The Panama Deception

catefrances

jlew24asu wrote:

catefrances wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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

of course the taliban were defiant. if you came to my door without evidence and said hand over your son, i would tell you to go fuck yourself. that is exactly what afghanistan did. so what do the US do??... the only thing the know how to do, they hit afghanistan with superior weaponry. those who were responsilbe for the vile acts of 9/11 were predominantly saudis.

unreal. another person who thinks the US should have sat down and let the Taliban take its time and review our "evidence" that OSL was responsible. meanwhile, our cities burn with black smoke and empty shoes are found in the streets.

but no no....we should give in to the Taliban's demands and let them take their sweet old time going over evidence. un fucking real.

and again with the Saudi reference, I love it. so we should have attacked Saudi then? no? then why bring it up? you seem to be implying it was actually Saudi Arabia who is responsible, not the Taliban or el queda. the hijckers nationality is so fucking irreverent but it continues to be brought up. mind boggling. My guess is OSL picked these men and their ethnicity on purpose. simply so you can eat up. worked like a charm

and I'm not talking about being defiant in the way you are. I'm talking about defiance in terms that they were ready to fight America head to head.

OMFG!! is not the US justice system founded on due process, of which concrete irrefutable evidence is a major factor??? if a country came knocking n the white house door and delivered the same demand that the US gave kabul, i am dead certain the bush administration would have laughed in their face and told them to fuck off.

where did i say the US should have sat on their fat arse waiting for afghanistan to 'make up their mind'?? what is it exactly that they had to make up their mind about?? the US provided no evidence other then their own word and given their history thats hardly beyond reproach now is it???. the worst evidence you can have in regards to a crime scene is eye witnesses. so excuse me if the word of the USA wasnt taken as gospel. JFC im not saying al qaeda werent responsible for 9/11, all im saying is give me some fucking objective evidence.

you and i are not on opposite sides here jlew. the events of 9/11 were beyond disgraceful, but it wasnt the first time a terrorist attack had happened(not even on US soil). i understand the scale was without precedent and that until that morning the US thought themselves invincible.

as for the taliban being defiant in reagrds to them fighting america head to head well id have to say they were right about that wouldnt you cause the US is still mired in afghanistan with no obvious end. should not the events of the soviet invasion given the US some kind of heads up in that regard?? or did they think in their usual arrogant manner that their might could overwhelm everything???

you know, were never gonna agree on this.

jlew24asu

catefrances wrote:

OMFG!! is not the US justice system founded on due process, of which concrete irrefutable evidence is a major factor??? if a country came knocking n the white house door and delivered the same demand that the US gave kabul, i am dead certain the bush administration would have laughed in their face and told them to fuck off.

where did i say the US should have sat on their fat arse waiting for afghanistan to 'make up their mind'?? what is it exactly that they had to make up their mind about?? the US provided no evidence other then their own word and given their history thats hardly beyond reproach now is it???. the worst evidence you can have in regards to a crime scene is eye witnesses. so excuse me if the word of the USA wasnt taken as gospel. JFC im not saying al qaeda werent responsible for 9/11, all im saying is give me some fucking objective evidence.

first of all there was PLENTY of evidence. we had the names of the hijackers and their affilations to el queda. OSL is the LEADER of el queda. that right there is MORE then enough evidence. but you want "due process" with the Taliban? what the fuck is that?

and you didnt say the US should have sat on their ass waiting for Afganistan. but you said we need to provide some heaping pile of evidence to the Taliban. what do you think they would do with this so called evidence? it would surely take them some time to go over this and decide if it was worthy right? what if they decided it wasn't enough evidence? or decided the US didn't prove its case. then what? hmmmm? please tell me.

bottom fucking line is we had enough evidence to conclude the OSL and his network were responsible for the attacks. time for negotiation with the Taliban was over. I hope you understand now

catefrances wrote:

you and i are not on opposite sides here jlew. the events of 9/11 were beyond disgraceful, but it wasnt the first time a terrorist attack had happened(not even on US soil). i understand the scale was without precedent and that until that morning the US thought themselves invincible.

I agree, thats partly why the attacks were successful. we let our guard down.

catefrances wrote:

as for the taliban being defiant in reagrds to them fighting america head to head well id have to say they were right about that

really? cuz here you were singing a different tune

catefrances wrote:

you think the taliban were arrogant to think they could defeat the US, despite the fact that it wasnt them who orchestrated 9/11??

seriously if you believe that, and i know that you do, then you have no clue what the purpose of terrorism is and therefore they have defeated you.

----

catefrances wrote:

wouldnt you cause the US is still mired in afghanistan with no obvious end. should not the events of the soviet invasion given the US some kind of heads up in that regard?? or did they think in their usual arrogant manner that their might could overwhelm everything???

you know, were never gonna agree on this.

that Taliban were in power for all of 2 week after the US came in. The Taliban and el queda no longer had safe haven to do as they pleased.

sure, the Taliban hide in caves and blended into the civilian population. and also went into an inaccessible area of Pakistan. I agree, they can not be defeated in that sense. but we took away the Taliban's grip on an entire country as well as a free open place for el queda to operate.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

catefrances wrote:

OMFG!! is not the US justice system founded on due process, of which concrete irrefutable evidence is a major factor??? if a country came knocking n the white house door and delivered the same demand that the US gave kabul, i am dead certain the bush administration would have laughed in their face and told them to fuck off.

where did i say the US should have sat on their fat arse waiting for afghanistan to 'make up their mind'?? what is it exactly that they had to make up their mind about?? the US provided no evidence other then their own word and given their history thats hardly beyond reproach now is it???. the worst evidence you can have in regards to a crime scene is eye witnesses. so excuse me if the word of the USA wasnt taken as gospel. JFC im not saying al qaeda werent responsible for 9/11, all im saying is give me some fucking objective evidence.

first of all there was PLENTY of evidence. we had the names of the hijackers and their affilations to el queda. OSL is the LEADER of el queda. that right there is MORE then enough evidence. but you want "due process" with the Taliban? what the fuck is that?

that isn't "more than enough evidence". due process is required, especially in cases that could lead to war. - more important in this case. thousands of innocent lives could have been saved.

But the US prefers violence, it always has the upper hand in that game.

and you didnt say the US should have sat on their ass waiting for Afganistan. but you said we need to provide some heaping pile of evidence to the Taliban. what do you think they would do with this so called evidence? it would surely take them some time to go over this and decide if it was worthy right? what if they decided it wasn't enough evidence? or decided the US didn't prove its case. then what? hmmmm? please tell me.

here's where reality splits from your perception.

The Taliban offered to give Bin Ladin up for trial pre-invasion, with 1 stipulation, that he not not be tried in US courts. that's it. we could have had him years ago, no invasion necessary, the end.

They chose to invade instead, as usual.

bottom fucking line is we had enough evidence to conclude the OSL and his network were responsible for the attacks. time for negotiation with the Taliban was over. I hope you understand now

i would like to see or read about this evidence, if you can find it.

that Taliban were in power for all of 2 week after the US came in. The Taliban and el queda no longer had safe haven to do as they pleased.

sure, the Taliban hide in caves and blended into the civilian population. and also went into an inaccessible area of Pakistan. I agree, they can not be defeated in that sense. but we took away the Taliban's grip on an entire country as well as a free open place for el queda to operate.

you're grouping the Taliban and Bin Ladin in the same boat, when reality doesn't support your perception. According to high level US officials, who have recently come out about this....the Taliban was tired of having this liability in their country, al-qaeda. They set up repeated meetings with US intelligence agencies and offered to hand over OBL BEFORE 9/11. The wanted nothing to do with him.

Kabir Mohabbat is the guy coming out about all of this, ABC has done a story on him.

"Mohabbat says the Taliban were flown to Quetta in two C-130s, [4 days after 9/11]. There they agreed to the three demands sought by the US team: 1. Immediate handover of bin Laden; 2. Extradition of foreigners in Al Qaeda who were wanted in their home countries; 3. shut-down of bin Laden's bases and training camps. Mohabbat says the Taliban agreed to all three demands."


The US chose violence, all of the negotiating wore thin. They weighed their options, and realizing they could have ALL of Afghanistan, chose force. given US history regarding semi resource rich defenseless third world countries., its really no surprise they chose to invade.

jlew24asu

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

that isn't "more than enough evidence". due process is required, especially in cases that could lead to war. - more important in this case. thousands of innocent lives could have been saved.

what do you mean lead to war? war had already begun.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

But the US prefers violence, it always has the upper hand in that game.

war was brought to us. the war was not started by us. its the Taliban and el queda who prefer violence. its all they know.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

here's where reality splits from your perception.

The Taliban offered to give Bin Ladin up for trial pre-invasion, with 1 stipulation, that he not not be tried in US courts. that's it. we could have had him years ago, no invasion necessary, the end.

They chose to invade instead, as usual.

again, WE WERE ATTACKED. our country and citizens were at risk of dying. The Taliban was in no position to give us stipulations. they had a choice, either give Bin Laden and all his leaders to us unconditionally or be invaded. The Taliban made their choice.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

i would like to see or read about this evidence, if you can find it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al Qaeda, by accessing their intelligence agency files. The New York Times reported on September 12 that: "Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday’s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams, and began tracing the recent movements of the men." FBI agents in Florida investigating the hijackers quickly "descended on flight schools, neighborhoods and restaurants in pursuit of leads." At one flight school, "students said investigators were there within hours of Tuesday’s attacks."[11] The Washington Post later reported that "In the hours after Tuesday’s bombings, investigators searched their files on [Satam] Al Suqami and [Ahmed] Alghamdi, noted the pair’s ties to [Nabil] al-Marabh and launched a hunt for him."[12]

On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about the possible nationalities and aliases of many.[13]

On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies also intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.[14] It was quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. Although he denied the attacks at first, Osama bin Laden has since admitted full and sole responsibility for the attacks.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

that isn't "more than enough evidence". due process is required, especially in cases that could lead to war. - more important in this case. thousands of innocent lives could have been saved.

what do you mean lead to war? war had already begun.

war began when the US invaded Afghanistan. Not on 9/11. 9/11 was a terrorist attack, a crime, not an act of war.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

But the US prefers violence, it always has the upper hand in that game.

war was brought to us. the war was not started by us. its the Taliban and el queda who prefer violence. its all they know.

The Taliban and al-qaeda were not on the same team. The Taliban was apparen;ty so anti-Osama that they were going to lure him into a trap set by US intelligence officials. Yeah, they weren't working together.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

here's where reality splits from your perception.

The Taliban offered to give Bin Ladin up for trial pre-invasion, with 1 stipulation, that he not not be tried in US courts. that's it. we could have had him years ago, no invasion necessary, the end.

They chose to invade instead, as usual.

again, WE WERE ATTACKED. our country and citizens were at risk of dying. The Taliban was in no position to give us stipulations. they had a choice, either give Bin Laden and all his leaders to us unconditionally or be invaded. The Taliban made their choice.

The Taliban did not attack us. nor did the majority of people from Afghanistan. A few individuals inside that country committed a crime. that's it.

there never is a good reason to invade, but you're setting the bar kind of low here on this one aren't you? what if some european's got together and contaminated LA's water supply or something and killed a bunch of people. using this precedent, the US has a perfectly legitimate reason to invade Europe.

We, as a world community, need to make it harder to resort to violence, not easier. we are trying to avoid WW3.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

i would like to see or read about this evidence, if you can find it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM

The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al Qaeda, by accessing their intelligence agency files. The New York Times reported on September 12 that: "Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday’s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams, and began tracing the recent movements of the men." FBI agents in Florida investigating the hijackers quickly "descended on flight schools, neighborhoods and restaurants in pursuit of leads." At one flight school, "students said investigators were there within hours of Tuesday’s attacks."[11] The Washington Post later reported that "In the hours after Tuesday’s bombings, investigators searched their files on [Satam] Al Suqami and [Ahmed] Alghamdi, noted the pair’s ties to [Nabil] al-Marabh and launched a hunt for him."[12]

On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about the possible nationalities and aliases of many.[13]

On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies also intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.[14] It was quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. Although he denied the attacks at first, Osama bin Laden has since admitted full and sole responsibility for the attacks.

?

that's it?

a million people slept in tents last winter because of a phone call?

wonderful.

jlew24asu

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

war began when the US invaded Afghanistan. Not on 9/11. 9/11 was a terrorist attack, a crime, not an act of war.

wrong. this is absolutely false. America was attacked, you are correct. thats when the war began.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

But the US prefers violence, it always has the upper hand in that game.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

The Taliban and al-qaeda were not on the same team. The Taliban was apparen;ty so anti-Osama that they were going to lure him into a trap set by US intelligence officials. Yeah, they weren't working together.

bullshit. if the Taliban were so anti Osama they would have never let him set up shop in the first place. and they would have no problem turning him over unconditionally. they choose not to and Mullah Omar wanted war and thought he could defeat the US

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

The Taliban did not attack us. nor did the majority of people from Afghanistan. A few individuals inside that country committed a crime. that's it.

thats it?! wow

if it were all so simple in your tiny little head. The Taliban allowed el queda to thrive and then tried to set conditions when the US came knocking. again, they choose not to and Mullah Omar wanted war and thought he could defeat the US.

and I love how you stick up for the Taliban as if they are some innocent entitny. are you aware that Pakistan is at war with them right now? do you have any idea who the Taliban even are? thats a serious question. we did the world a favor by removing them from power in 01.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

there never is a good reason to invade, but you're setting the bar kind of low here on this one aren't you?

um no I'm not. War was brought to Americans shores. I'd say the bar is set really fucking high. although we certainly lowered come Iraq but thats a different story.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

what if some european's got together and contaminated LA's water supply or something and killed a bunch of people. using this precedent, the US has a perfectly legitimate reason to invade Europe.

define a bunch of people? 10, 20, thousands? millions?

"Europe" isn't a country. now say a bunch of French guys did this, gave their group a name, and were supported by the French government. this group was protected and allowed to train, prepare, and execute such attacks from within France. they executed this attack and planned others...France refuses to turn over and shut down the group. oh, and lets also pretend that the French government is a torturous extremist religious group who torture and kill those who oppose them.

yea, its safe to say we'd do something about them and rightfully so.

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

?

that's it?

a million people slept in tents last winter because of a phone call?

wonderful.

nice job marginalizing guilt. you wanted evidence, there it is.

and a million people slept in tents because the scum Taliban and el qeuda decided to take on the US. they weren't interested in what damage that would do to their own people. unfucking real how confused you are and how you can support the Taliban.

slightofjeff

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.

Commy

slightofjeff wrote:

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.

war should be the last resort....for the United States, too often, its the first. and fuck that. that needs to stop.

one way to do that is to look at the facts, know your history.


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.

by the way, not even a confession is enough to convict somebody, you need evidence. an intercepted call is not enough.

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.

slightofjeff

Kotov Syndrome wrote:

slightofjeff wrote:

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?

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.

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.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

I asked if you felt they were legitimate targets

I answered your question.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

wow yet another one lacking comprehension skills.

Nice.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

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.”...

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

if it were all so simple in your tiny little head....


unfucking real how confused you are

Nice.

Byrnzie

slightofjeff wrote:

OBL went on TV like they next day and confessed.

No he didn't.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

if it were all so simple in your tiny little head....


unfucking real how confused you are

Nice.

who are you? the MT police now? one too many warnings I see? what a joke

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

Byrnzie wrote:

I wonder why America is the most hated country in the world?

America is not the most hated country country in the world. even though you like to think it is.

Byrnzie wrote:

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:

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

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!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRjG36WGvWM

too bad the crap country you live in BLOCKS youtube, you'd like that one.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

I asked if you felt they were legitimate targets

I answered your question.

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

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

rule of law? what is that?

I'll let you inquire about that yourself. You have the internet at your disposal.

jlew24asu wrote:

America is not the most hated country country in the world. even though you like to think it is.

Yes it is. This is a fact. Again, do a Google search and see what answers you come up with.

jlew24asu wrote:

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?