It's over in Afghanistan!

Unless it was in his carry on luggage, unless he took his jacket off, and I've never heard that the bodies were completely vaporized myself. Source?

And again several documents survived the crashes and what's the point of the passport thing anyways? I could see if it was the thing which was used to identify the hijackers but it wasn't, it was the flight manifests which identified the hijackers and allowed us to follow the trail to AQ.

 

On this forum, the 'left' don't have a chance. While the conservatives flood the forum with hysterical racist slurs or 'obama is not natural born'

 

The "left" is intellectually weak. As a result leftists on this forum are unable to defend themselves against adversarial scrutiny. No leftist can defend what Obama is doing in Afghanistan. Americans are getting gunned down in Afghanistan by their Afghan allies, and Obama plays with himself.

 

Blah blah blahbeddy (*)(*)(*)(*) blah, that's what I hear when you speak, the burden of proof is on you, it is not up to me to prove a negative, either provide the evidence for the assertion that the U.S. directly and knowingly aided the foreign Jihadists in anyway whatsoever.

Al Qaeda did not exist in 1988 only its precursor Maktab al-Khidamat, and Operation Cyclone did not fund the foreign Mujahedin only the indigenous Mujaheddin. The U.S. funded and trained the Afghans not the Arab fighters they had their own sources of funding.

 

Nobody can defend what-let's not forget-George Bush began in Afghanistan; whether they're liberal, conservative or somewhere in the middle. It's a wasteful, hopeless and futile exercise. Still, I guess it makes the neo-cons feel good about themselves.

 

What feels good to a conservative is to see the mask drop away from the anti-war movement. It wasn't anti-war at all. It was simply anti-conservative...nothing more.

As a result of this exposure of its craven lack of integrity, the anti-war movement in America has been thoroughly discredited. The anti-war movement will never again play a role in American politics. It can simply be dismissed as intellectually dishonest.

 

If anything can, which I very much doubt!

 

You think all conservatives are neo-cons. That is a gross generalization which indicates a lack of knowledge of your enemies. If you don't know your enemies you can't defeat them.

 

I'll say you're the typical paranoid american who believes everything he's told?

1 - AQ was NOT founded in Afghanistan. It actually has little to do with that country. OBL did spend some time in Afghanistan supporting the war against the soviets in the 80's. AQ was at the time a saudi organization in charge of chanelling all the fundings for the anti-soviets groups.

2 - America, using the CIA, provided roughly the same amount of money than the Saudis during this period. Most of this money went to the worst warlords in Afghanistan who now are fighting coalition troops and the afghan government (Haqqani, Hekmatyar, etc)

3 - AQ was never a part of the Taliban and never will be unlike claimed in thousands of press articles and by irresponsible politicians. AQ did have a training camp inside Afghanistan with a capacity for 3000 arab fighters (everything was paid by rich saudis).

4 - Saddam had nothing to do with OBL, unlike clamed thousands of times by the same journalists and politicians. Actually OBL hated Saddam. Everybody with basic knowledge of the Middle-East and terrorist networks knows this, unlike the vast majority of americans who supported the iraq invasion.

5 - AQ is gone since 2002. There's only about 100-200 AQ fighters in Afghanistan right now.

6 - OBL was killed in Pakistan a mile from a military academy (the pakistani version of westpoint). It is another sign that some in this country, especially ISI have been protecting OBL like they do with other militant groups.

7 - 4500 US died in Iraq (900 of them commited suicide on-duty), more than 2000 coalitions in Afghanistan. 1000 billions in 10 years for almost no results. Since 2001, US tax payers gave $21b to Pakistan. In 2012, a budget of $2.8b has been allocated.

I can continue on and on with this. But one thing is sure, all the chest-beating, the big mouth and the denial won't hide the fact that 99,9% of americans know next to nothing about what's going on in Afghanistan.

 

Like many americans you live in a mental cave. I don't really blame you, after all excellent reporting does exist in the US, not sure people really care and are flooded with information anyway...

OBL left Afghanistan in 2002 and was killed in Pakistan.

 

This is not true!

Massoud received very little money from the americans in that period. He only got 7 stingers out of 2500.

This is because the CIA were using the ISI (pakistani intelligence) to channel the money. They of course in turn funded the warlords they with a common ethnic and political background (only pashtouns).

Americans gave $2.5b to some of the worst people in Afghanistan. Some of them are still active and fighting the coalition like Hekmatyar and Haqqani.

Not to sound harsh but americans have done it several time in history, flood them with money if bombs are not enough... Some actual warlords in the current afghan government have committed attrocities during the post-soviet civil war, they still get checks from US taxpayers.

 

There's plenty of excellent press articles, reports, documentaries by american journalists that will seriously challenge that statement.

 

Explain the 900 number. Whats your proof.

 

It's funny you mention Maktab al-Khidamat, they were involved in the initial funding when Abdullah Azzam was running things. They even had offices in the US.

 

From a US soldier in Afghanistan, he told me the story about "non-hostile" deaths with includes accidents, disease and suicide. More than 20% of iraq deaths were non-hostile, he said that in some cases the actual suicide was reported as an accident to manipulate numbers. Of course, many vets have many troubles getting back to a civilian life and many commit suicide.

Another soldier told me that about 1 or 2 US soldiers in Afghanistan commit suicide every month. That was 2010.

The 900 figure is from Peter Van Buren's book about his experience as an FSO in Iraq. The stuff he writes about, I've witnessed the same in Afghanistan, it's a good read.

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/20...buren-on-reconstruction-failures-in-iraq.html

 

Of course. I was being serious though. How much do you know about the CIA?

 

I'll say you don't have a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing clue what you're talking about.

The foundations of AQ were formed in the late 80's in Afghanistan during a meeting of central leadership under the banner of the Maktab al-Khidamat headed and founded by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, (Osama Bin Laden's mentor who OBL later killed over a policy dispute over where to implement the next Jihad). According to the testimony of Jamal al-Fadl AQ as we know it today was formally established on August 11-20 in 1988 during a meeting of central leadership attended by himself, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atef, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, Wael Hamza Julaidan, and Mohammed Loay Bayazid and eight others,

There is no evidence that the CIA directly and knowingly funded foreign Mujahedin, the CIA supported the indigenous Afghan rebels against the Soviet occupiers.

Just wrong again, AQ had a seat on the Taliban ministry of defense and even formed the Taliban's 055 Brigade who saw action in the Afghan civil war against the Northern Alliance headed by Ahmad Shah Massoud who the CIA actually aided against the Soviets unlike Bin Laden and the other foreign Mujahedin.

I never mentioned Iraq and I'm not going to get into defending points which I did not make save to say there were numerous high level contacts between AQ and the Baathist regime.

According to who?

Which country? Pakistan? No doubt.

You should include yourself in that number.

 

I don't get this knowledge from wikipedia or mainstream media, I actually spend 30 months in Afghanistan.

You obviously took that from wikipedia or something. The roots of Al-Qaida is actually way older even if I do agree it was founded in the late 80's with the purpose of funding the mudjadins.

Sayyid Qutb is for example one of the main thinkers behind AQ ideology as well as wahhabism which is a bit older.

I never said that the CIA supported foreign fighters, this was the arabs mainly with funds from Saudi Arabia using organizations like AQ.

The lie about a link between Taliban and AQ has being another way for the US government to have americans approve this war. The Taliban did host AQ and were receiving funds to tolerate the training camp at the border with Pakistan.

But both groups have very different ideologies (Deobandi and Wahhabism), one is a regional group, the other is more global. Afghans in general hate arabs, mainly because of the massacres commited by them during the 90's.

About Massoud, he did not receives as much help as other warlords. That was his main complaint during the war, americans did not help him because he was not close to Pakistan. There's plenty of reports, books and articles about that period. The French gave more support to Massoud than the americans did but it was still very little, just basic communication devices, a few weapons, some training in intelligence, etc.

Again, all of us who are a little bit interested in the ME and terrorist networks know that AQ and the Baathist were enemies. It does not matters how many ignorant american journalists quoted Dick Cheney, Ben Laden was not linked to Saddam.

According to every single person who has a little bit of knowledge about terrorist networks. For example Leon Panetta:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/27/leon-panetta-there-may-be_n_627012.html

In 2010, the head of French intelligence also made a public statement and said the same thing.

 

For those of you who speak French, this video is of Alain Chouet, ex- director of security at the French foreign intelligence service.

http://videos.senat.fr/video/videos/2010/video3893.html

He explains that AQ is not a significant threat since 2002 and stresses the role provided by Saudis and Pakistanis in the current insurgency. Very interresting statement.

 

I wonder how far the French Resistance against Hitler 'represented' the French people at the time. They won, though, because no-one wants his/her country occupied by bullying foreigners (not - by and large - the fault of the soldiers but of the bawling yobboes at home). They denied the experience of the soldiers in Vietnam too. Those who resist occupation usually win, and that's a fact, however long it takes.

 

Its sole purpose was fighting against the soviets in Afghanistan. Formed in Afghanistan.

No, Hekmatyar is who the Taliban defeated to take control of Afghanistan. Many of the Mujahideen who fought the soviets formed the Northern alliance who we fought alongside to defeat the taliban in 2001.

Actuially they worked closely together. Several of the hijackers stayed in Taliban safe houses when traveling to Pakistan or Afghanistan.

"Hated saddam"???? Whats your evidence for this? Saddam certainly admired and praised Bin Laden

 

.................

 

Soviets were seen as infidels invading a muslim country. The ideology which states that muslim should fight a global jihad is deeply rooted in wahhabism and muslim thinkers like Sayyid Qutb. Those events took place before the Soviet invasion and the massive saudi oil-dollars.

It's true that Hekmatyar is an ennemy of the Taliban, they have clashed numerous times over the years even if he wanted to be part of them. Hekmatyar was one of the main recipient of CIA dollars. This plan was implemented by ISI. The Hezb-e-Islami (Helmatyar's party) is now weak, this is why he's part of the peace council program.

During the war with the soviets, there was 7 main different factions so it's not true to say that many of the mujahideen formed the Nothern Alliance. Those were mainly tajiks compared to other groups like Hezb who are pashtuns.

It is true that some of the hijackers did travel to Pakistan and Afghanistan and some of them spend some time in camps. But let's not forget most of them were Saudis, financed by saudis, recruited by jihadist networks (funded by saudis) in Germany who attended flight school in the US.

So it makes sense to think that the US government did not want to clash with Saudis and decided to attack countries like Afghanistan which has little to do with 9/11 and Iraq which has nothing to do with it.

And what is your evidence for saying that there was a link? Some Bush of Dick Cheney speech? A fox news article? Some blog by some ignorant conservative blogger?

I understand that US journalists copy-pasted each other and most americans believe in this lie since it was repeated thousands and thousands of times.

Politicians said they was a link. Intelligence agents have a different story... I let you search on google about the many reports from US intelligence, the 9/11 commision, documents recovered in Iraq during OEF, etc. Even the Bush administration reconsidered those accusations!

Of course, I'll be glad to give more details if asked.

 

It is said only 15% of the French were part or supporting actively the Resistance, another 15% actively collaborated with the Germans and 70% did nothing.

You're right, you can't win against an insurgency, nobody ever have. You don't fight terrorism by invading countries, this is like using a machine-gun to kill a mosquito but by using covert action, intelligence and let's admit it, politicians with brains which is laking on both sides of the Atlantic.

 

You guys probably heard of Stratfor and wikileaks, here's something:

Source

In 2012, US taxpayers will give $2.8b to Pakistan, you can also trust the US government to never admit that saudi ideology, saudi nationals and saudi money was used for 9/11.

No Iraqi or Afghan participated in 9/11.