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

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.


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.


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.....

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.


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 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).


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....

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.

Bullshit.


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


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.


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.


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.


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....


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....


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.

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.