Why I Am A Terrorist

I have seen estimates from 1 to 1.5 million)for the period from 1979 to 1989 with the Soviet withdrawal. Another 5 million is supposed to have left for Pakistan and Iran. It is from the latter group that the Taliban emerged. There are so many different estimates that it is hard to say if any are reliable.

The civil war is generally considered the period between 1989 and when the Taliban took over in 1994. The figures I have for that period is over 50,000 or around an average of 10,000 a year. There were horrible things done on both sides. Now the Taliban is out of power but the other side is in and is no better.

The article you linked to regarding the plight of women does not suggest improvement outside Kabul. This was written in 2005 and a recent article suggests that the situation has deteriorated even further.

In fact, it appears that the two wars have even further destabilized the entire region, including Pakistan, making it worse for everyone.

I would say (and agree) that the south and east are in a period of destabilization, however the north and west and Kabul are more stable than during the civil war.

As an aside, the civil war was ongoing until 2001. On September 9th, the Taliban or Al Queda assassinated the leader of the Northern Alliance. Fighting was going on just north of Maseri Sharif.

By your own figures of 10,000 a year dying during the civil war and the estimates of 2000 a year since the invasion, that would be a net 8,000 less people dying now. Agreed that suicide bombs, IED's and car bombs are not a good thing. But the scale is far less than prior. It was just kept out of the news before since "no-one worth reporting on" was dying.

Dr Caleb said "9/11 could be an inside job, and our reasons for invading Afghanistan could be just. I still think that they are, as I do not subscribe to the innacurate and unsubstantiated theories about 9/11". But the official version issued by the 911 commission is an unsubstantiated theory. I remember reading that the engineering society was not allowed to see blueprints, instead they were given drawings of wnat the under infrastructure looked like. There is no proof that the buildings fell because of the fires and plane crashes,. Mathematical and computer simulations are not proof, and they are even less convincing when they are not released so that we can peer review them. There is all sorts of evidence that a coverup took place. The steel was shipped to foriegn steel mills by a former prosecutor who knew the rules of evidence and chose to ignore them (Giuliani). Lie after lie after lie was told by US officials and the MSM (mainstream media) questioned nothing. They let everything slide. The FBI to this day states that they have no evidence to show that Osama bin Ladin had anything to do with what happened on September 11th, 2001 . The facts are that there is no shortage of evidence to show that the official story is false, The facts are that there is no evidence to show that any part of the official story is true. So, please don't use 911 as a justification for attacking and invading Afghanistan.--- 
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." 
(Albert Einstein)

"But the official version issued by the 911 commission is an unsubstantiated theory. " 
 
I know I wrote a lot in this thread, but if you go back a bit further you'll find I wrote: 
 
'Two questions that nethier theory answers are: Why did WTC #7 collapse? (nullifying the official explanation) and; If the towers were demolished, how and by whom were explosives planted? (nullifying the alternate theories). We *think* we know why the towers collapsed, but without forensic analysis of the debris, we will never know for certain.' 
 
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/comment.php?mode=view&pid=57921&sid=20060903191223681&type=article&cid=57921">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/comment.php?mode=view&pid=57921&sid=20060903191223681&type=article&cid=57921</a> 
 
I believe the Engineering society did get blueprints of WTC 1 and 2 on which to base their compute rmodels, but I (and everyone else) have yet to find even partial blueprints of WTC #7. 
--- "I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

Whether one believes or questions the official story, is really irrelevant. The controversy is the important issue. Who cares who supports what version, there are clearly questions to be answered. Let's get some answers!

---
Quick to judge, quick to anger slow to understand. Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.

The devil is in the details, if you don't know where you have been then you are lost. Consider this quote "Reaction to the FEMA Assessment On December 25, 2001 The New York Times reported that some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC was inadequate, and are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry. Experts critical of the investigation included some who actually took part in it. The team of 20 or so investigators, who conducted their review between October 7-12, had no subpoena power, inadequate financial and staff support, and had been prevented from interviewing witnesses and frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and had even been unable to obtain basic information such as detailed blueprints of the buildings. [New York Times, 12/25/01 ] The NY Times account of the team activities contrasts with the account provided in the FEMA Report Executive Summary" and this quote from Daily News 3/7/2002 " The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency." {He received the blueprints on Jan 8, 2002} "This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence. " Then consider this quote, "Selling the Official Story: Some Key Players "Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.”—Shankar Nair, as quoted in the Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001 Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is quite telling, was one of those “experts” on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started with their conclusions and worked backward to some “leading hypotheses.” Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a surprise is just how lucrative these relationships can be. For example, Nair’s company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.[6] Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony.[7] Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.[8] There was really no need for phony media coverage. As with The 9/11 Commission Report and the lead-up to the Iraq War, the major media simply parroted any explanations, or non-explanations, given in support of the official story. One example is from a television program called “The Anatomy of September 11th,” which aired on the History Channel. Corley took the lead on this one as well, but James Glanz, a New York Times reporter, was also interviewed and helped to spread what is probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested 2500 F) that they were turned into “licorice.” Other self-proclaimed experts have been heard promoting similar theories.[9] They will probably come to regret it. This is because the results of physical tests performed by NIST’s own Frank Gayle proved this theory to be a ridiculous exaggeration, as some people already knew. The temperatures seen by the few steel samples saved, only about 500 F, were far too low to soften, let alone melt, even un-fireproofed steel. Of course that result could have been calculated, knowing that 4,000 gallons of jet fuel[10]—-not 24,000 gallons or 10,000 gallons, as some reports have claimed—-were sprayed into an open-air environment over several floors, each comprised of more than 1,000 metric tons of concrete and steel. Another expert who served on NIST’s advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton’s partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.[11] Early on Thornton said: "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Koch attempted to clarify as follows. “I could see it in my mind’s eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in.”[12] This is a description of what was called the Pancake Theory, the most widely accepted version of what happened. The Pancake Theory was promoted by an influential 2002 NOVA video called “Why the Towers Fell,” in which Corley (yet again) and Thornton were the primary commentators. Both of them talked about the floors collapsing, and Thornton described how the perimeter columns buckled outward, not inward as Koch had described. The video made a number of false claims, including exaggeration of the temperatures (2000 F), remarks about melting steel, and the incredible statement that two-thirds of the columns in WTC1 (the North Tower) were completely severed. NIST’s report now indicates that only about 14% of the columns in WTC1 were severed, and in some photos we can count most of these for ourselves.[13]" taken from Propping Up the War on Terror Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories by KEVIN RYAN / Scholars for 9/11 Truth (undated) 30mar2006 More evidence that the WT Towers were demolished comes from eye witness reports from firemen, police officers, first responders and people who were escaped from the buildings. Dr Calebs statement that all the evidence was destroyed is not correct. Most of the evidence was destroyed, some of it remains. The assertion that we will never know what happened is not correct unless one adds "because we won't look and won't listen to any evidence other than official sanctified evidence and we will refuse to deduce any conclusions about any unofficial evidence that we inadvertantly look or listen to". The preceeding excerpt was taken from <a href="http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-NIST-Lies30mar06.htm">Propping Up The War On Terror</a>--- 
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." 
(Albert Einstein)

Good post!

---
We have met the enemy and he is us
Pogo
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.
Plutarch

Thanks Dio. This part is me talking, I stuck it in the wrong place originally. "The assertion that we will never know what happened is not correct unless one adds "because we won't look and won't listen to any evidence other than official sanctified evidence and we will refuse to deduce any conclusions about any unofficial evidence that we inadvertantly look or listen to".--- 
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." 
(Albert Einstein)

Yer batting a 1000 Bro! Gudonya!

---
We have met the enemy and he is us
Pogo
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.
Plutarch