Afghanistan - What is the objective?

If you go to Wiki, we see this:

According to the "unclassified summary of evidence" presented during the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in 2007 a computer hard drive seized during the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed contained the following:

* information about the four airplanes hijacked on 11 September 2001 including code names, airline company, flight number, target, pilot name and background information, and names of the hijackers

* photographs of 19 individuals identified as the 11 September 2001 hijackers

* a document that listed the pilot license fees for Mohammad Atta and biographies for some of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

* images of passports and an image of Mohammad Atta.

* transcripts of chat sessions belonging to at least one of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

* three letters from Usama bin Laden

* spreadsheets that describe money assistance to families of known al Qaida members

* a letter to the United Arab Emirates threatening attack if their government continued to help the United States

* a document that summarized operational procedures and training requirements of an al Qaida cell

* a list of killed and wounded al Qaida militants.

If you don't trust Wiki, and I don't, follow the link to the actual transcript. This is all information outside the interrogation and it spells out the 9/11 linkages quite clearly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's moving around in the NW part of Pakistan. This is fairly well documented. We haven't gotten him because it's difficult to move quickly in that part of the world, he's been safeguarded and we don't have much intelligence that is actionable.

Very few of my sources are from the MSM, unless you consider books as MSM, in which case I don't what one can consult that is outside the stream. It must be noted that it's funny to see you carry on in such a way about the MSM when what began our chat was a very foolish post citing the Huffington Post. Surely, you realize how mainstream the Huff is (for the Left anyway). Ariana went up to DC recently and raised $10 million (I think) for her little media venture. Who do you think gave her that kind of money? She's right in the thick of everything you claim to object to, and yet you sit here and site her web page?

Al Qaeda still exists, but it is a shell of its former self, which all but justifies the invasion. Why do I say that? Because the fact it is a shell is precisely due to the fact that it is on the run and does not have a state to shield itself behind. This was the point of the invasion.

Lots of reasons.

The US never fully committed to Afghanistan, and the country is really screwed up and needed attention to begin with. The US has also adopted some shortsighted policies there. See Rashid's book Descent Into Chaos.

That's an over statement. It has removed the Taliban, got Al Qaeda on the run and created the possibility of a democracy in Central Asia, where none exists. I would not call that "nothing."

It's both, and the two usually walk hand-in-hand. See history.

I admit the US is partly to blame.

The Saudis helped, and it's not as if radicalism wasn't on the rise anyway (see Iran and Lebanon in the 1980s). Another distinction must be made, too. The US did not assist the Arabs in Afghanistan who would return to places like Egypt and Algeria as Wahhabi radicals. The US was also not involved with bin Laden. The US assistance went to the militias that were Afghani. Many of these weren't radical, but some were. Regardless, the US created a market for radicalism, so it bears some blame for what gravitated there.

I'm not sure you can quantify that.

Not to mention prominent authors like Kepel (See The Trail of Political Islam) argue radical Islam was and is a failure and therefore is on its way out. I would definitely say there is less radical Islam in Afghanistan now than there was when bin Laden and the Taliban were there. Elsewhere, political Islam is moderating in places like Egypt and Algeria (See Ayoob's The Many Faces of Political Islam). Iraq is problematic, in terms of regional politics, but external terrorism of the al Qaeda sort has been rejected there, too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK. Within ONE MONTH of 9/11, the intelligence was so fantastic that Bin Laden had been named suspect number 1 and Al Qaeda was traced to Afghanistan AND a massive invasion was launched.

For SEVEN YEARS the Intelligence is so pathetic that that Bin Laden is STILL at large? Come on.

I concur with that Count. I have been unfair to your sources.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

OK. If it is a shell of its former self, why the constant fear mongering? And if the point of the invasion was to crush Al Qaeda, why are the boys still there?

Fair enough.

No my friend, the Taliban are stronger than ever, and are now gaining power in Pakistan.

Sadly. This war was preventable.

Fair enough.

Perhaps, but believe me, the cauldron is bubbling.

Fair enough. I hope for everyone's sake that your appraisal is accurate, and I also hope that Obama can find it in his heart to enter into dialogue with ALL parties concerned in Afghanistan to bring an end to the violence and bloodshed in this, the poorest of nations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're broad-brushing here and not understanding the nuances of the intelligence gathering involved.

Tracking a plot like 9/11 is not terribly difficult in its aftermath. You have travel and bank records that can be run down, and in the case of the hijackers, none associates and the like. You also have all the data gathered from captives and laptops and the like after 9/11 (see what I posted above that we got from Khalid Sheik Mohammad's apartment).

Getting bin Laden is much more difficult, though we could have had him at Tora Bora had we not outsourced the operation to dubious tribal allies. The problem now is that same as it was in the Clinton year: We can track bin Laden generally speaking, but knowing exactly where he is at a specific time, or -- even more importantly -- where he will be in an hour so we can send a missile is the kind of actionable intelligence that is very HARD to come by. This is discussed in great detail in Coll's book or in George Tenet's. Bin Laden travels with a select group of guys and they are not going to sell him out, no matter what is offered. So we get tips that say, "Yeah, he was here like three days ago" from villagers, but nothing that is actionable. Add to this the fact that it's Pakistan and we have NO forces there and it's easy to see why we have not caught him.

I think it's two-fold.

1. Politicians are certainly taking advantage of it, for political reasons, as is the defense-minded people who have wanted a new enemy since the end of the Cold War and want higher budgets and new toys.

2. The second problems is the so-called response bias. If you're a patriot working at CIA or DIA and you read nothing but threat assessments all day that hark about horrible fucking disasters, you're going to naturally be conditioned to think in worst-case scenarios, which you then kick upstairs to your bosses and the policymakers. Nobody wants another 9/11, so to a certain degree, they are overcompensating.

That was one purpose, not the only purpose. The US, to its credit this time, is not knocking off a foe and walking away. We're actually fixing what we broke, and in doing so, spreading some generally good and liberal ideas in a part of the world that can really use them. I think this is wholly positive, excepting the fact that the execution has been piss poor and mismanaged, which I blame on Bush and Rumsfeld.

They are and they aren't.

Attacks are up, yes, but they don't control a state and they don't have access to the kind of money and weaponry that they did. In this sense, they have become more like Hezbollah or Hamas -- only they don't have either groups popular appeal.

I don't think so. The US had to dismantle Al Qaeda and remove its sanctuary after 9/11. Bin Laden's attacks were increasing in scale and damage, and so the next attack would have been even worse. Now he's pretty much out of the game. All he can do is inspire. I doubt he has little actual control over the organization now, which is clear when you at a place like Iraq, where Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia ignored his advice and orders.

We've been fed dire predictions about Islamists and a new wave of terror for years, in part by the people you seem to think who are over-hyping the threat. This hasn't materialized. I've read articles about the new generation of jihadis Iraqi insurgents inspired and trained, but where are they? The major terror attacks in the past five years have all come from alienated immigrants or homegrown fanatics.

Bin Laden will never deal with the West. It's Kafir to him, as are the Muslims who deal with the West. You need to read some of his actual statements -- or read his ideology's founder: Sayyid Qutb - http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/index_2.htm

 

Osama was never formally charged with the attacks, even the CIA website does not charge him with it. You can e-mail them to get their response about that.

The back and forth debate on this thread shows very little knowledge about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Islam, or 9/11.

It was a false-flag, the entire world knows this. Only Americans continue to deny it.

 

Oh, I think we have plenty of knowledge about those ....it's about Muslims killing other Muslims, and taking the law into their own hands. Vengeance is what Islam seems to be all about ...seeking revenge on past injustices. Killing the children of those past oppressors.

And you and SAM, and Muslims like you, defend that killing! And Muslims killing other Muslims continues on an almost daily basis.

Baron Max

 

I'm not going to keep answering the same question in every thread. My answers are here. Read carefully and to your hearts content.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2195549&postcount=100

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2195578&postcount=105

 

There are intelligent people all over the world who do not buy into conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

Yeah, they look at the evidence instead of attacking random countries on false pretences.

 

Naw, it's more fun to attack first ......then stand by and watch Muslims killing other Muslims!

Baron Max

 

The prose isn't vague, your brain is fogged.

Uh, count, how does "not ruled out immediately by the visible evidence",

which was in the context of the thread specifically relevant - I was comparing the visual evidence contradicting the various controlled demolition claims, emphasizing it, talking about it, it was the subject of the comment, a hot topic in that thread, I was probably ranting at length about the counterproductive nonsense involved in the too-prevalent controlled demolition theories and should have been more willing to just let it go, etc etc etc -

translate, even in your pea-brained hostility, to not ruling something out as unreasonable or impractical or whatever your illiterate scan of available verbiage floats up? Do you honestly take the comment that at least the various bs about the #7 collapse is not immediately contradicted by video we have all seen, as supporting that bs? Finding it reasonable?

To quote the Pope: "You have a serious thinking disorder".

Nor can you paraphrase any of my posts or arguments.

I put myself on an informal quota - every fourth or fifth time you barge into another innocent thread with this obsession of yours, I reply. It's unfair to the thread involved, but I do let it go most of the time, and I hope for forgiveness from abused bystanders.

It was your claim that your poll "denied" my observation about relative combat capabilities. It didn't.

You have not. But you are welcome to try.

The situation is as follows: The Afghan Army has the military and logistical support of the world's richest and most militarily powerful countries, and has been receiving this support for seven years now. Air support, satellite and overflight intelligence, the best of weaponry and training, money and food and medical care and uncle Tom Cobbley and all, is theirs in large quantity. They enjoy great numerical superiority (according to you), large majority support among the populace (according to you), and the advantage of fighting on their home ground (which few if any of Taliban are, according to you). They are defending, which is easier. So what explains their inability to defeat the Taliban? How is it that our supposed allies in one of these wars once again are being outfought, and requiring years and years of augmentation by tens of thousands of foreign soldiers to avoid quick and complete defeat?

on my quota, btw:

We anticipate your maintaining that recent promotion, and referring to the Huffington as "mainstream" from now on - terms such as "fringe" will now be applied elsewhere - right?

 

It's because they hide behind their women and children, and won't come out to fight like real men! And besides, the Taliban seem to prefer killing Muslims to killing American soldiers.

They kill thousands of Afghani Muslims ...as a way of defeating the Americans. Isn't that an interesting way of fighting an invading force? ..keep killing your own people until the invaders give up? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

That doesn't mean he didn't do it.

 

Without a charge, its irrelevant what it means.

 

Are you really this deluded?

First, Osama has been charged.

Second, I have posted numerous information and sources in this thread, including evidence seized in the KSM bust that directly links him an al Qaeda to the plot.

Live in the dark of denial if you like, but do not those who live in the light of truth of being ignorant.

 

Nope.

 

Yes, he was charged in the late 1990s.

He was never charged for Sept. 11 because the Bush administration switched from viewing terrorism as a legal issue to a war issue, and it began to chase him with the intent to kill. Others, like Moussai and KSM have been charged with Sept. 11 offenses, though.

 

So Osama was never charged for 9/11

Moussai and KSM were charged with "evidence" obtained under torture. Inadmissible.

 

Yes, he was! Osama was charged with conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. He was the acknowledged leader of the group that carried out the attacks ...which means, of course, that he conspired to commit the act.

Baron Max

 

There is other evidence. I posted it in this thread. Not too mention the fact KSM bragged about it to a Pakistani newspaper. You should try paying attention.