Karzai Thinking to Join Taliban

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

We're there because after 911 the Taliban refused to hand over the people responsible for the attack. They sheltered Al-Qaeda and provided a location for them to organize and launch attacks on the west. Once on the ground the US failed to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora, and he was allowed to escape into the frontier provinces of Pakistan. The Americans then trusted that the Pakistanis ran by Mushareff would capture the Al-Qaeda leadership and turn them over. Which never happened, due to issues with controlling the frontier provinces and their own spy agencies. Fast forward 10ish years and NATO is trying to stabilize the country they originally drove Al-Qaeda from. If they fail to put a strong central government in place they risk letting the country fall back into Taliban control, which would allow Bin Laden and friends a safe place to operate from. Also there is a desire to limit the amount of heroine filtering into the west by controlling the poppy cultivation. Lets not forget the Taliban destroyed a few thousands years worth of priceless artifacts with RPGs because they arent Islamic enough for them to tolerate. The brand of Islam pushed by these guys is the furthest from moderate and runs counter to what was preached in the Quran.

So you asked why we are there??

Ok cool. Thanks for the reply.
After 9/11, the US accused bin Laden of planning and executing the attacks and asked the Taliban to hand him over. I'm paraphrasing, but the words used by the Taliban in response was almost exactly..."give us proof and we will find and surrender bin Laden to you." The problem was the US had no proof. I think this is a realistic demand, anytime a country extradites an individual they have the right to ask for whatever evidence there is against that individual.
Remember, the Taliban had control of most of the country, but many parts were still under the control of other actors ie. warlords, northern alliance etc. There was no reason for them to keep a criminal in the country and risk having the US intervene in their domestic business. People like to paint 'others' as unreasonable and illogical. We are all human beings. When you get down to it, people will do what is in their best interests. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, other than putting up with bin Laden inside the country. And they were given no evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks.
This is where the whole issue gets iffy. It seems like the US gave up looking for bin Laden because he might have escaped a few hundred kilometre away into the jurisdiction of one of their allies. Wherever he went, IF the US was actually in Afghanistan to capture bin Laden, they would have followed him instead of staying and fighting the Taliban.
About NATO 'trying to stabilize the country.' I think this is a little naive to think. I'm not sure about you, but it seems logical that if you want to stabilize a country, you give the everyday citizen a choice in political matters. In other words implement actual democracy. Not bring in a man who was essentially raised, and educated outside the country and who worked for the CIA. The government in Afghanistan is the furthest thing from a democracy. If you want to stabilize a country you police it, set up fair elections, let the people decide and then back the legitimate government.
While i agree about the poppy fields, even that issue is a political one. Whoever controls the poppy fields has access to a cash cow. The US doesn't want just any group to benefit off of this. It's not really a matter of controlling how much heroine is grown, or smuggled.

[3 Justin 3]

Wait. Canada is pulling all of our troops out of Afghanistan?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

We're there because after 911 the Taliban refused to hand over the people responsible for the attack. They sheltered Al-Qaeda and provided a location for them to organize and launch attacks on the west. Once on the ground the US failed to capture Bin Laden in Tora Bora, and he was allowed to escape into the frontier provinces of Pakistan. The Americans then trusted that the Pakistanis ran by Mushareff would capture the Al-Qaeda leadership and turn them over. Which never happened, due to issues with controlling the frontier provinces and their own spy agencies. Fast forward 10ish years and NATO is trying to stabilize the country they originally drove Al-Qaeda from. If they fail to put a strong central government in place they risk letting the country fall back into Taliban control, which would allow Bin Laden and friends a safe place to operate from. Also there is a desire to limit the amount of heroine filtering into the west by controlling the poppy cultivation. Lets not forget the Taliban destroyed a few thousands years worth of priceless artifacts with RPGs because they arent Islamic enough for them to tolerate. The brand of Islam pushed by these guys is the furthest from moderate and runs counter to what was preached in the Quran.

So you asked why we are there??

That is a nice story and all.....but it just isn't believeable to me.

Bin Laden is not dead because he is friends with certain organizations in the U.S.A......not because he is some master of deception.

Osama Bin Laden is an employee of the U.S.

[mikey_the_redneck]

burn_this_city

Here is an update on the poppy situation in Afghanistan for you.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62N56U20100324

[Ford Prefect]

My Afghan policy is nuke 'em back into the Stone Age or get the eff out. Since nuking them isn't PC, that leaves option 2.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

burn_this_city

Here is an update on the poppy situation in Afghanistan for you.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62N56U20100324

I'm sure the russian method involves spraying the fields regardless if people are out there or not. Its not illogical to work to find an alternative source of income rather than stealing these peoples only means of survival.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

My Afghan policy is nuke 'em back into the Stone Age or get the eff out. Since nuking them isn't PC, that leaves option 2.

What a ######ed comment.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

That is a nice story and all.....but it just isn't believeable to me.

Bin Laden is not dead because he is friends with certain organizations in the U.S.A......not because he is some master of deception.

Osama Bin Laden is an employee of the U.S.

It definitely is a wild and hard-to-believe story.

It's not nearly as hard to believe as the story that says a bunch of government functionaries and politicians were able to pull off a stunt like that though.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

Ok cool. Thanks for the reply.
After 9/11, the US accused bin Laden of planning and executing the attacks and asked the Taliban to hand him over. I'm paraphrasing, but the words used by the Taliban in response was almost exactly..."give us proof and we will find and surrender bin Laden to you." The problem was the US had no proof. I think this is a realistic demand, anytime a country extradites an individual they have the right to ask for whatever evidence there is against that individual.
Remember, the Taliban had control of most of the country, but many parts were still under the control of other actors ie. warlords, northern alliance etc. There was no reason for them to keep a criminal in the country and risk having the US intervene in their domestic business. People like to paint 'others' as unreasonable and illogical. We are all human beings. When you get down to it, people will do what is in their best interests. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, other than putting up with bin Laden inside the country. And they were given no evidence that bin Laden was behind the attacks.
This is where the whole issue gets iffy. It seems like the US gave up looking for bin Laden because he might have escaped a few hundred kilometre away into the jurisdiction of one of their allies. Wherever he went, IF the US was actually in Afghanistan to capture bin Laden, they would have followed him instead of staying and fighting the Taliban.
About NATO 'trying to stabilize the country.' I think this is a little naive to think. I'm not sure about you, but it seems logical that if you want to stabilize a country, you give the everyday citizen a choice in political matters. In other words implement actual democracy. Not bring in a man who was essentially raised, and educated outside the country and who worked for the CIA. The government in Afghanistan is the furthest thing from a democracy. If you want to stabilize a country you police it, set up fair elections, let the people decide and then back the legitimate government.
While i agree about the poppy fields, even that issue is a political one. Whoever controls the poppy fields has access to a cash cow. The US doesn't want just any group to benefit off of this. It's not really a matter of controlling how much heroine is grown, or smuggled.

Put spaces between your giant paragraphs next time. It makes it less of a headache to read.

The Taliban had absolutely no way of handing Bin Laden over, whether they wanted to or not. He wasn't sitting in an office building with a receptionist at the door. Like you said, they didn't have control over portions of their own country. And you honestly believe they had the ability to just hand Osama over to the U.S. if they so wished? Yeah, right. They knew they were effed, and couldn't do a damn thing about it.

And if you honestly want proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, you could start with Osama Bin Laden himself admitting that he was behind it.

That could be a start.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

In that second one, they imprisoned her in a shipping container without food and water and was the subjected of sexual assault and rape. People in government tried to protect the accused from facing any sort of consequences from this.

but... yes, I do see a difference... I was just trying to stir the pot for entertainment value and see if I could get any bites.

No, that is not the case for the second one. The aspect of the rape itself was simply subject matter related to the actual political matter. They were not mutually inclusive in any way. The issue was signing away the right to sue, not issues of rape (not sure how you put those two together). I assume you can read through simple BS articles and silly attempts at left/right wing swipes.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Put spaces between your giant paragraphs next time. It makes it less of a headache to read.

The Taliban had absolutely no way of handing Bin Laden over, whether they wanted to or not. He wasn't sitting in an office building with a receptionist at the door. Like you said, they didn't have control over portions of their own country. And you honestly believe they had the ability to just hand Osama over to the U.S. if they so wished? Yeah, right. They knew they were effed, and couldn't do a damn thing about it.

And if you honestly want proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, you could start with Osama Bin Laden himself admitting that he was behind it.

That could be a start.

I apologize for my lazy spacing.

According to what you wrote, not only did the Taliban have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, but they had no way of handing over bin Laden. Then can i ask why the US has been in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban for almost a decade now? The quest for bin Laden is all but over. Why is NATO still in Afghanistan? And please don't give me the humanitarian response, because, let's be realistic, invading a country with tanks and bombs is quite different from being there for humanitarian reasons. There are better places to put American tax dollars if you want to save people, and there are better ways to go about helping a population.

Yeah you can point to the tape of bin Laden talking in Arabic and 'confessing' to the attacks. There is debate about whether he actually admits it or not. There is also instances where he says he was not responsible. Point is...the US has no proof he was responsible, and people will only highlight and prop up pieces of info that are beneficial to them ie. the US claiming he admitted to it. If you look around you can find direct quotes from bin Laden in western media denying involvement.

[Weiser Wonder]

If the United States was so interested in capturing Bin Laden, why didn't they actually try to capture him when they had a chance? Gross incompetence? Or maybe they didn't really care about Bin Laden or Afghanistan and they were just trying to jump into Iraq. It's a lot easier to sell a war against Saddam Hussein and "his ties to terrorism" if the evil Bin Laden is still running around scaring people.

Just so nobody gets confused, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...-senate-report

Donald Rumsfeld had the chance when he was US defence secretary in December 2001 to make sure Osama bin Laden was killed or captured, but let him slip through his hands, a Senate report has found.

But the report contains a mass of evidence that points towards the near certainty that Bin Laden was in the Tora Bora district of the White Mountains in eastern Afghanistan, along with up to 1,500 of his most loyal al-Qaida fighters and bodyguards, in late November 2001, shortly before the fall of Kabul.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

I apologize for my lazy spacing.

According to what you wrote, not only did the Taliban have absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, but they had no way of handing over bin Laden. Then can i ask why the US has been in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban for almost a decade now? The quest for bin Laden is all but over. Why is NATO still in Afghanistan? And please don't give me the humanitarian response, because, let's be realistic, invading a country with tanks and bombs is quite different from being there for humanitarian reasons. There are better places to put American tax dollars if you want to save people, and there are better ways to go about helping a population.

Yeah you can point to the tape of bin Laden talking in Arabic and 'confessing' to the attacks. There is debate about whether he actually admits it or not. There is also instances where he says he was not responsible. Point is...the US has no proof he was responsible, and people will only highlight and prop up pieces of info that are beneficial to them ie. the US claiming he admitted to it. If you look around you can find direct quotes from bin Laden in western media denying involvement.

The Taliban was harbouring Osama Bin Laden. They refused to hand the man responsible for the attack (and attacks in the past) over, whether they could or not, and they paid the price. Next time, don't let terrorists live under your nose and cut deals with them. It's pretty simple. The US is still there for a multitude of reasons, some humanitarian -- although you won't allow me to bring that up, apparently -- others strategic. War is multi-faceted. You're not the only one to believe what NATO is doing is not roses and sunshine, but there isn't some Bourne Identity conspiracy going on, either.

Osama Bin Laden has said on many separate occasions he wanted a war with the United States. He knew what he did would enrage Bush. He knew, in war, fighting in country you are intimately familiar with and have fought wars in the past on, is supremely beneficial. He wanted the U.S. in Afghanistan because he knew what he could do there -- just like what he helped do against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden knew the United States inside of a Muslim nation would raise the ire of many radical Muslims across the world, and, funny enough, those closest to Afghanistan itself. He didn't give a rat's ass about the Taliban, and wanted to create the appearance of a Crusade.

Bin Laden knew what he was doing. You give far too much credit to there being some all-knowing NATO and United States power, and far too little to Osama Bin Laden and his inner council. He's clearly a capable war-leader, and knew far more about insurgency than the United States did on the day of invasion. He new what would happen.

And dismissing proof I give you out of hand does not make it any less valid; it simply shows how entrenched you are on your own belief.

[mikey_the_redneck]

So Osama Bin Laden and his inner circle of cavemen with AK-47's have deceived America with all their satellite surveillance technology and intellegence?................makes perfect sense. Come on HP.....

Bin Laden works for the U.S.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Some info. on Bin Laden

Are the confession tapes fake? Some think so.........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1711288.stm

Osama Bin Laden was treated at an American hospital in Dubai, and was reportedly visited by a CIA agent among others...just months before 9/11.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page...on%20Times.htm

Not to mention some of his family members live in the U.S., and that the CIA armed and funded Bin Laden in the 70's to fight the Russians for them...

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

So Osama Bin Laden and his inner circle of cavemen with AK-47's have deceived America with all their satellite surveillance technology and intellegence?................makes perfect sense. Come on HP.....

Bin Laden works for the U.S.

I think you've seen too many mission impossible or james bond movies.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

That is a nice story and all.....but it just isn't believeable to me.

Bin Laden is not dead because he is friends with certain organizations in the U.S.A......not because he is some master of deception.

Osama Bin Laden is an employee of the U.S.

Michael Moore?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

So Osama Bin Laden and his inner circle of cavemen with AK-47's have deceived America with all their satellite surveillance technology and intellegence?................makes perfect sense. Come on HP.....

Bin Laden works for the U.S.

Maybe they just made tinfoil hats. It worked for you.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Some info. on Bin Laden

Are the confession tapes fake? Some think so.........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1711288.stm

Wow some in the Arab world think its fake? What a surprise. There's no evidence in that story that the tape is fabricated, they're basing the theory around poor sound quality and the use of profile.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Osama Bin Laden was treated at an American hospital in Dubai, and was reportedly visited by a CIA agent among others...just months before 9/11.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page...on%20Times.htm

Not to mention some of his family members live in the U.S., and that the CIA armed and funded Bin Laden in the 70's to fight the Russians for them...

That news story has no source, a lot of allegations, but nothing concrete, so sorry, right now its pretty much a fictional story.

You should read Peter Bergen's book on Osama Bin Laden, you should also read some of Eric Margolis books on the history of Afghan conflicts up to and including the current conflict.

The CIA funded exclusively Afghan Mujahadeen they did not fund the foreign fighters, they were not allowed to train the foreign fighters who based themselves in Pakistan.

From Peter Bergen who you know actually interviewed Bin Laden on a couple of occassions.

The story about bin Laden and the CIA — that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden — is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA did not understand who Osama was until 1996, when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.

Also from Bergen who interviewed Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf who ran the Afghan operation for the ISI from 83 to 87

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan

MArc Segein who was a FSO who worked with the Afghan Mujahadeen

Contemporaneous accounts of the war do not even mention [the Afghan Arabs]. Many were not serious about the war. ... Very few were involved in actual fighting. For most of the war, they were scattered among the Afghan groups associated with the four Afghan fundamentalist parties.

No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers. They simply traveled in different circles and never crossed U.S. radar screens. They had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders."[28]

Vincent Cannistraro who was part of the Afghan working group under Regean

The CIA was very reluctant to be involved at all. They thought it would end up with them being blamed, like in Guatemala." So the Agency tried to avoid direct involvement in the war, ... the skittish CIA, Cannistraro estimates, had less than ten operatives acting as America's eyes and ears in the region. Milton Bearden, the Agency's chief field operative in the war effort, has insisted that "[T]he CIA had nothing to do with" bin Laden. Cannistraro says that when he coordinated Afghan policy from Washington, he never once heard bin Laden's name.

Bill Peikney - CIA station chief in Islamabad from 1984 to 1986 - and Milt Bearden - CIA station chief from 1986 to 1989 went on record with Richard Minitar of Fox News

Both flatly denied that any CIA funds ever went to bin Laden. They felt so strongly about this point that they agreed to go on the record, an unusual move by normally reticent intelligence officers. Mr. Peikney added in an e-mail to me: “I don’t even recall UBL [bin Laden] coming across my screen when I was there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

So Osama Bin Laden and his inner circle of cavemen with AK-47's have deceived America with all their satellite surveillance technology and intellegence?................makes perfect sense. Come on HP.....

Bin Laden works for the U.S.

Satallite technology only works if you know exactly where someone is. Do you know how fricken vast the mountain region is, how many groups are wandering around on horse back through those mountain paths.

Satallites cannot see through rocks into caves, they cannot zoom right in on license plates of cars or take crystal clear face pictures from orbit.

The CIA did intercept radio communications from Bin Laden which gave them the general area that he was in, but not the specific spot. And we all know that the CIA is fairly incompetant.

I think you ripped off my post from a few weeks ago where I stated that Bin Laden, Hussein and Kim were all American actors hired by the CIA's Paramount film division which was funded by Jews.