What claim of that post, exactly, do you find dubious? So in your opinion, there is no evidence that the major oil companies are capable of influencing US foreign policy in any serious or relevant way? You think the burden of proof rests on those who even float the possibility as a consideration?
For the record, I stopped reading String's posts, because they are non-productive. He never bothers to deal with the arguments/facts presented just keep asking: where is your evidence? Well, if he is waiting for a handwritten note from Cheney to Bush saying "must invade Afghanistan for the pipeline deal", than it is going to be a long wait. On the other hand if one actually uses common sense and tries to disconnect from what the US media has been BSing to him then yes, there are plenty of tell signs. Honestly, anybody thinks that Cheney thought there are WMDs in Iraq? Of course he didn't. Do we have the super-duper evidence for it? No. Such is life. The old Russian Communists had an interesting way to prove one's guilt: You are either incredibly stupid or a traitor/liar, and since we know that you are not stupid, therefore... Cheney is a smart man. Evil for sure, but smart. So just to think that he would believe in Iraqi WMDs is an insult to his intelligence. Now if one can accept that yes, government officials do LIE to achieve certain goals, then one can apply it to Afghanistan. My explanation for the occupation makes way more sense than accepting the official line of "fighting goatfucker cavedwellers". So if String is really interested in evidence he can try to get the notes released Cheney's 6 meetings with oil executives and see what they were chitchatting about. Otherwise I am done with this thread, everybody believes what their upraising lets them believe. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are right . Many very serious political decisions are made behind closed doors whereas the public and the media are kept in the dark . By reading and following world events one can cone to their conclusion easily . Bush administration can not tell the American and the world peole....hey guys and gals we are going to invade Iraq to steal their oil and since their leader does not want that we are going to kill him too . String and company think that every political decision has a link and that is 100% WRONG .
You're speculative explanation, based on assumptions, pieced together out cherry picked historical events. It fails to acknowledge the obvious: The USA was hit on 9/11 and was spitting mad and was going to take the fight to the people who attacked the USA wherever they were. ~String
While on the subject of facial colours, and for the record, again, there is no evidence whatsoever, implicating the Taliban in 9/11. Neither is there any evidence whatsoever, that they knew that AQ was plotting the attack. Feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary. Thus the invasion was in no manner whatsoever, self defense, and thus arguably, illegal. :m:
And yet, tellingly, bar a handful of tortured individuals, alleged head honcho perpetrator Ali Bin Laden remains at large, along with his compadres, while Afghanistan and Pakistan burn? After 8 years. That must be justice for the American people. :m:
Any of them ... All of them... I never said that oil companies are not capable of influencing US foreign policy. In fact, I said I think the have too much influence, remember? I also said energy policy is a very obvious and very proper part of any nation's foreign policy. However, with that being said, the burden of proof does rest on those who make specific claims about specific events, as you have done here and elsewhere, for years. In this case, you have spoken a lot about the motives of oil company execs in "launching and governing a military occupation" in energy rich areas (an argument, btw that ignores the lack of new energy resources flowing to the US from these areas). I grant oil companies would want access to Iraqi oil fields because they are oil companies and getting access to oil fields is what they do. But you have to prove they actually were able to launch and then govern the military occupation and you've NEVER given us anything that does that, probably because you can't. And even if the oil companies were actively pushing that, you have to show that their lobbying was the decisive or overwhelming factor that pushed the Bush Administration to invade. I doubt you could ever do that either. So, in other words, you're wasting everyone's time with huff and puff. I don't know, maybe you can't read, but I have said about two times now that the Taliban were not behind the 9/11 attacks. However, what is undeniable are the close links between the Taliban and Al Qaeda and what is also undeniable is that the Taliban harbored and protected Al Qaeda and that this circumstance allowed Al Qaeda to attack US embassies, the USS Cole and later, of course, New York and Washington. And frankly, I am sick of hammering at this with people like you and Ice. It's been going on for years. If the pair of you, and whatever other like-minded folks, want to deny reality and spin theories out of ether, then do it. But don't get all haughty when people actually want you to try prove some of the silly shit you say and the best you can do is string a bunch of opinions and conclusions based on opinions together. Anything is arguable, but you look foolish if you choose to argue certain things (not that you would care). Both the UN and NATO passed legal measures that essentially authorized and supported the US attack on Afghanistan, so what legal authority are you appealing to?
The Taliban were more concerned around its own political objectives and re building a nation destroyed by years of war than to worry about the activities of CIA created Mujahadeen offshoots. Ideological sympathies do not equate to a crime. That the Taliban were somehow explicitly guilty of the criminal actions of an extreme faction is simply farcical, and of course we all know that the alternative and standard legal extradition process was not sincerely pursued. So, once again, in a court of law, guilt, direct or by explicit association (accessory) has to be definitively proven before suitable punishment is dispensed. The 2001 AUMF was an authorization to use military force to go after terrorism. It was not IMO an authorization to conduct a full-scale war against another nation, or to become enmeshed in a civil war in another nation, which is what is going on in Afghanistan today. The initial excuse was the inclusion of the word "harbor". Eight years later there is no harboring, yet the war rages on. Its clear that an agenda is being pursued.
Wrong again. Al Qaeda had nothing to do with CIA or the Muj. Seriously, do you enjoy repeating your ideologically-based errors? They do when those sympathies allow a criminal organization to exist and flourish and attack other people. To pretend like the Taliban did not know what Al Qaeda were up to is what is farcical. I doubt they were aware of 9/11 planning, but even if they were, it is unlikely they would have stopped it, given their history. Remember, Al Qaeda attacked the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and bombed the Cole all while they were in Afghanistan. The Taliban, seemingly, had no problem with those attacks, and it ignored international efforts to shutdown Al Qaeda, extradite and distance itself from the group in the wake of those events. In other words, there is a history here that you are either ignorant of or choose to ignore because of you must match things up to your warped and wrongheaded conclusions. We do not all know that. It's your claim. And Ice's claim. And it's patently ridiculous, in that it ignores history, feasibility and the desire of the US to shutdown a terrorist safe-haven. This is a war, not a legal proceeding. And the would-be-defendants you so aredently make excuses for agree with me. There is an agenda. It's called counterterrorism. And there is harboring still going on in the region. As you pointed out, bin Laden has not been captured.
No, there is clearly a connection. The "Islamic Militant Network" was certainly the forerunner of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, and was created during Jimmy Carter’s presidency (1976-1981). In July 1979, Carter signed a presidential directive to launch a secret plan in support of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Confirmed by former CIA director, Robert Gates, in his book, From the Shadows. (Robert Gates, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War) There is no evidence, period. It seems there is as yet no solid evidence linking Al Qaeda to these attacks, nor convictions, to date. see & see Of course there is a history and there are assumptions and there are suspicions. Unfortunately the law requires evidence. And it clearly ignores standard legal procedures in favour of all out war. Right, and it should have been a legal proceeding if the law, and human life, was respected. Which it was not. That is such a stale old response. Who exactly is these terrorists that are being countered? Apparently AQ numbers only a handful these days. Its clear that they are not the threat that a force of 100 000 plus is mobilized for. Agenda anyone? Harboring has and is happening everywhere including New York City, Saudi Arabia and Disneyland. The choice of targets - Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and now Iran, clearly point to an agenda.
I've read Gates' book. I doubt you have, because it in no way confirms what you are saying. I've explained all of this to you in other threads, with links to relevant material. Al Qaeda and the Afghan Arabs it grew out of were not the Mujihadeen. These are two entirely different sets of people. If you choose to continue to not understand this, that's your business. It has been explained to you about three times now. There is plenty of evidence Al Qaeda was behind these attacks, and much of it comes from Al Qaeda themselves. And yes, there have been convictions ... http://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/19/embassy.bombings/ This is not a court of law, and pretending that facts and truth cannot be established outside of courts is purely a rhetorical ploy on your part. What, pray tell, were the standard legal procedures for negotiating with an armed gang of radical fundamentalists? Pick up a newspaper. There are terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and many of them wish the US harm. There is a difference in terrorists dwelling somewhere and in terrorists being harbored within a state by the authority in that state.
So Osama, evil AQ mastermind behind 9/11 has no connection to the CIA and the anti Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Perhaps my comprehension skills are special? And not a single Afghan amongst them. :m: It is patently obvious that the law plays no role in US foreign policy. What they were we all know. The invasion of a nation innocent of attacking the US. What they should be is simple. The same legal procedure for extraditing any vicious criminal. Which is what the perpetrators of 9/11 ultimately are. If the Chinese invaded you would you wish them harm? If you do and you act on this, does that make you a terrorist? Except when the "terrorists" are harbored by client states such as Saudi Arabia? :m:
The CIA did not fund the Afghan Arabs, nor did they create the Taliban. If you want to draw a connection, it is safe to say that men like bin Laden would not have gone to Afghanistan in the first place and taken up arms had the CIA not generally supported the call to jihad, but their is NO direct link between them (something bin Laden even says). The best book on the subject is The Far Enemy. I've suggested it to you several times now. It details how a generation of youth went to Afghanistan and were radicalized. The US and the CIA bear the responsibility for encouraging that, but it would have happened, to a lesser extent without them. The Taliban, on the other hand, were made up of the Pashtun who fled Afghanistan and were subsequently radicalized in refugee camps or in Zia's mosques. Now again, the US shares part of the blame because it supported Zia and turned a blind eye to his social projects (like mosque building and fomenting radicalization), but it did not "create" the Taliban and the Taliban are not the same people as the Muj. Yes, your comprehension skills suck, because apparently you cannot understand anything you read. I am well aware Carter began the funding for the Muj. Both Charlie Wilson's War and Robert Gates' book make this point (so it's no "secret"). The fact the funding began then in no way, shape or form proves your earlier assumption, because again, the funding in question went to the Muj -- and not the people who would become Al Qaeda and the Taliban. I am not sure why this is so hard to grasp, and why you insist on grafting your erroneous conclusions on whatever information you come across in your internet ramblings. What of it? There are Afghans in Al Qaeda, but that's hardly relevant. The attacks in question were orchestrated and planned in Afghanistan. The training was done in Afghanistan. And you're lack of knowledge, once again, has been pointed out. There is plenty of evidence the attacks were made by Al Qaeda (bin Laden even boasted about them) and there were convictions. You need to seriously try to read about this subject. It's obvious you care about it, and even more obvious you know little or nothing or are easily confused by whatever hackneyed sources you consult. No, tell me. What were they? Oh, please. Afghanistan is hardly innocent. Under the Taliban, it was the global epicenter of terrorist training for years. Those terrorists went back to places like Egypt, Algeria and Chechnya and wreaked havoc. This is not just an American problem. The US and the Saudis had tried that route with the Taliban (who never was an official government with any reciprocity) for years. It was a fruitless effort. The Taliban were stalling for time in the wake of 9/11 and all the while the terrorists were running for the hills and the Talibs preparing for war. And yes, it was war. Not a crime. I am not going to get into the freedom fighter vs. terrorist argument with you. It would be a waste of time. Fortunately, in this case, it's not even applicable. The Taliban, along with other radical Muslims, cause as much trouble in Pakistan as they do in Afghanistan (remember the death of Bhutto; and just this week dozens were killed in a mosque attack). So in other words, it is not about US occupation, it's about their ideology and their motive for being. Provide me an example where the Saudis harbored a terrorist the US wanted and I will consider it.
It does not ignore that at all. You do recall that the President (Commander in Chief), the most powerful VP in history (and most active in contracting, war logistics, etc), and the National Security Advisor (more closely linked to the Iraq invasion, as well as better linked to the Caspian Basin's history and issues, than a lmost anyoen else in the Cabinet) , and many less powerfu lfigures involved, were oil company execs - in at least Cheney's case, still on the compensation payroll.
This was a simple refutation of your original statement: As Brzezinski points out, the CIA did indeed lay the foundation for AQ. These militant groups are an incestuous network, and the connections from the Mujihadeen to AQ to the Taliban have been pointed out often and by many on these forums. All tracing back to the US/CIA/ISI/Saudis and the anti Soviet initiative. Training, arms and funding. And Saudi Arabia and Yemen and the USA, etc. That does not make Afghan citizens guilty, and these are the actual victims here. Believe me, after US/NATO eventually vacates Afghanistan, without "winning" anything credible or of substance, history will ultimately condemn US aggression and the reality behind this obviously resource based invasion. And of course, the authenticity of Bin Ladens "communications" are beyond doubt. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Notwithstanding, I am merely pointing out that for such an evil and masterful organization, that led to a full scale invasion of 2 nations, convictions against alleged AQ operatives and thus AQ are few and far between. Count, we can surely arrive at alternate conclusions, and that is a prerogative we share. A full blown invasion that seems to be leading to a war tax. Whatever occurred on Afghan soil does not subject citizens to guilt, as those innocent civilian casualties of US ordnance will tell you. Its common knowledge that this route was not honestly nor sincerely pursued, as was previously the case in other "terrorist" attacks. 1. I am not denying the inherent and problematic political issues within Afghanistan, but what is undeniable is that right now, the conflict is an insurgency to rid Afghanistan of the invaders. And its working. 2. Since when is the ideology of nations the policing business of the US? (oh right, forever) AQ was and is a small extremist criminal element within Islam, and is absolutely and utterly not representative of the Taliban. And the ideology of the Taliban is of no business to outsiders. Although not wanted bu the US, Idi Amin (read Sadam Hussein) has been safely ensconced in Saudi Arabia for more than 10 years.
If you'd quit complaining about having to do it, you'd cut your typing load in doing it by a third over all. Lay off the gratuitous and repetitive digressions into insult, most of the rest vanishes. You could easily deliver your actual "arguments" with a fifth of the effort you put into them, and saving them both in a file for copy/paste convenience, as you make comprehension error A or reflexive objection to source B, would save even more of your valuable time and attention. The fact that the US refused to recognize the Taliban, or deal with them as a government, is yet more evidence against - not for - your claim of diligent and good faith diplomatic effort. The interval between 9/11 and the launch of the Afghan invasion was less than a month. That's a tribute to the quick reaction capability of the US military, of course - but also to the benefits of advance preparation. It is not an indication of a breakdown in good faith diplomatic negotiations. Plenty of orchestration and planning and training was done in the US, according to the official story. The unofficial speculations best fitted to events point to Pakistani and Saudi contributions, as well, and possibly Israeli knowledge or even auxiliary contribution. There is no evidence of Taliban involvement in, or even knowledge of, any aspect of 9/11.
Uh, huh. You mean the fact the US and the entire world, sans two countries, refused to recognize them? Oh, what powerful material you have! Meanwhile, as usual, you've yet to even begin to address comments you were asked to substantiate on at least two occasion by two different people. I move they be deleted to preserve bandwidth. The CIA had assets on the ground and had planned for eventualities in Afghanistan, all of which you can learn in Tenet's book. This accounted for the speed, though ultimately it also allowed Al Qaeda to slip away, as we did not have enough troops on the ground. As for your usual canard about negotiations, I do not care to revisit your claims. They in no way, shape or form even come close to address your original conspiracy theories, either... Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan. This is irrefutable and you know it, hence the chum. If you mean they opened a shop that eventually attracted the likes of men that became Al Qaeda, then I will accept that. But that was not your initial claim -- and you knot it. Your initial claim spoke of "CIA created Mujahadeen offshoots." The CIA did not create Al Qaeda or fund or finance any of its predecessors, as you claimed. And the Brzezinski quote does not say anything like that. I don't care how many times they are pointed out. They are wrong. The Muj and Al Qaeda were totally separate entities and they do not trace back to the same sources. The Taliban, which came later, initially fought the Muj. Now, it's true that latter some of the more radical Muj jumped in bed with the Taliban, but by that point in history, you aren't even talking about the same groups anymore because the conflict had changed. I think the connections are of your own mistaken making. Bin Laden is a liar, but his words can be checked with reality, and nobody who knows anything about the issue doubts Al Qaeda's involvement in the embassy attacks. Convictions of Al Qaeda members are few and far between because they typically do not allow themselves to be captured. They prefer to die on the battlefield. It is not common knowledge. It is your knowledge and your claim. And funny enough, the only people who credit it, are Leftists who have problems with American policy, like you and Ice. How does one run an insurgency from another country? Since that ideology killed 3,000 Americans. The Taliban and Al Qaeda agree on about 90 percent of their ideology, hence the reason they were such good friends. And Al Qaeda and the Taliban were nobody's business. They were ignored, left pretty much alone and forgotten -- until 9/11. Then it became clear that treating them like a minor irritation was not an option.
