Did Afghanistan attack us? I did not know that.

[Philosoraptor]

I just heard a caller on cspan say that unlike the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan was just because those people attacked us. I did not know that, did you?

I always heard that almost all of the so called nine eleven hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

But then, we live in a nation where millions believe Hussein attacked us, and that Christ is coming back soon.

[ixion]

1. The invasion of Afghanistan was also illegal...

I was against that one, too.

[tritsofme]

46. Which law was broken?

That seems to be the basis for something being illegal.

Whatever follies have occurred in the days since, the Afghan invasion was duly endorsed by Congress and the United Nations.

[ixion]

47. I don't know if I would go so far as duly endorsed... more like turning their back

while we do our worst. It was a sham. There was no reason for a full-scale invasion, but at that point the world 'was all american', and hadn't yet realized they were yielding to a psychotic putz. And der chimpenfurher was already on the way to invade, the UN just sort of politely paved the road to avoid any undue nastiness down the line. And now, here we are -- the US and the rest of the world -- bogged down in Afghanistan in a protracted guerrilla war.

No one (except maybe other religious extremists) is a fan of the Taliban, and that's the only reason it was allowed, because at that point we were still respected, for the most part.

[CJCRANE]

2. 9/11 101

Hijackers: 15 Saudis, 2 from UAE, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese
Planning: 1 Pakistani (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)
Funding: wired from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE

Hmmm, those countries are all Bushco "allies".

Strange that they should be involved in PNAC's desired "New Pearl Harbor" that was then blamed on Iraq, an oil country on PNAC's wishlist...

[nolabels]

12. Per the official 9/11 conspiracy theory that evidence shows to be bunk..........

Bunk from the standpoint that the existing evidence don't jive at any point. We only have some statement from agencies that hide under a vail of national security. The official statements are suspect on many levels. The main purpose of all of these so called "national security" agencies is to carry out a mission that is unaccountable to public. As far as I can see they, "national security" agencies, are on the wrong footing to be making statements about how anything happened

[CJCRANE]

21. The way I see it there are different levels.

There's

1) The official story as per the 9/11 Commission Report which few people have read and shows Bushco to be be criminally incompetent
2) The generally accepted mainstream view - Bin Laden did it - created by the media, for which there is no evidence
3) The freepers/wingnut base perspective - Saddam did it - again created by the media parroting Bushco talking points
4) The truth which is somewhere between LIHOP and MIHOP (accepted by the few who've been paying attention)

[alfredo]

24. bush's business ties and personal ties to the bin Laden family

may have made the attackers job easier. bush went easy on the Saudis, cut investigations into Saudi financing of terror, and didn't use due diligence in issuing visas to Saudis.

forgot to add, Salem Bin Laden was an early investor in GWB's schemes.

Poppy Bush did business with the bin Laden family through the Carlyle group.

[Virginia Dare]

35. Not to mention the Saudis had part of the report redacted...

before the American public ever got to see it.

[alfredo]

42. 26 pages I believe.

It's not their fucking place to tell us what we can read and what we cannot.

[fujiyama]

3. Afghanistan may not have attacked

but the governing power in place at the time, did protect those affiliated with the hijackers. The Taliban, providing a sanctuary for Al Qaeda was a justifiable target for some military operations.

[Robbien]

8. But the governing power of the USA also protects those affiliated

with the hijackers (BushCo and the Sauds are best buds)

should I be expecting my city of Chicago to be bombed back to the stone ages? Or perhaps DC or a ranch in Texas?

[fujiyama]

36. I agree the close affiliation of Bush with the Saudis is very disturbing

and I think the administration is hiding a lot about 9/11. I also think it is entirely possible they purposely ignored evidence showing the attacks were about to happen.

I also think that Afghanistan's connection with Al Qaeda was much less closer than that of the Pakistani and Saudi governments. The ISI and Saudi Royals funded and ultimately provided some operational assistance as well as funding for the hijackings.

But the camps in Afganistan also had to be shut down. And the only way to do that was militarily. The Taliban had no intention of cooperating and were in fact protecting the terrorists. Now, of course, who created the Taliban? The Pakistani government and the ISI. I think the US used kiddie gloves on them and this "war on terror" has been a joke from the start.

[Toots]

19. How do you know Al Qaeda had anything at all to do with 9-11?

By the "pristeen" passport found on New York streets? or just because Bush* and cronies said so?

[originalpckelly]

25. If you'd like to really present some good evidence to support your claims...

and the reasoning behind that claim, do so.

Last time I checked, Osama eventually did take responsibility for 9/11, even though he denied responsibility in the early months after 9/11.

[leesa]

30. Well, CNN told you that's what the tape of 'fat OBL' said.

[Toots]

49. What claim did my question make?

:shrug: talk about jumping to conclusions....

[fujiyama]

32. Fine, maybe "Al Qaeda" wasn't responsible

But fanatical Muslims were responsible for the hijackings.

And these fanatics did spend some time in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[daleo]

37. They spent some time in Germany too.

And the U.S., for that matter (where they got their most important terrorist training - their flight training).

[Bridget Burke]

48. Don't forget the flight schools in Florida!

Whose records Jeb confiscated 9/12.

From our very own DU archives: www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1328855

[cali]

4. For whatever's it's worth

there's no doubt that the Taliban harbored Osama. I was against the invasion of Afghanistan as well, but my reasoning was that georgie would make a complete mess of it. Had we ousted the Taliban and provided sufficient support in the form of funding and rebuilding aid, instead of invading Iraq, it is possible, I believe, that Afghanistan could be doing very well indeed. The Taliban were hideous rulers, and that's not from any propaganda generated from bushco, I knew that years before the invasion.

[POAS]

5. Afghanistan was

a legitimate target in so far as we had to get bin Laden. Unfortunately the Bush Administration never took that mission seriously. As a poster in another thread rightly pointed out, Afghanistan was a sideshow before the big show in Iraq.

In addition to targeting bin Laden we should have put pressure on the Sauds and Pakistanis to turn over all those that supported bin Laden's activities leading up to 9/11. Of course any such suggestion was dead in the water due to the ties between the Bushes and the House of Saud.

[H2O Man]

6. A case can be made

for having the US bomb Tora Bora within a short time after the 9-11 attacks. Or for sending special forces in the area to kill Usama bin Laden & friends. Instead, the administration seems to have been intent upon securing a few larger population centers in Afghanistan.

I agree about putting pressure on the two countries you mention. Of course, parts of their intelligence agencies played a far larger role than the rulers in Afghanistan.

[POAS]

7. The options

you bring up had merit at the time but I doubt the public was in a mood to support what would have been perceived as half hearted measures. After-all, the arguement would have been, Clinton tried to bomb him and failed.

I don't think that going after bin Laden by air should be off the table even now. Pakistan has shut doen any effort to get at him and his merry band so I would put them on notice that we are going to attack those strongholds by air until they are dead or released to westren custody!

[pretzel4gore]

9. there's no bin laden...

there never was any 'attack' on america. 911 was staged by rogue elements of western ruling elite, hiding behind flags of usa, britain and israel, serviced by pigmedia. so forget digging us into a deeper hole, giving the criminals time and space to further infect the body politic. they are an illness, fatal if left un cured. shootem all, let satan sortem out. start with the ''f' word network (as cafferty calls fox)...the sound of brite hum's neck snapping after 6 ft drop, or john gibson's girlish squeal as 1st of five 22 shells enter his noggin, or bill owhorely wide eyed please as he's buried alive for fertilizer....all these things must happen. or humanity will die
:(

[nolabels]

18. Don't feel sad, we have them where we need them, in our sights.....

We know who and what they are, how they try to do it and there is now a growing movement that will be able to stop what do permanently. The war machine has twisted inside, it has turned countries on their selves to serve the orderly extraction of capital from said countries (including the US) This agenda too, that has also been instituted is also falling apart. The problem for the capitalist is they figured the rest of us would never find out what they were doing. The hunted are soon to become the hunters. I base my evidence on observable events and not propaganda that the capitalist crooks also spend billions on.

Holding nothing dear, we may have a bumpy road ahead but some of the bumps may be useful. The farce of the term coined 'Capitalism' will give way to more understandable term known as pluralism and democracy. The trajectory is there and our patience might be the only thing left to be tested

(snip)
Quotes: Karen Kwiatkowski: I have two sons and I will allow none of my children to serve in the United States Military. If you join the military now you are not defending the United States of America, you are helping certain policy makers pursue an imperial agenda. (more)
(snip)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_(2005_film)

[H2O Man]

11. While I agree

that those measures might have been considered "half-hearted" had they failed, they offered a far greater chance of killing Usama & friends than what the administration did. There are sources that are convinced the US had bin Laden trapped in Tora bora, and then turned the operation over to the regional tribal forces that escorted bin Laden out of the area. Others believe that bin Laden was long gone before the US attacked Afghanistan.

Almost every option he US has would always present advantages and disadvantages. I think that the Bush administration has reduced all of our advantages in that region of the world. We face long-term disadvantages.

[POAS]

13. We have NO

good options left. Bush has destroyed every positive image we had and reinforced all the negative ones.

Our biggest disadvantage may be our reliance on ME oil.

[H2O Man]

14. I can remember

as 2002 came to an end, I thought it would take the US about 20 years to repair the damage this administration was doing. I suppose that I underestimated the extent of the damage Bush/Cheney would do.

[TahitiNut]

15. Amen.

They've exceeded expectations ... the worst expectations.

[POAS]

16. At my age

I have no hope of seeing an end to the many nightmares created since 2001. I doubt my children (in their 30's) will see the end. Well, maybe the end of America as we know it but certainly not the end of the nightmare.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden to a third party and the US refused.

The war drums were already in place against Afghanistan before 9/11.

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

[Virginia Dare]

38. Exactly, the invasion had nothing to do with 9/11..

at least not in the minds of the Bush Administration. 9/11 was either a very lucky and convenient excuse or it was a set-up.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Good post.

[uppityperson]

28. Good post Cali

[Warren Stupidity]

17. At the time I reluctantly supported the invasion.

On the basis that the Taliban government was harboring al qaeda. Within a week or two it became quite clear that we were not even trying to go after al qaeda but were instead conquering Afghanistan. I regret getting fooled once again by assuming good intentions where there are none to be found.

[gollygee]

22. The Taliban had taken up residency in Afghanistan

and they were supposedly behind the attack. I guess I believe that more than I believe MIHOP.

[oblivious]

23. The Taliban were not behind the 911 attack. There is not the slightest proof of that.

[originalpckelly]

26. Indeed, even those who believe it was not orchestrated by BushCo...

think that it was carried out by members of al-Qaeda.

[LynnTheDem]

39. The Taleban??!

Even bush & Cabal have never blamed 911 on the Taleban.

Not even by insinuation, like they did with Saddam Hussein & 911.

[gollygee]

41. They were harboring Osama bin Laden

The relationship of Osama bin Laden to both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is the connection

They weren't behind 9/11. I was a bit fuzzy headed earlier today for some reason.

[AliceWonderland]

27. Guardian UK: Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden to a third party in October 2001

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,575593,00.html

As an above poster pointed out.

The invasion of Afghanistan quickly took on the sheen of human rights, but further destablizing a country whose social fabric was already torn to threads is no way to address the existing human rights situation. The results in Afghanistan tell that tale in heartbreaking terms. It's particularly disturbing that the situation for women was used as justification for an invasion -- as the Northern Alliance, also violators of human rights, was being ushered in as the new regime. Eternal war is no way to create a stable society where human rights can be achieved.

[Zhade]

29. Anyone who thinks it was okay to bomb that country due to the actions of its unelected rulers...

...must also admit that it's totally justified for Iraqis to thus attack US for our government's actions.

If they can't, they're hypocrites applying a double standard.

(And maybe racist. One rule for us, another for the non-white Muslims.)

[Rex]

31. Cheney offered the Taliban money and riches if they let Enron

build a pipeline through Afghanistan. They said no, 911 happen and we attacked the same people who were walking around D.C. as dignitaries a few days before. It was either, "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs."

How interesting the Taliban took bombs over wealth and power. :eyes:

[Disturbed]

40. Bush's Opium Boom

Bush's Opium Boom

On May 17, 2001, Powell announced a package of $43 million in humanitarian ... The Taliban’s opium ban was hailed as one of the greatest successes in the ...
www.fff.org/freedom/fd0304d.asp

[Rex]

43. And now opium output from Afghanistan is number one in the world.

Drug warlords control 90% of the country, yet the M$M acts like we control the country. So far down the rabbit hole are we.

[liberalhistorian]

33. Afghanistan itself certainly did not attack us,

but Bin Laden and the nerve center of Al-Queda was/is there, therefore I think we were justified in attempting to find and capture him in Afghanistan in the first few months after 9/11.

People are obviously too fucking stupid to know the difference; how can you really blame them when all the "liberal" MSM focuses on are TomKat, Paris Hilton/Britney Spears money shots and the current state of the relationship of Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn.

Iraq and Saddam Hussein, however, had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and attacking Iraq was like us attacking Madagascar after Pearl Harbor instead of Japan.

[Pastiche423]

44. Where is your proof that OBL attacked us?

I've never seen any proof. Haven't seen the White Paper Powell promised, either.

[LynnTheDem]

34. Only if you're a rightwingnut.

If you're not a rightwingnut, then no, in fact, Afghanistan didn't attack us.

Not one Afghani was involved in 911.

[Philosoraptor]

45. ---------