -- and the president needs to answer -- why the American people were presented with misleading or manufactured intelligence as to why going to war with Iraq was necessary."
Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts also issued a statement. In 2002, Kerry voted to support a resolution giving Bush authority to wage war against Iraq if it didn't dismantle its presumed illegal weapons program.
"These are very serious charges. It would mean [Bush administration officials] were dead-set on going to war alone since almost the day they took office and deliberately lied to the American people, Congress, and the world," Kerry said. "It would mean that for purely ideological reasons they planned on putting American troops in a shooting gallery, occupying an Arab country almost alone. The White House needs to answer these charges truthfully because they threaten to shatter [its] already damaged credibility as never before."
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The Afghanistan War was Planned
Months Before the 9/11 Attacks
Jane's Defense - India Joined US led plan against Afghanistan in March 2001.
"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"
By Rahul Bedi
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime. [janes.com]
From April 2001, yet more indications that a mideast war was planned long before 9/11.
India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.
In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.
India in anti-Taliban military plan
India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.
By Our Correspondent
26 June 2001: 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 Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.
Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.
Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.
Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month. [indiareacts.com]
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.
US 'planned attack on Taleban'
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
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 Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban 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.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban. [BBC]
MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. [MSNBC]
..............................................................................................................................
In the summer of 2001, while the American media kept the people distracted with "All Condit All The Time", the US Government was informing other governments that we would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October.
How lucky for our government that just when they are planning to invade another country, for the express purpose of removing that government, a convenient "terrorist" attack occurs to anger Americans into support for an invasion.
whatreallyhappened.com
But the war in Afghanistan hadn't been planned prior to 9/11, had it Jlew?
You conveniently forgot to mention the BBC, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, The Guardian, The Washington Post, e.t.c., e.t.c, but then this wouldn't suit your purpose of ignoring the facts and trying to derail this thread with your usual tactics.
def not the dumbest thing ive ever heard but certainlyone of the dumbest id say.
and do we know absolutely for sure that OBL is even in afghanistan. or if he ever was.. and if so exactly for how long???? just asking.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So, Bin Laden received news at the end of the summer that the U.S planned an invasion to oust the Taliban regime. Bin Laden then strikes on U.S soil. And to suggest that there was any connection is dumb? O.k.
Probably the attacks would have come at some point regardless. Though maybe the F.B.I could have followed up on the information they already possessed of the terrorist networks at flight schools across the U.S and the attacks could have been averted. Who knows?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Artic ... 45,00.html
'...Reliable western military sources say a US contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north. Throughout the spring, FBI information suggests terrorist suicide pilots were continuing to train at US aviation schools. But whatever contingency plan of theirs existed, no one pushed the terrorist button. By July 8, the Afghan opposition, Pakistani diplomats, and senior staff from the British Foreign Office, were gathering at Weston Park under UN auspices for private teach-ins on the Afghan situation.
And a couple of weeks later, another group gathered in a Berlin hotel. There, former state department official Lee Coldren passed on a message he had got from Bush officials: "I think 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." Karl Inderfurth was there too, and former ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simons...
The message that thus went back via Pakistan to the Taliban was that the hawks in Washington thought they were backing Bin Laden into a corner. Unfortunately, he decided to push his own button, instead.'
no it wasnt. was it talked about it? sure maybe. and rightfully so. how soon you forgot America was already under attack from these people throughout the Clinton years. WTC, Cole, Africa.....
but I'm confused, aren't you a truther? a firm believer that 9/11 was an inside job. I remember you posted crap about how the American government planted bombs inside WTC. you gave up that theory? now it really was OBL, but now it was a justified "pre-emptive" strike eh?
I wonder what the whackjob websites will come up next, only for you to suck it up as fact yet again.
I never said anything of the sort. I said there's ample evidence to show that the U.S had prior knowledge of the attacks and chose to do nothing about it. I also mentioned the fact that Cheney was put in overall command of NORAD just prior to 9/11 and that it's a funny coincidence that the F16's were ordered not to stand down on that particular day, despite having been scrambled approx 100 times already that year as part of their routine procedure, e.t.c.
I said nothing about bombs being planted by the government. But if you insist I did, them great. Go ahead and find these posts of mine and paste them here.
Whackjob websites? Like CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, The BBC, and The Washington Post, e.t.c.?
you are a truther until a new theory comes along. I'm sure the AJ crowd will come up with something new soon.
Sure, whatever you say Jlew.
trying something new then "thats bullshit" good job.
how about responding to the valid points I make? or not man enough to say I'm right?
That's right Jlew, you're a big tough man.
Anyway, I provided evidence that the American government planned to invade Afghanistan at least a year before 9/11. You've done nothing to refute this other than to say 'No they didn't'.
'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.'
wrong. actually this was my response. you actually quoted it, but I'll post it again because you seemed to ignore it..
That's funny, I could swear that you suggested just the other day that the American government didn't have time to wait for the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden, and yet now you're drawing attention to the fact that Bin Laden attacked America as early as 1993.
So, either it was o.k for them to wait 8 years to get Bin Laden or they couldn't wait even one day to get their hands on him? Which was it?
I never said it was ok for the US to wait 8 years. I think Clinton failed after the 93 attacks. he was too busy dealing with the blowjob stuff.
and after 9/11 happened, we did the right thing by removing the Taliban and breaking up el quedas safe haven. the Taliban was given evidence against bin laden, they chose war.
So after 9/11 it was a matter of the utmost urgency to go to war despite the Taliban's offer to hand over OBL, but after 1993 your government did nothing because it was too engrossed in the details of Bill Clinton's blow job?
Hmm, O.k.
yes absolutely. and you conveniently left out the stipulations the Taliban put in. time to negotiate was over, war had already begun.
yes absolutely. the attack in 93 wasn't taken seriously enough. huge mistake on Clinton's part. my guess is you know little to nothing about the Clinton years and the Monika Lewinsky scandal. no surprise there
the time to negotiate is never over.
war is a terrrible solution anyway. its not very good at fighting terrorism. it may be impossible. the cause of terrorism, one of them, is the US has troops in arab lands, and is backing some shady governments over there.
so to fight that they invade 2 more arab countries and send in more troops. putting gas on the fire....but most people tand to see it as black and white-"you attacked us now were gonna kick your ass" kind of thing. which will ead us to more terror attacks in the future, guaranteed.
the US government- knows all of this. Which tells us the goal of the United States government may not necessarily be to fight terrorism.
we were attacked. we were at risk of more attacks. sorry, but time to negotiate ended when they attacked FIRST.
why is that a problem? we have troops in almost every country on earth...peacefully.
who do you consider shady besides Israel?
again, stick to the topic. we are talking about the Taliban, not Iraq. with Iraq, I agree, bad idea. but back in October 2001, removing the Taliban and going after el queda militarily was the only option to protect American citizens.
LOL ok. like what? lemme guess, world domination mauhahahahaha
9/11 wasn't an act of war. why should the people of afghanistan suffer because a few of their whacko neighbors decided to piss off the world's military superpower?
but its true. There is always time for diplomacy. even in the middle of WWII...your just war, diplomacy was still going strong. as it always should be. you seriously need to read up on some history., NOTHING about US involvement is peaceful. Do you know anything about the CIA regarding South America? yeah, teaching guys how to torture, then installing htem as dictators, not peaceful. Overthrowing democratically elected govt's with violence, not peaceful. its all public record now.
In Arab countries the story isn't as clear, its too recent. but overthrowing the government in Iran, invading Iraq, propping up the very unpopular saudi royal family, arming turkey, arming israel,etc.
nothing peaceful about this empire.
And who knows what other dozen country our special forces are operating in right now. the only way we'll know is in 50 years when all the classified stuff is released, or if they fuck-up like they did in Mogadishu. hard to deny involvement when your soldiers bodies are being dragged through the streets on national television.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan-off the top of my head. the list is actually in the dozens worldwide, with countries like Turkey and Columbia.
the thread is about how the US gov't lies to the public to invade third world countries.
Iraq is relevant. its not a separate issue, its THE issue.
well what do you think?
you're action results in a specific reaction. But that reaction is what you're telling everybody you're trying to prevent. But that action is repeated. so either the US gov't is incompetent or liars, and have been for 60 years.
look dude, 9/11 was an act of war. stop trying to downplay that fact. the Taliban knew exactly what OBL and el queda were doing yet did nothing to stop them. they allowed them to thrive. The Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan at the time, hold responsibility. its a fucking shame what the innocent people have had to go through because of THEIR actions.
war had begun. it is the job of the American government to protect its citizens from more attacks. diplomacy was off the table. the people that attacked us needed to be defeated.
yea ok. do you have troops in Japan, Germany, South Korea, Italy, UK?? is their presence peaceful? thought so.
yea yea yea, thats all you people ever fall back on is this south America nonsense. take that asshole Chavez out of the mix, South America is doing just fine. well I guess you can blame Columbia's problems partly on us due to our huge coke demand. but that has nothing to do with the US government.
yea, I'll give ya that. we have not scored well in the middle east. I hope that changes
the US is not an empire. and this is a very insulting statement to all Americans who value peace and charitable giving throughout the world.
let me ask you this, who is the first on scene with help during a natural disaster anywhere in the world? we even helped Iran in 03 after a devastating earthquake.
you paint America with a very broad evil brush. fuck that
but you make no mention of the animalistic behavior of those people. or is dragging human bodies through the streets acceptable for scum like that in your eyes? as long as its American forces being killed, you are perfectly fine with it.
speaking of, do you even know why we were there in the first place? "Operation Restore Hope" to help feed the starving people of Somalia from a brutal warlord. yea, and we're the assholes.
nice. well maybe we should be enemies with everyone? damned if we do damned if we dont. like slightofjeff said, nothing America does or says will be acceptable in your eyes. your hard fucking head is long made up. the rest is pointless.
its a separate issue. try and keep up. the US was justified in removing the Taliban and killing el queda members. thats the only thing I'm arguing for. I'm an against the Iraq war.
mostly incompetent. but sometimes they get it right
When a group of religious fanatics get together and commit a crime, its not an act of war.
and here you're assuming al-qaeda and the Taliban were working together, and it MAY be true, but even IF that is true, its no reason to invade. I'm not going to keep typing this, last time....
The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden up for trial BEFORE the invasion, offered to put him on trial, an international trial.
The invasion was not needed.
Chavez is is only a threat to capitalism. He has been a positve force for Venezuela. The US, on the other hand, has conquered the entire continent. You know how we get to choose between 2 militant capitalists on election day? Due to US involvement, that is the scope of their choices as well. NO fundamental change possible. venezuela was an exception, and its really a testament to a people's desire to be free.
i'm going to start a thread on US involvement in south and central america, so everyone can realize the scope of our involvement. and the violence used to accoomplish objectives.
things like the IMF and the WB are tools of this empire. if you can set a policy that over 160 countries have to follow, that's empire. what else do you call it? and when you look at the IMF record, you realize its not such a nice empire. it has Haiti exporting grain while its people are literally starving to death. Its forcing Colombian farmers to grow Coca becasue it was forced to export its coffee at reduced prices. 2 examples of thousands. Its an empire, why do you think the US is the 1 country on earth that is allowed to invade other countries? we are the world's superpower, and we are using that power.
100 years from now the American Empire will be compared to the Roman empire and others. guaranteed.
here' why i focus on the bad.
The United States is my country. ' Consent of the governed' dictates our leaders rule with our consent, as such their actions reflect on me. We the people allowed our government to invade Iraq, as an example. It was my fault, to some extent.
We allowed them to invade iraq, which isn't some "mistake'. A million Iraqi's have been killed by our gov't s hand and WE THE PEOPLE LET THEM DO IT. That's why i am focusing on the bad, so that maybe, enough people will wake the fuck up and prevent them from doing it again in the future. You're writing it off as something you don't support, but you don't seem to upset you're government is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people. that our empire rules with violence.
preventing war should be the number one priority, instead war has become an objective, a solution.
and fuck that.
you missed the point, as usual.
we don't know what our black ups special force guys are up too unless something like mogadishu happens.
It was shitty people had to die. it was shitty situation all around, for everyone. But US presence made it worse, whatever their stated objectives. restore hope, really? is that like "iraqi freedom"? we free the shit out of them. or free them with bombs.
i'm done buying the official pretexts, they're all bullshit. and you're a fool for believing them.
US marines and special forces gunned down close to 10,000 somalis those few days, they were opening fire on crowds of people and houses. that's not humanitarian intervention, as much as you want it to be. killing people does not equate to helping them, even if their lives are shitty.
what are you talking about?
how about don't arm militant dictators. that's easy. that's not damned if you don't.
or how about don't invade third world countries every 5 years, i think that's the average these days. thats not damned if you don't.
focus on the bad to prevent it from happening in the future. since its partly my fault.
your opinion isn't what the thread is about. its about US involvement based on lies. lets ask the guy who started it, maybe he can help us out here?
[/quote]
so our government is incompetent. why does that incompetence always lead to a similar environment, post involvement?
it almost always leads to corporate access to resources, US control over government, either through debt,, directly through force, or indirectly through shaping elections. end of the day its another client state and corporations have unlimited access to the countries resources.
Its why Chavez is a threat. He's using Venezuela's resources to benefit the people of Venezuela. Marx was right, capitalist empires will run out of resources eventually, its too much about consumption. that means every country on earth is a target for this empire.
and they sell us war any way they can. and patriots like you seem eager to buy it.
OFFS byrnzie. you know i like you and that i respect your opinion but i dont agree with you on this point. 9/11 was planned before the summer. for such a grandiose scheme it had to be. and lets not forget the twin towers were targetted unsuccessfully years before. this time the approach was different. and it worked(probbaly beyond anyones wildest nightmarish dreams). to think that OBL hears of a US plan to oust the taliban and then gatehrs his flock and says righto chaps the time has to piss on the empire cause ive heard... ... im sorry but i dont buy it.
the united states are always planning on attacking someone so to suggest that afghanistan was in their sights at this point in time is really no big wow if that is in fact the case. and we all know how fair weather the USs 'friendships' can be with certain organisations.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what the fuck is wrong with you? MAY be true? as in maybe? maybe not? this is why debating with you is like talking to a fucking wall. you simply dont understand. the Taliban were harboring Bin Laden. you are just so ignorant to this subject its scary. The Taliban and El queda are essentially the same thing. the same fighters from the 80s and 90s. the only difference is the Taliban attempted to stamp themselves with some form of legitimacy and call themselves a government. el queda did not, making it easier to recruit religious nutjobs from around the world.
The Taliban allowed El queda to train and plan attacks against the US. they could easily be considered the military arm of the Taliban. once the el queda attacked, the Taliban tried to save face by offering him up to some international court based on evidence. we supplied ample evidence which I've provided and you've ignored. giving bin laden to an international court was not an option. Mullah Omar played the tough guy and decided to take on the US.
on 9/11 OBL hit the US with the WORST attack this country has ever seen and declared war on the US. case fucking closed.
keep typing it all you want. it changes nothing. you are still dead fucking wrong. putting Osama on trial in an international court was NOT an option. he attacked America, that makes him OUR problem. giving in to the Taliban would have only potentially bought Osama Bin Laden more time to plan and carry out more attacks. its the governments job to protect us and prevent that from happening. The Taliban decided not to listen to us and paid a heavy price for that. invasion was the only option in preventing ANOTHER attack on America. its sad, but it wasn't a pre-emptive invasion. it was a defensive one.
AGAIN. just because you say something over and over doesn't make it a fact.
I've posted a link to an interview with a US official working in Afghanistan who CNN interviewed as well, who claims that the Taliban thought of Al-Qaeda as a liability, years before 9/11.
So we have reports they were working together, and reports the Taliban was trying to give Osama Bin Ladin up to American intelligence agencies pre-9/11.
hence the "may" or "may not" be true.
I don't accept everything on blind faith, i require evidence. you should try it.
your solution to crime is more crime?
interesting.
defending oneself from being attacked and killed is no crime.