CANADA’S DIRTY HANDS
Johnny_Utah @ Tue May 22, 2007 10:44 am
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
OPP @ Tue May 22, 2007 11:07 am
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
From your own source:
$1:
Massoud and the SCO
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
Calgary123 @ Tue May 22, 2007 11:35 am
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Wow... Johnny, the ME expert.
The Taliban this... the Taliban that.
You just parrot the crap that spews from the propoganda masters at FOX News... the "Taliban Knew"... wow really?? how interesting.
How funny that you regergitate FOX talking points, that have been discredited over and over again, and still somehow find a way to justify an illegal war.
The problem with the warmongers... is they can't differentiate fantasy from reality, in their dillusional minds.
Calgary123 @ Tue May 22, 2007 11:36 am
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
How correct he is when saying that our conservative leadership only wishes to snuggle up closer to the Bush crime family, and in the process... stumbled ignorantly into a pointless occupation that is only punishing the Afghan people. Once our government chose to participate in these actions, we have now become complicit in it's fallout.
And for what?
So we can puff out our chests, and pat each other on the back for kicking some terrorist butt?
The whole war is a fraud to begin with... The people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 911, and by getting involved in other countries affairs through the use of a military is dangerous business. We have now lowered ourselves into the slop that the Americans wallow in.
Kudo's for Mr. Margolis, and his accurate representation of what is really happening, minus the fluff and stuff about fighting bogeymen with TNT wrapped around their waist. The reality of these actions is far more complex and brutal.
And for what?
So we can puff out our chests, and pat each other on the back for kicking some terrorist butt?
The whole war is a fraud to begin with... The people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 911, and by getting involved in other countries affairs through the use of a military is dangerous business. We have now lowered ourselves into the slop that the Americans wallow in.
Kudo's for Mr. Margolis, and his accurate representation of what is really happening, minus the fluff and stuff about fighting bogeymen with TNT wrapped around their waist. The reality of these actions is far more complex and brutal.
You're intelligent as Rosie'Ching Chong' O'Donnell as the both of you have no idea what you're talking about..
Afghanistan was a base of operations for Al Qaeda where an estimated 20,000 Terrorists were trained during the 90's while being protected by the Taliban..
If Liberals like you had you're way the Taliban would still be in power publicly executing women in a Soccer Stadium while protecting Al Qaeda. Thankfully Liberals like you will never have you're way which is appeasement to Terrorists, infact calling you a Liberal insults other Liberals on this board who have more sense than you..
And by the way... Rosie, like Ron Paul is one of the few that "get it".
Calgary123 @ Tue May 22, 2007 11:46 am
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
From your own source:
$1:
Massoud and the SCO
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
Nice Job... but don't expect Johnny numbnuts to come back with hat in hand on bended knee. He's too dumb and stubborn to accept the fact that the delusions in his mind can't be real.
Hence the problem with many Americans today. When asked... why do you fight in the ME? You get a variety of different answers, all coming from bits and pieces of media talking points... all fantasy and propoganda. That's a symptom of a nation that is confused... since they have an agenda that isn't being made public. The terror nonsense is but a cover to conceal the real reasons for these occupations.
The warmongers can cry wolf (look... it's a terrorist!!!) all day long... one day down the road even they will realize that they have been duped... into wars for corporations to make billions, and to secure America's future in Oil reserves and access.
OPP @ Tue May 22, 2007 11:57 am
Calgary123 Calgary123:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
From your own source:
$1:
Massoud and the SCO
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
Nice Job... but don't expect Johnny numbnuts to come back with hat in hand on bended knee. He's too dumb and stubborn to accept the fact that the delusions in his mind can't be real.
Hence the problem with many Americans today. When asked... why do you fight in the ME? You get a variety of different answers, all coming from bits and pieces of media talking points... all fantasy and propoganda. That's a symptom of a nation that is confused... since they have an agenda that isn't being made public. The terror nonsense is but a cover to conceal the real reasons for these occupations.
The warmongers can cry wolf (look... it's a terrorist!!!) all day long... one day down the road even they will realize that they have been duped... into wars for corporations to make billions, and to secure America's future in Oil reserves and access.
Indeed.. Indeed.
"The War on Terror" in everyday America resembles, very much so, the campaing of the cigarette companies back in the fifties too eighties, I believe it was, where they spread dissinformation about the dangers of smoking and their clever strategies to keep the masses consuming, ignorant of the consequences.
It's as if they've studied this strategy into the last detail.
Calgary123 @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:17 pm
OPP OPP:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
From your own source:
$1:
Massoud and the SCO
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
Nice Job... but don't expect Johnny numbnuts to come back with hat in hand on bended knee. He's too dumb and stubborn to accept the fact that the delusions in his mind can't be real.
Hence the problem with many Americans today. When asked... why do you fight in the ME? You get a variety of different answers, all coming from bits and pieces of media talking points... all fantasy and propoganda. That's a symptom of a nation that is confused... since they have an agenda that isn't being made public. The terror nonsense is but a cover to conceal the real reasons for these occupations.
The warmongers can cry wolf (look... it's a terrorist!!!) all day long... one day down the road even they will realize that they have been duped... into wars for corporations to make billions, and to secure America's future in Oil reserves and access.
Indeed.. Indeed."The War on Terror" in everyday America resembles, very much so, the campaing of the cigarette companies back in the fifties too eighties, I believe it was, where they spread dissinformation about the dangers of smoking and their clever strategies to keep the masses consuming, ignorant of the consequences.
It's as if they've studied this strategy into the last detail.
Media propoganda has been taken to a whole new level since 911. Unfortunately, the brainwashing is a powerful force. The mindset of those like Johnny speak to this as being true. To hold an idea as fact without real or credible evidence is the root of the problem... even in the face of an argument that completely shatters it's credibility.
The war on terror is much like every "war on ...... (insert whatever you want here)" that the US government and media create. The war on crime... the war on drugs... the war on illegal immigrants.
Notice the FOX "news" lately?
"ILLEGAL ALIEN KILLS COP"
Holy mother of gawd... not like it's bad enough that a member of the police services was killed... HE WAS KILLED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN!!! He might as well be a TERRORIST... LOCK THEM ALL UP!! ALL 12 MILLION OF EM!!! That's what they get for killing our cops!
It's about the use of language and creating "enemies". The latest would appear to be a campaign by the spinsters to create hatred towards the Mexican population... specifically the illegals who do all the shitty jobs like picking strawberries and changing the sheets in the hotel that Johnny got his pussy juice on. The creation of an enemy is critical in forming mass opinions... to the benefit of the establishment.
Just like "terrorists".
A sizable chunk of people in the US and around the world actually believe in bogeymen and the lies that have been turned into "facts" by the lapdog media who choose to spew fear propoganda instead of real investigation.
You can't trust the mainstream news anymore... and networks like FOX News don't even count as real anymore... more like "Inside Edition" or the National Inquirer... except a lot of gullible and uninformed people are taking it as factual... hence the danger in our society in not having a free media from a government leash.
OPP @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:37 pm
Calgary123 Calgary123:
OPP OPP:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
From your own source:
$1:
Massoud and the SCO
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
Nice Job... but don't expect Johnny numbnuts to come back with hat in hand on bended knee. He's too dumb and stubborn to accept the fact that the delusions in his mind can't be real.
Hence the problem with many Americans today. When asked... why do you fight in the ME? You get a variety of different answers, all coming from bits and pieces of media talking points... all fantasy and propoganda. That's a symptom of a nation that is confused... since they have an agenda that isn't being made public. The terror nonsense is but a cover to conceal the real reasons for these occupations.
The warmongers can cry wolf (look... it's a terrorist!!!) all day long... one day down the road even they will realize that they have been duped... into wars for corporations to make billions, and to secure America's future in Oil reserves and access.
Indeed.. Indeed."The War on Terror" in everyday America resembles, very much so, the campaing of the cigarette companies back in the fifties too eighties, I believe it was, where they spread dissinformation about the dangers of smoking and their clever strategies to keep the masses consuming, ignorant of the consequences.
It's as if they've studied this strategy into the last detail.
Media propoganda has been taken to a whole new level since 911. Unfortunately, the brainwashing is a powerful force. The mindset of those like Johnny speak to this as being true. To hold an idea as fact without real or credible evidence is the root of the problem... even in the face of an argument that completely shatters it's credibility.
The war on terror is much like every "war on ...... (insert whatever you want here)" that the US government and media create. The war on crime... the war on drugs... the war on illegal immigrants.
Notice the FOX "news" lately?
"ILLEGAL ALIEN KILLS COP"
Holy mother of gawd... not like it's bad enough that a member of the police services was killed... HE WAS KILLED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN!!! He might as well be a TERRORIST... LOCK THEM ALL UP!! ALL 12 MILLION OF EM!!! That's what they get for killing our cops!
It's about the use of language and creating "enemies". The latest would appear to be a campaign by the spinsters to create hatred towards the Mexican population... specifically the illegals who do all the shitty jobs like picking strawberries and changing the sheets in the hotel that Johnny got his pussy juice on. The creation of an enemy is critical in forming mass opinions... to the benefit of the establishment.
Just like "terrorists".
A sizable chunk of people in the US and around the world actually believe in bogeymen and the lies that have been turned into "facts" by the lapdog media who choose to spew fear propoganda instead of real investigation.
You can't trust the mainstream news anymore... and networks like FOX News don't even count as real anymore... more like "Inside Edition" or the National Inquirer... except a lot of gullible and uninformed people are taking it as factual... hence the danger in our society in not having a free media from a government leash.
I was referring to the aftermath of the "war on terror" rather than the "buildup"and the following invasions which is largely contributed to the "fear factor" created by the events on 9/11.
To discredit and create confusion as to what is true and what's not when the lack of evidence and the real motives of the attack are becoming ever clearer and obvious.
You got to hand it to the cigarette Companies, they were pioneers in a sense when they introduced this strategy to modern society.
Calgary123 @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:45 pm
OPP OPP:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
OPP OPP:
Calgary123 Calgary123:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
From your own source:
$1:
Massoud and the SCO
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
Nice Job... but don't expect Johnny numbnuts to come back with hat in hand on bended knee. He's too dumb and stubborn to accept the fact that the delusions in his mind can't be real.
Hence the problem with many Americans today. When asked... why do you fight in the ME? You get a variety of different answers, all coming from bits and pieces of media talking points... all fantasy and propoganda. That's a symptom of a nation that is confused... since they have an agenda that isn't being made public. The terror nonsense is but a cover to conceal the real reasons for these occupations.
The warmongers can cry wolf (look... it's a terrorist!!!) all day long... one day down the road even they will realize that they have been duped... into wars for corporations to make billions, and to secure America's future in Oil reserves and access.
Indeed.. Indeed."The War on Terror" in everyday America resembles, very much so, the campaing of the cigarette companies back in the fifties too eighties, I believe it was, where they spread dissinformation about the dangers of smoking and their clever strategies to keep the masses consuming, ignorant of the consequences.
It's as if they've studied this strategy into the last detail.
Media propoganda has been taken to a whole new level since 911. Unfortunately, the brainwashing is a powerful force. The mindset of those like Johnny speak to this as being true. To hold an idea as fact without real or credible evidence is the root of the problem... even in the face of an argument that completely shatters it's credibility.
The war on terror is much like every "war on ...... (insert whatever you want here)" that the US government and media create. The war on crime... the war on drugs... the war on illegal immigrants.
Notice the FOX "news" lately?
"ILLEGAL ALIEN KILLS COP"
Holy mother of gawd... not like it's bad enough that a member of the police services was killed... HE WAS KILLED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN!!! He might as well be a TERRORIST... LOCK THEM ALL UP!! ALL 12 MILLION OF EM!!! That's what they get for killing our cops!
It's about the use of language and creating "enemies". The latest would appear to be a campaign by the spinsters to create hatred towards the Mexican population... specifically the illegals who do all the shitty jobs like picking strawberries and changing the sheets in the hotel that Johnny got his pussy juice on. The creation of an enemy is critical in forming mass opinions... to the benefit of the establishment.
Just like "terrorists".
A sizable chunk of people in the US and around the world actually believe in bogeymen and the lies that have been turned into "facts" by the lapdog media who choose to spew fear propoganda instead of real investigation.
You can't trust the mainstream news anymore... and networks like FOX News don't even count as real anymore... more like "Inside Edition" or the National Inquirer... except a lot of gullible and uninformed people are taking it as factual... hence the danger in our society in not having a free media from a government leash.
I was referring to the aftermath of the "war on terror" rather than the "buildup"and the following invasions which is largely contributed to the "fear factor" created by the events on 9/11.
To discredit and create confusion as to what is true and what's not when the lack of evidence and the real motives of the attack are becoming ever clearer and obvious.
You got to hand it to the cigarette Companies, they were pioneers in a sense when they introduced this strategy to modern society.
Indeed... and don't worry, I got it
Tricks @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:52 pm
Can you two dimwits refrain from quoting 8 different posts from the thread. Thanks.
OPP @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:52 pm
Calgary123 Calgary123:
Indeed... and don't worry, I got it
Oh, I C. My apologies.
You've always been three steps ahead of me, concerning these matters, so I should have trusted your level of perseption and understanding.
OPP @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:54 pm
Tricks Tricks:
Can you two dimwits refrain from quoting 8 different posts from the thread. Thanks.
Yes, I saw the posts mounting on top of eachother but you beat me to it.
thelaw @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:56 pm
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
From your own source:
$1:
Massoud and the SCO
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
thelaw @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:58 pm
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
Johnny_Utah Johnny_Utah:
OPP OPP:
There are no evidence of Taliban involvement in 9/11. You're just repeating the false statements from the white house, who have been caught lying time and time again.
The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda and Bin Laden to use Afghanistan as a base of operations while protecting them..
The Taliban knew what they were up to so in fact yes they did play a role in 9/11 by again giving Al Qaeda and Bin Laden a safe haven to plan and plot the 9/11 Attacks..
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
Agian.. There are no evidence, no proof of this.
$1:
On September 9, 2001, two days before the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Ahmad Shah Massoud, commander of the United Front guerrilla opposition to Afghanistan's Taliban regime, was assassinated in the Afghan town of Khvajeh Baha od Din by two Arab men posing as journalists. Both of the assassins died -- one in the attack itself, blown up with his own bomb along with Massoud, and the other, it seems, was shot while trying to escape shortly afterwards. [1]
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
Journalists commonly attribute the murder either to al Qaeda or to the Taliban. [2] That seems logical enough. Massoud's United Front was fighting a war against the Taliban at the time. The Taliban were in turn protecting al Qaeda, an organization blamed for a number of sophisticated terrorist attacks, including those on 9/11. Simple as these explanations may be, Massoud's murder has never been solved. The details of the assassination, which included an explosive charge disguised as a battery pack for a video camera, the acquisition of stolen passports, and the death of both assassins, at different times and by different means -- suggest a sophisticated conspiracy. Dead men tell no tales, and in this case, neither have the living. The Taliban, for their part, have denied any involvement in Massoud's death
Link
The evidence is right there..
The Taliban harboring Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidence they had a role in 9/11 as they knew what was going on, so their just as guilty..
It sounds like you're bent on defending the Taliban, are you? Why didn't you answer my previous question?
$1:
Would you rather have the Taliban still in power harboring Al Qaeda and Bin Laden while publicly executing women in the Soccer Stadium?
From your own source:
$1:
Massoud and the SCO
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
What makes all of this so interesting is that it provides an undeniable motive for the United States to have launched its own "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan: to establish military dominance in the region in the face of an embryonic Sino-Russian military alliance.
The United Front veterans I met were certain that Ahmad Shah Massood attended at least one of the early "Shanghai Five" meetings, held in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in June of 2000. He might have attended others, they said, but were certain he attended that meeting at least. Whatever Commander Massoud said in the meeting is not known -- the meetings were held behind closed doors -- but his attendance speaks for itself.
All of the above is meant to explain why the United States attacked Afghanistan. Was oil a motive? Probably so, there's no debating the importance of oil in the region. But I would argue that the larger issue was the possibility of Sino-Russian control over it. What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the attack on the USS Cole? Also reasons to attack bin Laden's organization in Afghanistan, no doubt. But none of this is really related to the attacks in New York and Washington used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. As far as I know, there is no evidence linking bin Laden or the Taliban to those attacks. The Taliban were disliked for other reasons, including their repression of Afghan women.
The "Sino-Russian" alliance, barely mentioned in the western press, must have been taken seriously by the US government, though. To me it seems to have been, and still is, the most serious threat to American influence in Central Asia since the fall of the Soviets. Enough to justify the our taking the initiative and launching a pre-emptive war on terrorism ourselves? No doubt. Enough to assassinate the legendary mujajadeen leader Ahmad Shah Massoud, who drew his inspiration, he believed, directly from God? In all liklihood, this is one murder that will never be solved.
Paul Wolf
Washington DC
September 13, 2003
Tricks @ Tue May 22, 2007 12:59 pm
thelaw thelaw:
The Americans had a direct hand in 9/11 they trained the pilots in America who flew the planes into the buildings. Why are you training people to fly a plane who don't want to learn how to take off or land a plane? DUMMYS
:roll: