or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Afghanistan is on fire and it's raining gasoline
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Afghanistan is on fire and it's raining gasoline - Page 2

post #41 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There's no question that protecting oil resources and perhaps mineral resources is part of "stabilization" so to speak. But where you go too far is in implying that the U.S. somehow wants opium production up and that it is a major reason for our troops to be there. Come on.

I guess we'll never know... we the peons tend to not get adequately informed what our money is used for.

However... considering that wars have been fought over opium in the past, and that the value of the Afghan heroin trade as derived from that country's opium crop was (in 2006) in excess of $120 BILLION annually... its not exactly "far fetched" to cite this as one possible (probable?) factor in the invasion of Afghanistan.

We're dealing with a vast sum here, and the war in Afghanistan, now 10+ years old has been responsible for rescuing > $1.2 TRILLION in opium related trade. The Taliban had slashed opium production by 92% in one year (2001).. and another year of Taliban rule and the opium crop would likely have been wiped out completely. So, where does all this money end up? In banks of course... laundered and re-invested in legitimate businesses. The the folks that run the major financial institutions don't give a rats' whether money is ill-gotten .. as long as nobody gets busted, and no law enforcement agency is capable or willing to try bust anyone at this level of drug trafficking. It's the bottom of the heap that gets the sharp end of the law.

Article here... (real lefty stuff) hehe... but verifiable.

Quote:
The other part where you've gone off the deep end is this:

....

They don't require much demonization.

The US public, up until that much ballyhooed incident with the Bamiyan statues' destruction, knew virtually nothing about the Taliban. I can remember "experts" (!) and pundits on TV specifically, and at great length, explaining what this extremist religious group was about.

Re. demonization: The means of clueing in the public re. the oppressiveness and brutality f the Taliban achieved the desired end.

Quote:
They were an oppressive regime who harbored Al Qaeda...and still are.

Oppressive for sure.

But we now have to consider whether the entity known as 'al Qaeda' really is, or even was a true enemy. The evidence emerging in recent months suggests that al Qaeda is far from what has been sold to us. It is undisputed that NATO forces in both Libya and currently Syria both have been and still are fighting alongside with groups populated with known al Qaeda guerillas and groups classed as 'al Qaeda', and with ties to the same. The new NATO/US supported regime in Libya even hoisted the flag of al Qaeda above official buildings.....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #42 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I guess we'll never know... we the peons tend to not get adequately informed what our money is used for.

However... considering that wars have been fought over opium in the past, and that the value of the Afghan heroin trade as derived from that country's opium crop was (in 2006) in excess of $120 BILLION annually... its not exactly "far fetched" to cite this as one possible (probable?) factor in the invasion of Afghanistan.

We're dealing with a vast sum here, and the war in Afghanistan, now 10+ years old has been responsible for rescuing > $1.2 TRILLION in opium related trade. The Taliban had slashed opium production by 92% in one year (2001).. and another year of Taliban rule and the opium crop would likely have been wiped out completely. So, where does all this money end up? In banks of course... laundered and re-invested in legitimate businesses. The the folks that run the major financial institutions don't give a rats' whether money is ill-gotten .. as long as nobody gets busted, and no law enforcement agency is capable or willing to try bust anyone at this level of drug trafficking. It's the bottom of the heap that gets the sharp end of the law.

Article here... (real lefty stuff) hehe... but verifiable.

You really have nothing other than a conspiracy theory there. A big one.

Quote:


The US public, up until that much ballyhooed incident with the Bamiyan statues' destruction, knew virtually nothing about the Taliban. I can remember "experts" (!) and pundits on TV specifically, and at great length, explaining what this extremist religious group was about.

The U.S. public started to become informed on the Taliban after 9/11. Obviously.

Quote:

Re. demonization: The means of clueing in the public re. the oppressiveness and brutality f the Taliban achieved the desired end.

Oppressive for sure.

I'm not really sure how to respond to that. You're framing it again as some kind of propaganda and/or conspiracy to get people to scream for war. What I'm saying is that wasn't even necessary. And once we were at war, it's not surprising that the government and military would demonize the enemy to some degree.

Quote:

But we now have to consider whether the entity known as 'al Qaeda' really is, or even was a true enemy.

Of course it is.

Quote:
The evidence emerging in recent months suggests that al Qaeda is far from what has been sold to us.

Probably true...especially in the aftermath of 9/11. They were clearly portrayed as being more powerful and organized than they were.


That's a separate issue, and it's why supporting rebels in these countries is so dangerous. We have no idea who the rebels actually are.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You really have nothing other than a conspiracy theory there. A big one.

Not that "conspiracy theory" shit again. And it's not an actual conspiracy theory either... its a solid set of facts and interwoven relationships, involving the mechanics of capitalism, combined with power and influence.

Quote:
According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, after the US invasion in 2001, Afghanistan now accounts for 93% of world's total opium production. Production spiked from 7,606 hectares in 2001, to 193,000 hectares in 2007. Helmand province in the south of Afghanistan, an area roughly about the size of West Virginia, now produces 50% of the world's opium alone. The Taliban's ban on farming the opium poppy before the US invasion was so effective, that Helmand province recorded no opium cultivation in the 2001. The previous year it had been the highest producing province, and currently is again.

When these statistics are combined with news of the Afghan government's involvement and US aid to opium growers, the implications are shocking. In an article for The New York Times, Former U.S. State Department Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Thomas Schweich reported that Hamid Karzai's government was complicit in protecting opium cultivation in Afghanistan.

Link here.

Quote:
The U.S. public started to become informed on the Taliban after 9/11. Obviously.

The invasion of Afghanistan was planned in advance of 9/11. Even Condoleezza Rice admitted such, under oath, at the failed 9/11 "Commission" (omission) hearings:
Even the "Beeb" has retained an article on this (!).

If the invasion was planned prior to 9/11, then 9/11 could not have been the reason why the the invasion was planned when it was (!)... 9/11 just happened at an incredibly convenient time, when it came to "justifying" the invasion. (I am being very very generous here).

Quote:
I'm not really sure how to respond to that. You're framing it again as some kind of propaganda and/or conspiracy to get people to scream for war. What I'm saying is that wasn't even necessary. And once we were at war, it's not surprising that the government and military would demonize the enemy to some degree.

Well, it's happened before many times and it has always worked wonders. Can't get too much of a good thing... and some point in the future, it will be tried again.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #44 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Not that "conspiracy theory" shit again. And it's not an actual conspiracy theory either... its a solid set of facts and interwoven relationships, involving the mechanics of capitalism, combined with power and influence.

Link here.

You're claiming that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan for drugs and oil and planned to do so years in advance. How is that not a conspiracy theory?

Quote:


The invasion of Afghanistan was planned in advance of 9/11. Even Condoleezza Rice admitted such, under oath, at the failed 9/11 "Commission" (omission) hearings:
Even the "Beeb" has retained an article on this (!).

If the invasion was planned prior to 9/11, then 9/11 could not have been the reason why the the invasion was planned when it was (!)... 9/11 just happened at an incredibly convenient time, when it came to "justifying" the invasion. (I am being very very generous here).



Well, it's happened before many times and it has always worked wonders. Can't get too much of a good thing... and some point in the future, it will be tried again.


I misspoke there. You are correct that there were plans to invade Afghanistan pre-9/11. However, what you leave out is those plans were initiated during the waning days of Clinton administration, and were in response to the growing threat posed by AQ.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're claiming that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan for drugs and oil and planned to do so years in advance. How is that not a conspiracy theory?

I was only quoting from reports written by official bodies, including UN and US government agencies. If that makes a "conspiracy theory" then I guess that anything qualifies. (Provided that a crime was planned, and more than one person was involved of course).

Quote:
I misspoke there. You are correct that there were plans to invade Afghanistan pre-9/11. However, what you leave out is those plans were initiated during the waning days of Clinton administration, and were in response to the growing threat posed by AQ.

So, to get this straight:

*The war in Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11.. and these plans involved both Clinton and Bush Administrations, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars being amongst the first items discussed in the Oval Office in January 2001 shortly after Bush's inauguration.

*There were factors which could have contributed to the plan to invade, such as restoring the world opium market, the potentially hugely lucrative UnoCal pipeline, and the stated desire by many prominent Bush officials to go to war in "multiple theaters", as stated in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" essay published on September 10, 2000 (during Clinton's waning days of office).

*Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda was a rag-tag group of Afghan Islamist warlords (formerly funded by CIA), which was little known in the Middle East, let alone America and the west... whose efforts and abilities were mostly focused on local skirmishes and squabbles. They did have gripes with the US - for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia - and responded with a very occasional attack using crude truck bombs. Their status at that time could not have realistically sold a war to Congress and the US public. Not a chance in hell.

*9/11 happened, (a completely out of pattern attack for al Qaeda). According to to the OCT, it was executed by a team of mostly SAUDI men. (15 of the alleged hijackers were Saudis), "masterminded" by a Kuwaiti man. Have a read if this article... very interesting!

*Osama bin Laden (a Saudi) - according to the FBI was on the 'most wanted' list, but not for 9/11. He was never indicted by the Justice Department for the crimes of 9/11, and for the same reason - 'no hard evidence'.

*The sole connection between Afghanistan and 9/11 - and a very tenuous one at that - was this man OBL. (OBL publicly stated, on at least two occasions, that he was not responsible, shortly after the attacks).

*The Taliban were ordered to arrest and hand over OBL, "or else". They responded by saying "Yes, we will try to help, but first you must show us some evidence of his responsibility". There was no response from the Bush Administration.

It appears that the war in Afghanistan was a concocted, contrived war, based on misrepresentations and fabrications. All it took was a few weeks of government and media repetition to elevate the virtually unknown "al Qaeda" from a obscure footnote of history, with little interest in America, to "a threat equal to, or greater than the USSR". A lesson in "how to re-establish a global enemy" in a couple of hours.

And, what is the rationale for a country to launch a full scale military invasion, costing lasting up to now 10.5 years, just to get one man?

No, no, and no.

We have been (ji)had....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #46 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I was only quoting from reports written by official bodies, including UN and US government agencies. If that makes a "conspiracy theory" then I guess that anything qualifies. (Provided that a crime was planned, and more than one person was involved of course).

No. You are cherry picking official reports and drawing sweeping conclusions. That's the problem.

Quote:

So, to get this straight:

*The war in Afghanistan was planned prior to 9/11.. and these plans involved both Clinton and Bush Administrations, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars being amongst the first items discussed in the Oval Office in January 2001 shortly after Bush's inauguration.

There isn't much evidence that Iraq was on the agenda. Unless you listen to the blowhard, Richard Clarke.

Quote:

*There were factors which could have contributed to the plan to invade, such as restoring the world opium market, the potentially hugely lucrative UnoCal pipeline, and the stated desire by many prominent Bush officials to go to war in "multiple theaters", as stated in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" essay published on September 10, 2000 (during Clinton's waning days of office).

Could have. There you have it. It's speculation. And the reports did not indicate a "desire" to go to war in multiple theaters. They indicated the need for capability.

Quote:
*Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda was a rag-tag group of Afghan Islamist warlords

Bullshit. AQ had carried out many attacks against the U.S. and allied targets, from the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole. They were far more organized than you claim.

Quote:

(formerly funded by CIA),

I've not seen evidence of the CIA funding modern AQ. Granted, we funded the mujahideen...and many of those people were the same. But directly funding AQ? No.

Quote:
which was little known in the Middle East, let alone America and the west... whose efforts and abilities were mostly focused on local skirmishes and squabbles. They did have gripes with the US - for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia - and responded with a very occasional attack using crude truck bombs. Their status at that time could not have realistically sold a war to Congress and the US public. Not a chance in hell.

Bullshit. They were at war with the U.S. We didn't realize it.

Quote:

*9/11 happened, (a completely out of pattern attack for al Qaeda). According to to the OCT, it was executed by a team of mostly SAUDI men. (15 of the alleged hijackers were Saudis), "masterminded" by a Kuwaiti man. Have a read if this article... very interesting!

Oh boy. Here we go again.

Quote:

*Osama bin Laden (a Saudi) - according to the FBI was on the 'most wanted' list, but not for 9/11. He was never indicted by the Justice Department for the crimes of 9/11, and for the same reason - 'no hard evidence'.

This is getting even better.

Quote:

*The sole connection between Afghanistan and 9/11 - and a very tenuous one at that - was this man OBL. (OBL publicly stated, on at least two occasions, that he was not responsible, shortly after the attacks).

Bullshit. He took credit repeatedly.

Quote:

*The Taliban were ordered to arrest and hand over OBL, "or else". They responded by saying "Yes, we will try to help, but first you must show us some evidence of his responsibility". There was no response from the Bush Administration.

Wow. Just...wow. As if the Taliban and bin Laden are entitled to a preliminary hearing. Jesus...you're a scary person.

Quote:

It appears that the war in Afghanistan was a concocted, contrived war, based on misrepresentations and fabrications.

Of course it was.

Quote:
All it took was a few weeks of government and media repetition to elevate the virtually unknown "al Qaeda" from a obscure footnote of history, with little interest in America, to "a threat equal to, or greater than the USSR". A lesson in "how to re-establish a global enemy" in a couple of hours.

And, what is the rationale for a country to launch a full scale military invasion, costing lasting up to now 10.5 years, just to get one man?

No, no, and no.

We have been (ji)had....


It wasn't about getting one man. It was about destroying AQ. Now it's become about eliminating the Taliban and nation-building (a much bigger and more problematic effort).
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #47 of 50
I don't get the argument that the US should withdraw from Afghanistan because it costs the US-economy too much.

Why? Isn't the occupation of Afghanistan eventually paying off in the longterm strategically and economically? As far as I remember the occupation of Afghanistan was important in order to create an oil-gas-pipeline through it for the ressources in the Kaspic sea, in order to be independent from Russia and Iran, wasn't it?

Getting rid of the Taliban, helping the Afghans to build up a democratic society is just the icing on the cake to get that warm humanitarian feeling on top of the cold strategic planning isn't it?

All people need humanitarian ideals to keep going, the media, the public, the army and last but not least politicians. But that doesn't mean we have to overlook the cake for the icing.

It's all a chessgame between the US and the future China.
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #48 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There isn't much evidence that Iraq was on the agenda. Unless you listen to the blowhard, Richard Clarke.

Bullshit.

Quote:
Could have. There you have it. It's speculation. And the reports did not indicate a "desire" to go to war in multiple theaters. They indicated the need for capability.

Bullshit. When a 4-star general states such, in public, the chances are that it is real.

Quote:
Bullshit. AQ had carried out many attacks against the U.S. and allied targets, from the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole. They were far more organized than you claim.

Many attacks? A handful in a decade. Compare that to ETA or the Provisional IRA at their peak activity.. .when bombings, shootings, kidnaps and other acts of terror were happening on a daily basis. (Ask Peter King (R, NY).. he knowsP. AQ's publicized attack list is a joke in comparison.

Quote:
Bullshit. They were at war with the U.S. We didn't realize it.

Subtle kinda warfare, huh. "We didn't realize it".

Unlike the Afghans and Iraqis, who died by the 10s of thousands... and had parts of their countries trashed for 4 billion years by radioactive munitions. Nice.

Quote:
Oh boy. Here we go again.

Yes, damn right.... here we go again... and for as long as it takes. This issue has never been adequately investigated, never properly solved, and nobody has been brought to justice. 4000 died, and 10s of thousands more in the wars that followed... and our economy took it in the guts.

Quote:
Bullshit. He took credit repeatedly.

Really now? Are you sure? More single sourced stories gussied up as journalism?

OBL denied it on 9/16/2001

Then he denied it again.... full text here:

Watch and listen to Dick Cheney, right here, at 09:00 to 09:25 in this video. I don't acknowledge that Cheney is the world's most honest man () but why would he lie, when denying, or casting a major doubt, that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with planning 9/11?

Bush also said, as regards Osama bin Laden: "I am not concerned about him". Bush was also clearly aware that OBL was not the main culprit.

Perhaps you take what the corporate media pundits day too seriously....

Quote:
Wow. Just...wow. As if the Taliban and bin Laden are entitled to a preliminary hearing. Jesus...you're a scary person.

Since it has come from the horse's mouth (not Alex Jones, or a 9/11 skeptics/research site) that OBL was not the culprit, then what would have been the harm? He may have been in involved with the USS Cole and the African Embassy attacks, but that would be established in a court case. Theses bombings were criminal cases involving murder and destruction, as is any bombing.

And, the Saudi royals elite appear to have far more of an involvement in 9/11than either bin Laden or the Taliban. How do you feel about the fact that the Bush Administration went to great lengths to protect a large group of Saudis and spirit them get out of the US before the FBI had a chance to interrogate them? That is worth a federal inquiry in its own right....

Quote:
It wasn't about getting one man. It was about destroying AQ. Now it's become about eliminating the Taliban and nation-building (a much bigger and more problematic effort).

According to Rumsfeld (of you watch the video linked to above), AQ had operations in some 50 countries. Picking Afghanistan as priority #1 seems pretty weird (and irrelevant) now its been established that there was pretty much zero connection between Afghanistan and 9/11.

It looks as if those other motivations for the invasion (opium, oil, mineral wealth exploitation, control of a strategic region) were the most likely casus belli and 9/11 was the key to get that plan off the ground. Without it, the public and congress would never have been gone for it.. they had to have a dose of shock 'n' awe first. They got it alright.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #49 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Bullshit.


That document does not indicate that the Bush admin wanted to go to war with Iraq. It simply discusses the official regime change position of the U.S.

Quote:


Bullshit. When a 4-star general states such, in public, the chances are that it is real.

Wesley Clark is...how do I put this...a nut job. He nearly started a war with Russia during the Kosovo mission. Stars or not, his comments prove nothing.

Quote:

Many attacks? A handful in a decade. Compare that to ETA or the Provisional IRA at their peak activity.. .when bombings, shootings, kidnaps and other acts of terror were happening on a daily basis. (Ask Peter King (R, NY).. he knowsP. AQ's publicized attack list is a joke in comparison.

Yes, this is a claim you've made before. Khobar Towers. The USS Cole. First WTC bombing. U.S. embassy bombings. Yeah...nothing to worry about.

Quote:


Subtle kinda warfare, huh. "We didn't realize it".

Unlike the Afghans and Iraqis, who died by the 10s of thousands... and had parts of their countries trashed for 4 billion years by radioactive munitions. Nice.

Yeah, we're the aggressors, sammy. AQ has been after American targets for nearly 20 years. For a nearly half that time, we treated terrorism as a law enforcement operation. We see where that got us. We utterly failed to understand the scope of the conflict.

Quote:

Yes, damn right.... here we go again... and for as long as it takes. This issue has never been adequately investigated, never properly solved, and nobody has been brought to justice. 4000 died, and 10s of thousands more in the wars that followed... and our economy took it in the guts.

You're making yourself look ridiculous. The 9/11 Truther movement died years ago.

Quote:


Really now? Are you sure? More single sourced stories gussied up as journalism?

OBL denied it on 9/16/2001

Then he denied it again.... full text here:

Watch and listen to Dick Cheney, right here, at 09:00 to 09:25 in this video. I don't acknowledge that Cheney is the world's most honest man () but why would he lie, when denying, or casting a major doubt, that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with planning 9/11?

Bush also said, as regards Osama bin Laden: "I am not concerned about him". Bush was also clearly aware that OBL was not the main culprit.

Perhaps you take what the corporate media pundits day too seriously....

Right. bin Laden openly denies it, and the entire U.S. media ignores him. Get real, sammi. He repeatedly took credit for it. He repeatedly discussed a spectacular attack in the years prior. When you claim that bin Laden didn't plan and/or wasn't involved with the 9/11 attacks, you again look ridiculous.

Quote:

Since it has come from the horse's mouth (not Alex Jones, or a 9/11 skeptics/research site) that OBL was not the culprit, then what would have been the harm? He may have been in involved with the USS Cole and the African Embassy attacks, but that would be established in a court case. Theses bombings were criminal cases involving murder and destruction, as is any bombing.

No. That is where you are wrong. They are not criminal cases. They are acts of war against the United States. We treated them like criminal cases for years, and it merely emboldened the attackers. How you cannot see this is beyond me.

Quote:

And, the Saudi royals elite appear to have far more of an involvement in 9/11than either bin Laden or the Taliban. How do you feel about the fact that the Bush Administration went to great lengths to protect a large group of Saudis and spirit them get out of the US before the FBI had a chance to interrogate them? That is worth a federal inquiry in its own right...

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these Saudis were involved?

Quote:

According to Rumsfeld (of you watch the video linked to above), AQ had operations in some 50 countries. Picking Afghanistan as priority #1 seems pretty weird (and irrelevant) now its been established that there was pretty much zero connection between Afghanistan and 9/11.

It looks as if those other motivations for the invasion (opium, oil, mineral wealth exploitation, control of a strategic region) were the most likely casus belli and 9/11 was the key to get that plan off the ground. Without it, the public and congress would never have been gone for it.. they had to have a dose of shock 'n' awe first. They got it alright.

The Taliban were harboring AQ and bin Laden. Afghanistan was well-known as a major base of operations for AQ. Were there other strategic concerns? I'm sure. But if Afghanistan had "zero" to do with 9/11, who did? AQ's existence in 50 countries doesn't mean that one of them had more to do with harboring terrorists than Afghanistan did.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right. bin Laden openly denies it, and the entire U.S. media ignores him. Get real, sammi. He repeatedly took credit for it. He repeatedly discussed a spectacular attack in the years prior. When you claim that bin Laden didn't plan and/or wasn't involved with the 9/11 attacks, you again look ridiculous.

From the mouth of Dick Cheney, March 29, 2006:

"So we've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming".

Prove to me that Cheney was talking out of his backside, or the statement that he made above was either not true or inaccurate!

Many others have said, or implied exactly the same, and for Cheney to admit that OBL was not the guilty party is quite extraordinary, considering everything.

The following has all been reported in the mainstream media ... even on Fox News (!).. you may have even watched the reports.

* Bush stated (on two separate occasions) that he was "not concerned" about OBL. (Why was that, I wonder?)
* CIA have stated "we have found no connection between OBL's (considerable) finances and funding for the attacks.
* FBI never mentioned 9/11 on OBL's most wanted page. (reason... no concrete evidence)
* The DoJ never indicted him regarding 9/11. (same reason)
* Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has also stated that OBL was "working for the US right up until 9/11"
* OBL was "surrounded" by coalition forces on no less than 4 occasions in Afghanistan after 9/11, and got away each time.
* The videotape found in Jalalabad, Afghanistan in October that was referred to as "the smoking gun" - used as the "justification" to invade Afghanistan - has been roundly debunked as faked by experts all over.

Perhaps all these government agencies, the former vice president and others privy to intelligence were all lying? Yes, a lot of lies have been told about this issue, but as regards the status of the man who took the popular blame for it... why would they want the public to think otherwise? Or were these slips of the tongue in unguarded moments?

The OBL connection to 9/11 is largely a corporate media creation.. and much of this was created on the day of 9/11 itself, way before any facts has surfaced. Then repeated ad nauseam, until a legend was created.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Afghanistan is on fire and it's raining gasoline